8 ms·

They didn't just "protest" their company's work with Israel. They took over company offices, including the office of Google Cloud CEO in Sunnyvale, and refused

They didn't just "protest" their company's work with Israel. They took over company offices, including the office of Google Cloud CEO in Sunnyvale, and refused to vacate them for 9+ hours.

cvoss 2y ago
It's important to remember, whenever a news headline reads "Y after X", that the headline does not actually claim "Y because of X". I find it a frustrating misdirection by the newspaper to employ such headlines, since they are so easy to misread in that way.
sdenton4 2y ago
Yes... That's what protest looks like.
- anon291 2y ago
  Yeah it's insane that anyone from Jan 6 was arrested and jailed for protest /s.
- otterley 2y ago
  There are lots of ways to protest, and plenty of them don’t involve impeding others or trespassing on private property to make their point. We have parks and government centers and sidewalks they can do it in. Your right to protest does not supersede the rights of others. And these are (were) employees and it’s quite likely Google already has established mechanisms for hearing employee grievances. Google’s not going to allow a small but vocal and disruptive group to override those existing mechanisms, nor would any serious business.
  - saulpw 2y ago
    It isn't nice to block the doorway It isn't nice to go to jail There are nicer ways to do it But the nice ways always fail - Malvina Reynolds, "It Isn't Nice" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lWkV2QpgQo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lWkV2QpgQo
    - otterley 2y ago
      It doesn’t matter. The law is what it is. Breaking the law to get your way isn’t the right way to get things done. Otherwise we’d all be justified in doing it whenever we don’t like something and there would be no point in laws anymore. In a democracy, you can participate in our system and vote to have it changed, though. And that’s the effective way to address these issues.
      - xeyownt 2y ago
        If laws were the only truth there would be no justice in this world, as proven multiple times in history.
      - saulpw 2y ago
        Breaking the law isn't a moral question, it's a legal one. You break the law, you go to jail, okay. But what is this "it isn't right" business? Some innocent bystanders are inconvenienced, so what? These people are protesting their employer's complicity in mass murder! And a corporation isn't a democracy, so they can't "vote to have it changed". Should they be bringing their concerns to HR, is that the right way to get things done? The point is that the "right way"--the way that is sanctioned by the system--is deliberately hobbled by many people in positions of power, to be completely ineffective. So you may well have to push the bounds of the system to actually address these issues.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        otterley 2y ago
        First of all, these are (probably now former) Google employees. I don’t work for Google, but I do know that most big companies have established channels for addressing employee grievances. Second, Google isn’t a democracy, but we have a democratic system that allows us to influence our representatives to make reprehensible conduct illegal. If you want to change how a business operates, you can arrange a boycott as well. Companies take the threat of losing significant amounts of money very seriously. If you honestly think that this type of action should be legal, then by all means, go convince our government to make it so. But I don’t think you are considering the long-term consequences such a change would have.
- bingbangboom 2y ago
