I probably don't agree with Sandvik about Google's complicity, but that doesn't matter. Silencing her to accommodate a company sponsor is both unethical and counterproductive.
There are forms of criticism that are intrinsically not compatible with being a director. If Sandvik was criticizing Google's participation with "Code Club" or making claims directly relevant to the project, that would be germane to the board. But that's not what happened here.
Silencing project members also doesn't help Google. Instead, it contributes to a perception that any support Google has comes from the barrel of a financial gun.
If Sandvik was given an ultimatum to stop criticizing Google to avoid annoying a sponsor, that was a terrible mistake on the part of the project. They should do what they can to correct it.
Agreed both on the fact that I think she is overplaying Google's complicity and that the reaction to it was counterproductive.
Basically this is a variant of the Streisand effect -- I previously had never even heard of the "Code Club" but now I have a negative opinion of it and my opinion of Google is now slightly more tarnished (though my opinion of Google is already complex and multilayed and so the relative damage to Google here is not nearly as great as the damage to "Code Club").
OTOH, had I just read what she said about Google in an interview or whatever my opinion of "Code Club" would be neutral and I would think she was being somewhat unfair to Google (but far less so than a lot of more damaging claims I've seen people make).
Well, she did it before resigning, which is pretty unprofessional imho.
I say this because, a Director position is a pretty "in-the-spotlight" position to hold, and therefore anything you say reflects on your company even if you state they are personal views.
I know and deeply respect people on both sides of that controversy and also believe that the tide of equality for LGBT people is one of the great civil liberties success stories of the last 25 years.
Without inadvertently casting aspersions on anyone who holds the opposing opinion, I think running someone out of a company because they hold a political opinion incompatible with your ethics is itself an unethical act. I wish I could be sticking up for someone with a more apparently ethical opinion (I don't really know the details of Eich's politics), but that's where I'm at.
During the Eich debate, it was helpful for me to remember that I am not --- contrary, I know, to all the signals I generate in public --- required to hold an express an opinion about every controversy.
That's probably a misstatement of your opinion: you almost certainly draw the line somewhere (or at least I would be quite surprised if you didn't), eg white power advocates, racism against blacks or jews, anti-women's equality, anti-disabled rights; but don't include gay rights as equally important.
I wrote an answer explaining how this attempt to summarize my beliefs was inaccurate but then decided that it was inappropriate to allow the thread to become a tangent about how I do or do not fully support gay rights. I stand by my previous answer.
Are there examples of the criticism Sandvik engaged in, so we'd know if they fit your "forms of criticism that are intrinsically not compatible with being a director" standard?
Mass surveillance and the large scale violation of privacy is Google's core business model. I was assuming she was referring to that, and not any NSA-related conspiracy allegations. (And although this may be coincidental, Google recently announced they will be targeting children, circumventing the law by tempting parents into consenting.)
It's interesting how you twist yourself into a pretzel (you "probably", maybe, a little bit, think that what she says about the sponsor is a lie) to end up with the conclusion that her actions are somehow justified and the board is committing some terrible crime of censorship.
The validity of her complains is very much the core of the issue.
She only gave one example (that Google is "involved in corporate mass surveillance") and presumably that is in context of NSA spying and the consensus around that is that it's a lie.
At her level badmouthing a partner is grossly nonprofessional. Spreading vicious lies - that's a no brainer reason to fire her.
Also, let's not be naive about the context of her complaints. When she says "when someone asks me..." she (or the board) doesn't mean "my college friend at a dinner party" but "a member of the press".
And given the state of journalism, "the member of the press" is not interested in Linda's perspective on Google's spying because she has literally nothing new to add.
In that context the only value for the press is to reduce her views to a click-baiting headline of "Code Club board member accuses sponsor Google of mass surveillance" which would damage Google precisely because they were nice enough to sponsor Code Club.
If she complained about AT&T (which actually did illegally spy on Americans in massive constitutional violation, for which they received a retroactive immunity), there would be no story because AT&T is not a Code Club sponsor or Linda doesn't feel like complaining about AT&T.
