Employee 1: Googlers bragging about their donations to hate groups that advocate for the criminalization of homosexuality is the line for me. I just quit IndustryInfo@. Google needs to stop letting people use company resources to advocate for groups that want to criminalize their coworkers’ existence. In related news I just created industryinfo-notrolls@ just in case people think that such a thing might be a good idea. Anyone else who would actually be interested in moderating such a group let me know.

(Editorial note: Employee 1 didn’t quit. He would later rejoin industryinfo@.)

Employee 3: I think moderating that group sounds like a very intense full-time job, one that I can state pretty unequivocally is not a good fit for my skills and personality, but I totally understand why you felt moved to create it. You should chat with the owners of industryinfo-quiet@ to find out how they pull over all the posts from industryinfo, since that might make your job easier.

Employee 4: Quiet you say. Awesome.

Employee 1: +[Employee 3] Thanks for the advice. I mostly created the group as a joke but that sounds like a good idea.

Employee 4: You missed out their doing it consequence free. Sigh.

Employee 1: +[Employee 4] Not sure I understand

Employee 5: I gave up industryinfo@ months ago, when it became clear that there was no pretense of moderation to keep it even vaguely on topic

Employee 6: If you go to industryInfo@ for information about our industry you may be disappointed. If you go there for information about the people who work in our industry you will be richly rewarded.

Meanwhile, I’m sorry to see you go.

Employee 5: …do I even want to know what the hate group in question is

Employee 1: The ADF. As hate groups go they’re one of the milder ones. They “only” want to make being homosexual a criminal offense.

Employee 7: But it was one of the nicer hate groups! Come on!

Employee 8: +[Employee 9] who is [redacted]

Also I feel like this happened in the past resulting in another mailing list but I can’t find it anymore. Maybe it was industryinfo-quiet@ as [Employee 3] mentioned above.

Employee 1: +[Employee 6] Actually I think that IndustryInfo is a terribly inaccurate representation of who works in our industry. I find that most people I meet at Google are wonderful people no matter what their personal affiliations. IndustryInfo is what all unmoderated groups inevitably become. A megaphone through which loud assholes can yell. I’m tired of having to be a bigger asshole in order to be heard.

Employee 5: industryinfo@ should probably be renamed but-i’m-just-asking-questions@

Employee 6: +[Employee 1] yes, you are right. Perhaps I should have phrased that as “information about some of the people who work in our industry” ;) The vast majority of Googlers are indeed decent and helpful, but there are a few who are not.

Employee 9: Thanks, [Employee 8]!

[redacted]

Employee 10: +[Employee 9] [redacted]

Empoyee 9: [redacted]

Employee 11: FYI +[Google Rep]

Google Rep: +[Employee 11] thanks! We’re working with the owner of IndustryInfo and a number of other aliases to get active moderation in place as we look to implement the Community Guidelines. Really appreciate the flag here. If anyone wants to discuss more, happy to connect live next week (I’m ooo today).

Employee 6: Moderation may be coming. See [link]

Employee 1: Yay!

Mike Wacker: Since [Employee 1] is referring to me, it’s only fair that I respond.

The context of the discussion was how the tech industry was being influenced by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization with major credibility problems. Rep. Lamar Smith (and at least two other Republican legislators) raised this issue during a House Judiciary Committee hearing this week.

The SPLC has also designated the Alliance Defending Freedom as a “hate group.” At some point, I said, “I wouldn’t have donated to the ADF if all this BS being spouted about them was actually true.”

In the last two Supreme Court terms, the ADF has argued and won three important cases:

1) Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer [7-2] - a church was denied access to a government grant to make playgrounds safer

2) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission [7-2] - the gay marriage cake case

3) NIFLA v. Becerra [5-4] - the state of California was forcing pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortions

Furthermore, mainstream conservatives such as David French of the National Review have defended the ADF against the SPLC’s dubious accusation of being a “hate group”.

The SPLC has developed a long track record of credibility issues; they even once put Sen. Rand Paul and Ben Carson on their extremists lists. In multiple cases, acts of political violence have been inspired in part by their questionable claims. If you want to learn more, I recommend the following Politico article as a starting point: “Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?”

politico.com - Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?

My stance on the SPLC is that they have cried wolf one too many times. Because of that (and perhaps because one too many Googlers have asked me to refute the SPLC when they cried wolf), as a general rule I have decided that going forward, I will no longer answer accusations originating from the SPLC. As a corollary, that also means I won’t be directly responding to [Employee 1] here.

I don’t wish to argue this controversy further, but let this post serve as a lesson that you shouldn’t believe everything the Southern Poverty Law Center says (or everything [Employee 1] says), and that you should at least hear out the other side before reaching a conclusion.

It probably only takes [Employee 1] one minute to write a careless post like that, but as you can see, it takes me much longer to carefully articulate and research my actual position. Let’s reward the latter behavior, not the former behavior. I simply don’t have the time to repeat this exercise and write these sorts of posts for every other Googler who makes similar claims or asks me similar questions.