  No, you can't just occupy private property as a protest. Hence why they were arrested.
  - faeriechangling 2y ago
    You certainly can occupy private property as a protest, if you get arrested afterwards is immaterial to the fact that you can indeed do the as a protest. People throw pies at politicians faces as a protest and they're often arrested afterwards for assault, but it doesn't mean they can't do it.
    - otterley 2y ago
      You’re obtusely mistaking the word “can” to mean “physically able” when in this context it clearly means “is permissible.” Can you murder someone? Even if you are physically capable of pulling a trigger, I think you know damn well that’s not what anyone means.
      - faeriechangling 2y ago
        Am I using the word in that way? Sit-ins are an old protest tactic. They were used during the civil rights movement, in private property. They were used during labour protest, in private property. They have repeatedly been successful at achieving the protestors ends. They have repeatedly, in hindsight, been viewed in a favorable light and broadly seen as permissible. They were frequently, at the time, viewed as illegitimate and impermissible. Of course, there were other sit-ins which failed and were very much unpopular and were unjustified.
        bingbangboom 2y ago
        [dead]
    - maximinus_thrax 2y ago
      That's some 'Comaneci perfect 10' level semantic gymnastics. Honestly I'm impressed.
- maximinus_thrax 2y ago
  No.. that's what a stupid and illegal protest looks like. You can peacefully protest in public as much as you want, it's your right under the first amendment. This does not extend into private property. If you don't have permission from the property owner, that's no longer a protest, that's trespassing. One could argue that the whole thing is a meta-protest (along with the arrest and the media coverage) which would be more or less correct, but that's not what you're arguing. See https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights Anyway, if the protestors actually believe they changed minds with this, I will forever be disappointed by Google's hiring practices.
CommanderData 2y ago
Historically civil rights protest movement have been disruptive. Protesting a genocide arguably be even more disruptive. - Stonewall Riots (1969) - Soweto Uprising (1976) - Tiananmen Square protests (1989) - Women's Suffrage Movement - Anti-Apartheid Protests in South Africa US politician are hostages, opposing Israel on the political stage puts your life at risk.
- x-egghead 2y ago
  That the rich digerati have taken up the cause of the ongoing Palestinian man-made famine and genocide diverges from actions of similar demographics in the past. The genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia received little notice in the global press and received little global action. This is positive progress. Even if the effect of an individual protest causes no direct change, it is important voices are heard and directed toward the political class and the owners of capital who buy influence over the political class. Unfortunately though, far-right Christian fundamentalists hold too much clout in America for mystical theological reasons and will never chide Israel for any behavior, no matter how abhorrent.
  - dunekid 2y ago
    Not to agree or disagree with what you are saying here, unlike Rwanda and Bosnia, which were horrible enough, every single day of the apartheid and genocide operations are funded and aided by US. And in this instance the Nimbus program is actively complicit in it. If I were to use the trolley thing here, Rwanda and Bosnia were inaction, but this is fueling and arming the trolley to be a killing machine.