I'm not privy to the details but the simplest interpretation of what we know is that she was hell bent on spouting nonsense of the "Google mass surveillance" kind to the press and the board was very justified in worrying about a press creating a mountain out of a molehill to the point they felt they had to intervene.
So far there is 0 evidence that Linda had some novel complaints that are serious enough to risk damaging an organization that helps kids learn to code. So far all I see a selfish, self-righteous individual.
That statement makes it sound like you have additional information about this situation. If that is the case would you care to share it?
I have observed that there are at least two weighting components to an opinion, the person and the person's position. The same opinion uttered by a programmer at corporation X has different weight than when it is uttered by the CEO of the corporation. I have also observed that it can constrain the ability of highly opinionated people to achieve positions of higher authority.
So without an understanding of what the statements were, and what her basis was for making those statements, and even the context in which the statements were made. It is not possible to judge the appropriateness of her actions.
That said, I have spoken to many managers who have been chastised at some point in their career for expressing negative opinions about entities that were important to the organization (sponsors, customers, investors, Etc.) How folks internalize that feedback varies from individual to individual.
> That statement makes it sound like you have additional information about this situation. If that is the case would you care to share it?
With no additional information available, it is not logical to jump to extreme conclusions, in either direction. If anything, you should assume they don't rather than they do (you know, the entire not-guilty until proven thing)
What you see as me "twisting myself into a pretzel" is actually just me acknowledging that while I have arrived at an opinion about something, I might not be right about it.
One of the terrifying things about how online mass communication works is how quickly it locks us into the most stridently delivered conclusions that are compatible with our worldview. This is a good example.
I'm conflicted. I respect someone for standing up for what they believe in (freedom to express their views) but this also seems like one of those "pick your battles" situations.
Google like it or not are a key sponsor of Code Club. They do some good and some evil, but they're a key sponsor, and as the director you need to put the organisation ahead of your personal issues/complaints.
The complaints might be entirely valid (and they likely are), but when you're in that kind of position you might not have the luxury of expressing valid complains about the people who literally pay the bills.
So I guess my thought is: Maybe this is best for all parties. Code Club gets to continue, Linda Sandvik will be able to express herself openly, and Google will be able to continue to be a Code Club sponsor without conflict.
It is just unfortunate that these personal complaints couldn't be put to the side for the betterment of the organisation as a whole.
When imbalances of power exist, it's almost never as simple as "two parties disagree, so they go separate ways."
We don't have complete information, and the article is clearly a one-sided representation of the situation. That said, based on her account, it seems one of these things is true:
1. Code Club's board acted independently of any action by Google in an attempt to stop some perceived conflict before it started (e.g. Google balking at further support because on of their key people says some negative things about Google now and then).
2. Code Club's board acted based on off-the-record or unofficial complaints by unknown Google representatives about the negative things Linda says/said.
3. Code Club's board acted based on on-the-record/official complaints by Google.
If the former, the board is in error. They have neither the obligation nor the right to demand anybody in the organization, Linda or whomever, to behave in any manner when not "on the clock." Our society is conditioned to accept the imbalance of power that makes such a demand seem reasonable, but it doesn't have to be that way (my opinion, if it's not clear, is it ought not be that way).
If it's either of the latter, it's an egregious abuse of power on Google's part (and an obsequious act on the Board's part). Google's relative power and influence makes Code Club a rounding error in terms of their PR efforts, either direction. In this scenario, Google's support of Code Club is little more than an advertising purchase masquerading as giving back to the community, which is certainly not unusual, I suppose, but it's also not something that leads to anything like an equal/level playing field.
If she's making stuff up, well, that's pretty bad on her part, and at least as awful as any of the above items.
They have neither the obligation nor the right to demand anybody in the organization, Linda or whomever, to behave in any manner when not "on the clock."
Of course they do. A company (that board ultimately represents) is not a human being and it can't have opinions on certain things, but it can has something resembling ethos, enforced by the employees. Anyone joining a company does so voluntarily, and can expect consequences when they do something that is not aligned with that ethos.
Mozilla, for example, ousted Eich because of him doing something anti-LGBT "off the clock". As a company, Mozilla has an "ethos" that is all about diversity and their board is absolutely free to act accordingly.