Employee 7: Well, it’s long, anyway. I mean, you haven’t actually refuted anything about what was alleged about the ADF other than to say that you agreed with them on those court cases. Advocating for the criminalization of homosexuality sounds pretty hatey to me. Even if that wasn’t their primary platform I’d steer clear myself.

Employee 1: Thanks for doing me the favor of putting it in your own words here. I claimed that you donate money to a hate group that advocates for the criminalization homosexuality. The fact that you donate money to them because of their lesser (and completely legal) persecutions of homosexual people in the US does nothing to change that.

Employee 1: The ADF is a hate group. They advocate for the criminalization of homosexuality. That makes them a hate group. Anyone who donates money to them for any reason is giving money to a hate group.

Employee 2: Hey +Mike Wacker wanna tell people why you banned me from engaging in discussion on Republicans@google.com?

Employee 2: I’m sure it had nothing to do with me reporting transphobia. Nothing at all

Employee 2: I’m sure making the group closed to non members had nothing to do with protecting members from consequences for hate speech

Employee 2: Y’all complain about an echo chamber but you created your own insular echo chamber full of hate

Employee 2: I see you rejected my offer for face to face discussion because you were just too busy. Busy donating to and defending hate groups

Employee 1: Oh yeah. He banned me too. Nevermind that I’m a registered Republican who has run for public office as a Republican. I’m banned from republicans@ because I’m not the type of Republican Mike likes.

Employee 2: We are calling you out Mike. You had an olive branch, you have had direct feedback, now can you change

Employee 2: As Rick Wilson says, if there’s poop in the punch bowl it isn’t punch anymore it’s poop water

Employee 2: Going around bragging about drinking poop water isn’t the best look Mike

Mike Wacker: republicans@ was closed because I created a thread asking members if they wanted it to be opened or closed. Almost everyone who responded said, “closed,” so I changed it to a closed group. (I myself leaned slightly towards “open”, but I decided this decision should not solely be mine to make.)

republicans@ was open at the time this alleged “transphobia” took place, and in addition to that, the person in question is more comfortable with me talking about this incident, so I will take the unusual step of commenting on that:

The alleged “transphobia” was someone sharing an article in the National Review from David French. The article was shared in the context of increasing political polarization and political intolerance, and the person who shared it added that he didn’t necessarily agree with all of David French’s views in the article. You can find the article here:

nationalreview.com - Intersectionality, the Dangerous Faith | National Review

I fully defend his decision to share that article on republicans@.

Employee 2: Oh good posting it again after I told you I find it extremely offensive. Trying for a high score Mike?

Employee 2: Look forward to our hr meeting

Employee 2: Btw you just admitted to retaliating for reporting something to HR which is a violation of the employee handbook

Employee 2: Conspiring with another employee to do so in fact

Mike Wacker: I did not state the reason why I banned you. What I did state is that I fully stand by someone’s decision to share that National Review on republicans@.

Employee 2: Oh complete and utter bullshit mike

Employee 2: It happened the day after and it’s the first thing you posted in response to my banning

Mike Wacker: The issue of what Republicans consider to be frivolous HR complaints is a tricky one indeed. I’m not going to comment on whether a specific complaint is or is not frivolous, but I will say that frivolous complaints do in fact spook a lot Republicans internally.

However, I was able to reach my decision without getting into that tricky issue.

In the course of looking into the multiple complaints brought to my attention - it wasn’t just one person who complained to me - I stripped out any references to HR. With those references to HR removed, I decided I had seen enough to ban you.

Thus, I didn’t get into anything you had publicly said about reporting people to HR, because I didn’t have to in order to reach my decision.

Employee 2: LMAO

Employee 1: I personally think that Mike should be able to enact whatever rules he wants for membership in his personal club. My only complaint is that he’s squatting on the republicans@ group name and using it as a personal club rather than keeping it open to all Republicans. He’s a hypocrite who complains about “echo chambers” while co-opting the group alias for a political party to use as his personal echo chamber.

Mike Wacker: republicans@ does have a really cool “no echo chamber” MOMA badge for “Friends of Republicans@” (and also Republicans who just really like that badge). It was added at the request of non-Republicans in the group, and the image for this badge was created by a woman who describes herself as a moderate liberal.

Mike Wacker: Also, [Employee 1], you once said, “I’m not big on negotiation with terrorists,” in reference to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and also described her as a “violent political thug”.

Granted, that happened after your ban, but going forward, that might also explain why you won’t be let into the republicans@ group anytime soon

Employee 4: While one thing I appreciate about G+ over the groups interface is the automatic killfiling, it makes discussions like this one really odd. Ho hum.

Employee 2: [image]

Employee 2: [image]

Employee 1: Actually, I just realized that there’s no reason my G+ needs to be turned into IndustryInfo. #blocked

Employee 1: +[Employee 4] Thanks for the reminder that that was possible here. Now if only Groups had that feature.