They didn't just "protest" their company's work with Israel. They took over company offices, including the office of Google Cloud CEO in Sunnyvale, and refused to vacate them for 9+ hours.

cvoss 2y ago

It's important to remember, whenever a news headline reads "Y after X", that the headline does not actually claim "Y because of X". I find it a frustrating misdirection by the newspaper to employ such headlines, since they are so easy to misread in that way.

sdenton4 2y ago

Yes... That's what protest looks like.

anon291 2y ago
Yeah it's insane that anyone from Jan 6 was arrested and jailed for protest /s.
otterley 2y ago
There are lots of ways to protest, and plenty of them don’t involve impeding others or trespassing on private property to make their point. We have parks and government centers and sidewalks they can do it in. Your right to protest does not supersede the rights of others. And these are (were) employees and it’s quite likely Google already has established mechanisms for hearing employee grievances. Google’s not going to allow a small but vocal and disruptive group to override those existing mechanisms, nor would any serious business.
- saulpw 2y ago
  It isn't nice to block the doorway It isn't nice to go to jail There are nicer ways to do it But the nice ways always fail - Malvina Reynolds, "It Isn't Nice" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lWkV2QpgQo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lWkV2QpgQo
  - otterley 2y ago
    It doesn’t matter. The law is what it is. Breaking the law to get your way isn’t the right way to get things done. Otherwise we’d all be justified in doing it whenever we don’t like something and there would be no point in laws anymore. In a democracy, you can participate in our system and vote to have it changed, though. And that’s the effective way to address these issues.
    - xeyownt 2y ago
      If laws were the only truth there would be no justice in this world, as proven multiple times in history.
    - saulpw 2y ago
      Breaking the law isn't a moral question, it's a legal one. You break the law, you go to jail, okay. But what is this "it isn't right" business? Some innocent bystanders are inconvenienced, so what? These people are protesting their employer's complicity in mass murder! And a corporation isn't a democracy, so they can't "vote to have it changed". Should they be bringing their concerns to HR, is that the right way to get things done? The point is that the "right way"--the way that is sanctioned by the system--is deliberately hobbled by many people in positions of power, to be completely ineffective. So you may well have to push the bounds of the system to actually address these issues.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - otterley 2y ago
        First of all, these are (probably now former) Google employees. I don’t work for Google, but I do know that most big companies have established channels for addressing employee grievances. Second, Google isn’t a democracy, but we have a democratic system that allows us to influence our representatives to make reprehensible conduct illegal. If you want to change how a business operates, you can arrange a boycott as well. Companies take the threat of losing significant amounts of money very seriously. If you honestly think that this type of action should be legal, then by all means, go convince our government to make it so. But I don’t think you are considering the long-term consequences such a change would have.
bingbangboom 2y ago
No, you can't just occupy private property as a protest. Hence why they were arrested.
- faeriechangling 2y ago
  You certainly can occupy private property as a protest, if you get arrested afterwards is immaterial to the fact that you can indeed do the as a protest. People throw pies at politicians faces as a protest and they're often arrested afterwards for assault, but it doesn't mean they can't do it.
  - otterley 2y ago
    You’re obtusely mistaking the word “can” to mean “physically able” when in this context it clearly means “is permissible.” Can you murder someone? Even if you are physically capable of pulling a trigger, I think you know damn well that’s not what anyone means.
    - faeriechangling 2y ago
      Am I using the word in that way? Sit-ins are an old protest tactic. They were used during the civil rights movement, in private property. They were used during labour protest, in private property. They have repeatedly been successful at achieving the protestors ends. They have repeatedly, in hindsight, been viewed in a favorable light and broadly seen as permissible. They were frequently, at the time, viewed as illegitimate and impermissible. Of course, there were other sit-ins which failed and were very much unpopular and were unjustified.
      - bingbangboom 2y ago
        [dead]
  - maximinus_thrax 2y ago
    That's some 'Comaneci perfect 10' level semantic gymnastics. Honestly I'm impressed.
maximinus_thrax 2y ago
No.. that's what a stupid and illegal protest looks like. You can peacefully protest in public as much as you want, it's your right under the first amendment. This does not extend into private property. If you don't have permission from the property owner, that's no longer a protest, that's trespassing. One could argue that the whole thing is a meta-protest (along with the arrest and the media coverage) which would be more or less correct, but that's not what you're arguing. See https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights Anyway, if the protestors actually believe they changed minds with this, I will forever be disappointed by Google's hiring practices.

CommanderData 2y ago

Historically civil rights protest movement have been disruptive. Protesting a genocide arguably be even more disruptive. - Stonewall Riots (1969) - Soweto Uprising (1976) - Tiananmen Square protests (1989) - Women's Suffrage Movement - Anti-Apartheid Protests in South Africa US politician are hostages, opposing Israel on the political stage puts your life at risk.

x-egghead 2y ago
That the rich digerati have taken up the cause of the ongoing Palestinian man-made famine and genocide diverges from actions of similar demographics in the past. The genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia received little notice in the global press and received little global action. This is positive progress. Even if the effect of an individual protest causes no direct change, it is important voices are heard and directed toward the political class and the owners of capital who buy influence over the political class. Unfortunately though, far-right Christian fundamentalists hold too much clout in America for mystical theological reasons and will never chide Israel for any behavior, no matter how abhorrent.
- dunekid 2y ago
  Not to agree or disagree with what you are saying here, unlike Rwanda and Bosnia, which were horrible enough, every single day of the apartheid and genocide operations are funded and aided by US. And in this instance the Nimbus program is actively complicit in it. If I were to use the trolley thing here, Rwanda and Bosnia were inaction, but this is fueling and arming the trolley to be a killing machine.