Also wanted to add that there's also no "imbalance of power" here (i.e. no need to paint it all black). Certain highly valuable CEOs stay in their positions even when they say and do nasty things, so a situation when Linda would be more valuable to Code Club than Google sponsorship is entirely possible.
Mozilla ousted Eich because a vocal group was calling for his head. They knew about his donation for years and didn't care. The decision was pragmatic, not ethical.
>Why should a sponsor finance a project that tells people the sponsor is evil?
Because they are sponsoring the project in order to accomplish the goals the project works toward - not because they are buying friends. If they want to teach kids to code, sponsoring Code Club gives them that. If they insist on also getting people to censor themselves and lie, then they're just being spoiled children.
Spoiled children say things without thinking (or accepting the consequences), which sounds like the director, not Google.
"Because they are sponsoring the project in order to accomplish the goals the project works toward - not because they are buying friends."
Yes, but the director is running that project and represents the company. I'm still curious as to why they even accepted the money in the first place if they think Google is so "evil".
"If they insist on also getting people to censor themselves and lie, then they're just being spoiled children."
Private companies aren't the government. If you continue to make a company look bad, they will not want to do business with you (and have no obligation to do so). It's just common sense.
It's worth pointing out that nowhere in her note does she say "Google is evil." In fact, she doesn't even use the word 'evil'.
The only place where an entity's being evil has been mentioned is in these strawman comments.
The issue is not a board member spreading around the opinion that a sponsor "is evil." The issue is whether it's alright to forbid any criticism of a sponsor's actions by board members (or by management, or other high level / prominent figures).
If you choose to argue against, for example, me (since you responded to me), please understand the position. It is not that Google or anyone at all is evil. It's that no one's actions can be beyond criticism in a healthy society (or a healthy business, or a healthy relationship, etc).
Further, it is especially dangerous when people like founders, politicians, board members, etc can't express opinions of the actions of other prominent figures. When that is the case, the only people who can complain are those people whose voices won't be listened to. How does that make society better?
The position I, at least, am arguing for is that it is a socially irresponsible policy to force board members to express uniform approval of all actions taken by a sponsor.
Expressing disapproval of a company's actions is far from saying the company is evil, or that you're too good to cooperate with the company, etc. Please avoid straw man arguments if you want to have useful discussions.
She writes: " Even if Google was mostly good, I need to have the right to call them out when they do bad things."
Are you really nitpicking about "evil" vs "doing bad things"?
And everybody can say whatever they want, and criticize whoever they want. But companies are not obliged to keep people on the payroll who use their position to make the same company look bad. The whole assumption is absurd.
Board members forbidding whatever is not the issue at all. The job of the board members is to keep the business afloat and prevent harm from coming to it. Bosses give their employees instructions all the time.
They don't have to. But if a sponsor is doing something that someone fundamentally disagrees with, they shouldn't be told to shut their mouths so the money keeps rolling in. That's called corruption.
Compromising your beliefs for money is a form of corruption. It's just one that people are forced to do every day to varying degrees.
From Wikipedia[1]: 'In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement.'
Keeping your mouth shut in exchange for sponsorship money sounds a bit like bribery to me.
What's wrong with people in your community taking about the ways you are bad? If there isn't consensus about your goodness, that means you are either bring bad in ways you don't understand or you're being good in ways your community doesn't understand. Either way keeping a conversation going is a big party of the solution. Shutting down the conversion seems like a surefire way to make your relationship with your community worse.
The government funds people who think the current government is evil all the time. They don't fund them because they think the current government is evil, but I can assure you that there are people receiving unemployment benefits, social security, and other "entitlement program" checks that disagree loudly and publicly with the government all the time. (Some of them are probably critical of the same entitlement programs they rely on.)
They get money to eat and pay rent, not to build ideological organizations with the aim to undermine the government. You are talking about somebody completely different.
If Google doesn't like people calling them out on it then they should stop doing it. Honestly, it seems pretty childish of them to threaten to pull sponsorship because somebody called them on their shit.
