First, it makes marketing easier.
One of the basic principles of freedom is that people should be permitted to make their own choices. Women have been free to make these choices, both legally and socially, for fifty years now.
Striving for artificially-determined quotas in job descriptions can be (doesn’t have to be, but can be) the opposite of freedom. If a woman wants to be a teacher, nurse, or housewife, she is entitled to make those choices WITHOUT some nanny harping over her telling her she should learn how to code, just for the sake of making a quota.
And yes, you’re right in assuming that I would not want the Koch brothers driving social change. But at the same, I would argue that Google is more powerful than them, no matter how much wealth they have.
Of course. Anyone with any common sense right now stays as far away from Google technology as they can.
It is impossible for Google to step to the sidelines of social issues at this point — it’s a consequence of getting as big as they have.
Probably time to break them up. The argument can be made that an internet search engine is a social utility.
And yes, while they do invest in programs that incentivize women to go into computer science, their office still produced the anti-diversity memo that the above article discusses.
Not sure what you’re referring to as “anti-diversity”. Did some Google exec say they’d be better off with a white male workforce?
I’m glad they fired James, it shows Google is trying.
James said nothing that was factually incorrect. Google behaved Orwellian. Freedom matters more than “diversity.”