Looks like it's not yet final: I'm curious what people here think, as I can see this both ways. On one hand, Google has done a lot to support us -- moreso than many other companies. I also love...
Looks like it's not yet final:
One small group raised concerns about Google as a corporate sponsor. Our legal team is reviewing the implications of last week’s vote by seven of Pride’s 326 members. Our Board of Directors will meet February 5th to determine our next step. As we get ready to celebrate our 50th parade, our goal remains the same as it was for our first — to be inclusive and reflect the diversity of our communities.
I'm curious what people here think, as I can see this both ways. On one hand, Google has done a lot to support us -- moreso than many other companies. I also love Pride's open and inviting "come as you are" feel. On the other hand, I also get how YouTube in particular enables some noxious viewpoints and discourse, and their moderation has been underwhelming.
Speaking as someone that's marched in SF Pride before with a giant cohort of employees of one of these big tech corporations, I don't like it. Google and YouTube have really irritated me over...
Speaking as someone that's marched in SF Pride before with a giant cohort of employees of one of these big tech corporations, I don't like it. Google and YouTube have really irritated me over their years with their handling of LGBT content—so much of it is search suppressed and demonetized, even if it's ostensibly content suitable for young ages. They don't belong, full stop.
I would go so far as to say that megacorporations should not be permitted at pride. It's virtue signaling. In one of the years I got to go, it felt like we contributed to reducing what was special about it, because of how many of us there were.
Pride should be an event about celebrating the people, not the corporations throwing money at the event. Maybe they can have booths at the festival bits after the parade? Social groups, non-profits, or LGBT-owned businesses should really be the ones that form the majority of the parade..
Here's an anecdotal experience that motivates my perspective: At the company I worked at, the ability to march at SF pride with our cohort was granted by a lottery that you had to enter every year. One year, a good cluster of the LGBT folk in my org did not get invited, but a larger number of "the straights" (not to carelessly assign labels, but it's true) did win the lottery. And, considering that we were an org that's forced to work on the weekends, we wound up having an LGBT pity party in our common room scrolling through the instagram posts of many (straight) people we knew that got to go.
I'm all about allyship and everything, but when the implementation excludes the group that you're trying to include, it sucks and really hurts—even if a random chance lottery is ""fair"".
If a company is going to march in Pride, it needs to wholeheartedly and actively support LGBT+ people. Sure, Google can't control every anti-LGBT comment made on its platforms - but it can be more...
If a company is going to march in Pride, it needs to wholeheartedly and actively support LGBT+ people. Sure, Google can't control every anti-LGBT comment made on its platforms - but it can be more proactive about enforcing its own standards.
It would also help if YouTube didn't accidentally block, ban, or demonetise LGBT+ YouTubers because it didn't consider how its policies about offensive material might affect these people. A true ally would consider the effects of its policies on the people it supposedly supports.
For context: I still have a nasty taste in my mouth from the time I co-founded a gay and lesbian employees network at an Australian multinational corporation.
The company supported us in words, but not in actions. They reaped the benefits of the network's existence by receiving pro-inclusiveness awards at an industry function, but didn't put in any of the work to run the network (which was left entirely to us ordinary employees). They were happy to pay to provide advertising material and pay for a float to participate at the Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras, but wouldn't pay any travel costs for LGBT employees to actually get there (the company's head office was in a different state, which meant a lot of employees had to pay their own interstate travel costs).
In short, they were happy to tell everyone about their LGBT inclusiveness, but they were using the G&L employees' network for their own public relations purposes.
Funding is not an issue in SF, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to limit who is able to march based on ideology or what they actually represent. Pride is about sending a message to society. It...
On one hand, Google has done a lot to support us -- moreso than many other companies. I also love Pride's open and inviting "come as you are" feel. On the other hand, I also get how YouTube in particular enables some noxious viewpoints and discourse, and their moderation has been underwhelming.
Funding is not an issue in SF, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to limit who is able to march based on ideology or what they actually represent. Pride is about sending a message to society. It kind of sucks for the people who work there, but they can always march with someone else who's doing real good for lgbtq+ people.
I agree with this decision. It's well known that YouTube is not very active against homophobia and really, these companies don't really have that much of a moral compass, given that they have gone...
I agree with this decision. It's well known that YouTube is not very active against homophobia and really, these companies don't really have that much of a moral compass, given that they have gone so far as to partner with fossil fuel companies just to push their figures a little higher.
Looks like it's not yet final:
I'm curious what people here think, as I can see this both ways. On one hand, Google has done a lot to support us -- moreso than many other companies. I also love Pride's open and inviting "come as you are" feel. On the other hand, I also get how YouTube in particular enables some noxious viewpoints and discourse, and their moderation has been underwhelming.
Speaking as someone that's marched in SF Pride before with a giant cohort of employees of one of these big tech corporations, I don't like it. Google and YouTube have really irritated me over their years with their handling of LGBT content—so much of it is search suppressed and demonetized, even if it's ostensibly content suitable for young ages. They don't belong, full stop.
I would go so far as to say that megacorporations should not be permitted at pride. It's virtue signaling. In one of the years I got to go, it felt like we contributed to reducing what was special about it, because of how many of us there were.
Pride should be an event about celebrating the people, not the corporations throwing money at the event. Maybe they can have booths at the festival bits after the parade? Social groups, non-profits, or LGBT-owned businesses should really be the ones that form the majority of the parade..
Here's an anecdotal experience that motivates my perspective: At the company I worked at, the ability to march at SF pride with our cohort was granted by a lottery that you had to enter every year. One year, a good cluster of the LGBT folk in my org did not get invited, but a larger number of "the straights" (not to carelessly assign labels, but it's true) did win the lottery. And, considering that we were an org that's forced to work on the weekends, we wound up having an LGBT pity party in our common room scrolling through the instagram posts of many (straight) people we knew that got to go.
I'm all about allyship and everything, but when the implementation excludes the group that you're trying to include, it sucks and really hurts—even if a random chance lottery is ""fair"".
If a company is going to march in Pride, it needs to wholeheartedly and actively support LGBT+ people. Sure, Google can't control every anti-LGBT comment made on its platforms - but it can be more proactive about enforcing its own standards.
It would also help if YouTube didn't accidentally block, ban, or demonetise LGBT+ YouTubers because it didn't consider how its policies about offensive material might affect these people. A true ally would consider the effects of its policies on the people it supposedly supports.
For context: I still have a nasty taste in my mouth from the time I co-founded a gay and lesbian employees network at an Australian multinational corporation.
The company supported us in words, but not in actions. They reaped the benefits of the network's existence by receiving pro-inclusiveness awards at an industry function, but didn't put in any of the work to run the network (which was left entirely to us ordinary employees). They were happy to pay to provide advertising material and pay for a float to participate at the Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras, but wouldn't pay any travel costs for LGBT employees to actually get there (the company's head office was in a different state, which meant a lot of employees had to pay their own interstate travel costs).
In short, they were happy to tell everyone about their LGBT inclusiveness, but they were using the G&L employees' network for their own public relations purposes.
If Google's own employees are saying that Google doesn't deserve to be included in Pride, I think we should listen to them.
Funding is not an issue in SF, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to limit who is able to march based on ideology or what they actually represent. Pride is about sending a message to society. It kind of sucks for the people who work there, but they can always march with someone else who's doing real good for lgbtq+ people.
I agree with this decision. It's well known that YouTube is not very active against homophobia and really, these companies don't really have that much of a moral compass, given that they have gone so far as to partner with fossil fuel companies just to push their figures a little higher.