Why do you take it as implicitly acceptable that Google should expect silence about their bad actions simply because they sponsor the club? Is Google sponsoring the club to support teaching kids to code, or to buy some ideological allies in the tech ideas sphere? If the second, why should we accept such a thing?
"Why do you take it as implicitly acceptable that Google should expect silence"
I wouldn't (and i work for Google!). But I also expect this is more on the side of "Board worries about this in abstract" than "Particular company made a complaint".
From Google's perspective, why would I want to sponsor a group that thinks I am evil (and spreading this opinion around)?
If I was sponsoring a company/group (IE: paying them money) and they said anything negative about me, I would drop them in a second.
If they really don't like Google, they can deny their money and press as a result of the sponsorship.
They didn't and then the director thought it was okay to spread her negative opinion around. You don't get it both ways. She was obviously not on board with the rest of the company and now has to deal with the consequences.
It seems many people commenting here want to be able to express any opinion (bad or good) without any consequences. The world doesn't work this way.
It's true that the world doesn't work that way, in the sense of natural law: it is neither inevitable nor predictable that one will be able to express any opinion without consequences, and as you note, were you Google, one would not be able to express a negative opinion of Google without there being any negative consequences. I have to concede this point because your own opinion on the matter might well go into a (newly opened) file marked "things I don't like about paulhaggis" that could hypothetically affect our future business transactions, as individuals; people have opinions about each others opinions, and form inferences about the other person based on those opinions.
However, there's a larger transaction going on here, in the sense of the opinions about opinion sharing that are simultaneously shared when we voice and respond to each other's opinions, and this transaction has a scope in which Google's corporate motto, "don't be evil", has some meaning. (I'm not asserting that Google will follow it, just that it has meaning.)
I'm going to use the game theory ideas of "cooperation" and "defection" because most people who read HN are familiar with them. There is indeed a body of opinion which holds that, in a cooperative system, the value for all cooperators of the open development and sharing of information -- even opinions; even distasteful opinions -- greatly outweighs any harm any one cooperator should fear from that information, unless that entity is actually a defector.
Google wishes to do good things to (a) invest in its own future, and (b) gain moral standing as an entity, which it (rightly in my opinion) correlates with brand effect and future market share. It has very little to fear from the opinions of any one individual, barring some vast personal influence in Washington or on Wall Street. I find it unlikely that Google -- in any decision-taking sense -- actually intends to silence the speech of critical individuals, simply because the signalling of opinion that that would entail -- the opinion about opinion sharing -- would be a self-inflicted harm that would far outweigh any possible benefit.
(It is possible, of course, that there are people at Google who share your analysis of the situation and have acted independently to express displeasure to the board.)
What the board has revealed about itself is a collective opinion which agrees with your own. The board either feels that they should promote Google in exchange for its funding, or that "the world doesn't work that way", and that they should be concerns about retaliation against Code Club by Google in response to the director's opinions. The board feels that Google will publicly defect from the system of open information cooperation, and they themselves are willing to (quietly) defect from that system in order to prevent Google's public defection.
This brings the Code Club board of directors into conflict, in general, with everyone who relies upon a cooperative system of the open and free sharing of opinions, and that is why they face retaliation for their actions.
So, that is why you might want to sponsor a group that thinks you are evil and is spreading that opinion around: because you wish to establish that you are not evil, by supporting their actions despite their words, and that they are therefore wrong.
Hmm, how about journalists who write articles about companies that buy advertisments in newspapers they work for?
Are journalists allowed to write bad things about advertaisers? There are other topics they can choose or switch job...
I can't belive that Google is sponsoring Code Club totally without any gains (positive PR, for instance), so that's kind of mutual relation between Code Club and Google. If Code Club starts promoting coding worst practices (say, let's use always static methods in Java) I would expect that Google, as a partner/sponsor, would react.
Google provides a lot of valuable services, but they have also some questionable practices, I don't see any reason why someone cannot speak about them.
I guess she wasn't spreading lies about Google or offending Google or Google employees, etc. so why the "gag order". Constructive criticism should be welcomed, especially in the strongly "meritocratic" circles.
"put the organisation ahead of your personal issues/complaints" way of thinking can be really dangerous because it allows to justify evil - "because organisation/my boss" said to do X or Y I can put aside by belives and opinions.
