Image: www.telegraph.co.ukGoogle fired senior software engineer Damore for posting a 10-page critique of company policies on an internal discussion board, examining “cultural taboos, including bias toward women,” he argued.
CEO Sundar Pichai circulated a company-wide memo, saying he violated Google’s code of conduct by “advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”
In response to his dismissal, Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. He claimed California law prohibits firing workers for their political views.
He’s suing Google for his sacking. WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange offered to hire him, tweeting “censorship is for losers.”
Google is no protector of free speech and opinion. Chairman of its parent company Alphabet, Eric Schmidt, is a regular Bilderberg attendee.
The company’s annual Zeitgeist conference is compared to the Davos Economic Forum. Major world figures participate in both.
Schmidt considers privacy a relic of the past. He aims to transform Google into a digital Big Brother. He and Bilderberg members share a common agenda.
In part, it reflects a digitally networked world without individuality and privacy, everything done online monitored, censorship part of Google’s agenda.
On August 8, Andre Damon reported left-wing web sites “confirm(ing) that their search traffic from Google has plunged in recent months, adding to evidence that Google, under the cover of a fraudulent campaign against fake news, is implementing a program of systematic and widespread censorship.”
In a November 2016 article, I discussed Google and Facebook targeting the growing influence of alternative media – on the phony pretext of combating fake news, instead of targeting the real proliferators, major electronic and print media, featuring rubbish, suppressing vital truths.
Separately, I discussed covert Google support for Hillary, rigging searches for her to sway undecided voters, suppressing negative search terms about her.
Media scoundrels, Google, Facebook, and similar online operations are powerful tools for what power brokers want disseminated, restricting or blocking content they want suppressed.
Damore’s internal critique, titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” said company policy suppresses “some ideas (that) are too sacred to be honestly discussed…foster(ing) the most extreme and authoritarian elements of (its) ideology.”
Many responses he got “from fellow Googlers express(ed) their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change,” he said.
The Wall Street Journal published Damore’s op-ed. Explaining why he was fired, he said:
It was for “raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector.”
Remarks he made are “generally suppressed at Google because of the company’s ‘ideological echo chamber. My firing neatly confirms that point,” he said.
“How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument,” he asked?
“I committed heresy against the Google creed,” he stressed, at first generating no outcry against him. “Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world,” he explained.
“If Google continues to ignore the very real issues raised by its diversity policies and corporate culture, it will be walking blind into the future – unable to meet the needs of its remarkable employees and sure to disappoint its billions of users.”
It’s a business grown very large, powerful and profitable, focusing on growing its operations to their maximum potential, using its staff for this purpose, tolerating no internal criticism, eliminating it by firing detractors.
They’re expendable and easily replaced. That’s how corporate America works. What serves it interests alone matters.