That's start from cheating older people to buy expensive phone plans or cable TV subscriptions ($1 a month only... for first 3 months out of 24).
Then we can justify bankers talking people into bad investments.
Then we can justify selling drugs that does not help anyone (but the company invested $XXXXXXXX, so the product must go to pharmacies).
"Here, take all this money and be quiet about everything we do". That's not how a healthy society works.
Google are sponsoring Code Club not because they're good guys, but because they have some business interest in it.
They must be accountable for their actions, good or bad. Linda Sandvik expressed her believes as a person and she did great not accepting being silenced just because she was hurting the feelings of a big company.
The business interest might be conveying a positive image of Google. So using the code club as a vehicle to paint a bad image of Google would be detrimental to the business interest. Why then should they pour more money into it?
If someone asks for silence (and it is not clear that Google has; it could just as well be an overzealous board, so I'm not (yet) blaming Google), then I'd be inclined to grit my teeth and say I don't want their money.
Yes, it may be "for the good of the organisation" in the short term. But if you allow the organisation to be corrupted by bending to the will of corporate sponsors that are treating it as a means of buying goodwill, it is not clear the organization will deserve to survive in the long term.
I must say that if Google asked for this, then I don't think they are a suitable sponsor. It sends all the wrong signals to me for an educational charity to sell the silence of it's board members.
In any case, this has already damaged my opinion of the Code Club board, regardless whether they made this decision unilaterally or under pressure. I hope it does not damage my opinion of Google too.
I'm not sure I understand what the life lesson is.
In my mind, the battle with the board should be "either we drop the evildoing sponsors or I quit", not "I want evildoing sponsors' money but I still want to retain the right to criticize them or I quit".
I was on the board of my own company, along with my partner, and an outsider. I learned the role of a board is to represent the interests of the shareholders. If the company CEO is publically undermining the company's partners, which may threaten the company's finances, the board MUST deal with the CEO. Telling the CEO to knock it off or resign was the correct approach in my decision. The CEO's role does not allow for speaking personal opinions that conflict with the company's overall health.
I Code Club's board for taking a stand, and respect her for resigning.
What is actually bad about Google's "corporate mass surveillance"?
It sure sounds scary, but when I actually try to think about what it is actually bad about it, I can't really think of any.
Every single user Google got, they signed up voluntarily. Google never forced anyone to sign up for their services.
Google attempts to learn about its users just like every other companies. It's just that Google does it so much better than others. Do you get the label "corporate mass surveillance", when the company becomes so good learning about its users?
When I started using Google services many years ago, it definitely didn't occur to me they could basically track you across half the web. And you don't really get much of a choice in the matter. You can actively try to avoid Google sites and they're probably not missing out on a ton.
But more importantly, my grandmother certainly doesn't have any idea what they're doing.
And to be honest, I'm not much better off. So hard to consent to something if I'm not even sure what all they're gathering, and what they're doing with it.
"You can actively try to avoid Google sites and they're probably not missing out on a ton."
Just expanding on your point here, but of course actively avoiding Google's sites isn't nearly enough -- unless you take very specific steps to block Google Analytics callbacks, Google is going to know virtually everything you do on the web whether or not you ever use them for search or go directly to any sites they own.
>But more importantly, my grandmother certainly doesn't have any idea what they're doing.
Great point. Users are strongly encouraged to create a Google account when they setup a new Android device, and I suspect a significant portion have little-to-no idea about how their data is used.
I believe you are supposed to read and agree the terms of an agreement when doing that. 99.9% of the people dont even read the TOS.Who is to blame ? the user or the corporation ? I think both parties own a bit of the problem.
The fact that you managed to get people to go along voluntarily with something harmful to them by presenting it as something benign does not make your actions ultimately benign.
And yes, there comes a point where simple observation crosses the line. This is generally recognized by society. If I take a picture on the street and a particular person happens to be in it, that is generally OK. Most people wouldn't look askance at that. If I take a picture of the same person through their bedroom window, I'm liable to be arrested and labeled a creep. The specifics of information-gathering matter very much to how OK it is in terms of social acceptance.
> "I do not want to get into the specifics of any particular corporation. Nonetheless, it’s worth restating that the Code Club board believe X are a tremendous partner. As a member of the board I am completely aligned with that view."
> I'm not comfortable with lying and so it is in my best interest to resign.
I'm not sure what part of that statement would be a lie?
The above is what the board has told here she should say if asked something about a partner.
If the actions of this corporation means she thinks e.g. that they're an unsuitable partner, then doing as the board told her would be to lie. She may also very well consider it lying by omission if she is unable to state her true opinion about said corporation.
I saw her speak at one of the Croydon Tech City events, and it's sad to see one of the founders of such a great educational organization like Code Club effectively get pushed out over the (possibly perceived - it's not clear Google or whomever actually asked for this in any way) sensitivity of some corporate partner.
If she thinks that Google's actions makes them an unfit partner, then I see the lie (and applaud her commitment to her principles, though I don't think I agree with them). After further thought (based on your and other responses) I think that's a good interpretation of her statement, though the level of implication required seems a bit much for something as imprecise as English -- it would be nice if it had been made more explicit.
"As a member of the board I am completely aligned with that view."
If she were asked to stop at "the board believe X are a tremendous partner", then as a member of the board, she'd be implying the last sentence, but not actually saying it. (I couldn't comment on whether or not she'd be fine with the implication either.)
If I had a sponsor and an employee was criticizing the decision to say something to that employee would be based on how the criticism was done. If the person mentioned that they just didn't like Google's surveillance program then I would let it go. But if they ran around yelling about Google is evil because of said programs then we would have to have a talk.
If I am running a small company and your personal opinions are costing me money it would be crazy for me to keep you on. Not saying that is what happened here but that is more of a response from some of the comments I have read.
Just because they are not-for-profit doesn't mean that they don't need money to keep running their business. It also doesn't mean that nobody get's paid.
Here's a thought. If you think google is evil because of surveillance should you not only refuse to use gmail (and other google products) but also refuse to send email to gmail addresses, because you don't want to support them?
(By the way, you can have this concern without thinking that Google is "evil": for example, you might think that it's risky to have so much e-mail in one centralized place and want Internet services to be redecentralized.)
When Google tracking its [voluntary] users's activities on the internet becomes human rights violations, the internet's social justice outrage machine has jumped the shark.
Bad-mouthing your sponsors is pretty universally considered a business faux pas. I don't see how it's either unusual or unethical to keep your opinions to yourself when the funding for your organization is on the line. That said, there's nothing wrong with caring about free speech more than teaching children to code. People are entitled to their priorities, after all.
Linda Sandvik sounds like a fundamentally good person, and the other members of the Code Club board bad ones. Good on her. They will be harmed by her absence, and they deserve that.
The belief that sponsorship can buy silence is disgusting and immoral. Sponsorship should convey absolutely nothing aside from receiving credit for assisting with the sponsored organizations goals.
I think you're reaching a bit there. It sounds like this was a conflict with the board's practices more than anything, and this problem could have manifested itself in numerous ways other than sponsorship alignment..
Are there a lot of companies/organizations out there that would be comfortable with employees (or directors) publicly criticizing the organization or its partners? Outside of journalists (who should expect/demand this sort of freedom of expression), I suspect the answer is no. It's not clear to me that Code Club's request was unreasonable.
> either I have to stop saying negative things about Code Club sponsors, or resign as a director.
sponsor is basically indirect employer. Don't bite the hand feeding you, it is just unethical. Publicly saying bad things about your employer is a bad thing. Resign and, only after that, say whatever you want as long as you don't violate the non-disclosures you may had signed.
There are forms of criticism that are intrinsically not compatible with being a director. If Sandvik was criticizing Google's participation with "Code Club" or making claims directly relevant to the project, that would be germane to the board. But that's not what happened here.
Silencing project members also doesn't help Google. Instead, it contributes to a perception that any support Google has comes from the barrel of a financial gun.
If Sandvik was given an ultimatum to stop criticizing Google to avoid annoying a sponsor, that was a terrible mistake on the part of the project. They should do what they can to correct it.