# Are tech companies really biased against conservatives? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2019, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095 "2019-06-26T14:02:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Unreconstructed\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/76d3ee/32.png) [@Unreconstructed\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unreconstructed_Man)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/41 "2019-06-27T19:55:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > These are not “tepid” or “cautiously phrased” remarks. They’re the self-expression of somebody with a massive grievance lashing out at a fundamental principle of his employer’s HR policy and trying to pretend it’s about basic human biology. I completely agree that he should be legally allowed to make such adversarial remarks, but I don’t see anything anti-conservative about his employer’s not wanting to keep him around after his adversarial remarks went viral. You’re cherry-picking. His memo also said: > [@](#): > > I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. > > Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this. > > I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. > > I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases > > I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite So yeah, on balance, and _taken as a whole_ it _is_ a pretty balanced, tepid, and cautiously phrased document. To call it “lashing out” is almost laughably uncharitable, and indicates you’re letting your own biases and preconceptions stop you from reading the memo fairly. Also, it’s unfair to say he “pretended” his argument was rooted in biology. The fact is there _is_ persuasive evidence to be made in favour of his position. Not saying he’s right, but there’s enough evidence supporting his argument to convince an honest person without imputing bad motives to him. Finally, given the anaphylactic reaction to his memo, it’s more than a little silly to pretend Google culture isn’t hostile to certain conservative opinions. Ironically, many of the quotes you cherry picked were largely borne out by the exceptionally angry reaction of many of his fellow employees. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/42 "2019-06-27T20:04:27Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > All because he advanced a fairly tepid and heavily qualified “nature \> nurture” argument. This spin is drastically toning down the Chicken-Little nature of Damore’s portentous warnings about Google’s alleged “veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google” and “The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology” and “Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs” and “the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment”, etc. Along with his attacks on Google’s policies, Damore was parrotting a lot of boilerplate “libertarian” anti-liberalism, and Google did not want to be associated with that in the public mind. I don’t see a way in which that’s intrinsically “anti-conservative”, unless you’re acknowledging that there’s something “conservative” about slinging around poorly supported gripes about “political correctness” based on popular misinterpretations of science. > [@Unreconstructed Man](#): > > And if Damore should’ve refrained from giving his opinions because the science is “far from settled”, Google should’ve fired his critics, too. After all, if his side of the argument is far from settled then theirs is, too. You seem to have the concept of “critics” a bit mixed up here. If there are two opposite positions A and B, and one person asserts “A” and his critics point out “Actually that assertion is drastically overstating the certainty of the science on A and B”, that’s not the same thing as his critics asserting “B”. In other words, you’re somewhat overstating the “bothsidesism” of this situation. ---
**Author:** ![l0k1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bb73d2/32.png) [@l0k1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/l0k1)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/43 "2019-06-27T20:05:46Z")
If I understand, the debate here is that tech companies are biased against certain conservative positions. Not low taxes for corporations and billionaires, not no regulations, not unlimited donations to PACs, but biased against white supremacy, misogyny, and homophobia? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/44 "2019-06-27T20:06:34Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > You’re cherry-picking. His memo also said: > > So yeah, on balance, and _taken as a whole_ it _is_ a pretty balanced, tepid, and cautiously phrased document. To call it “lashing out” is almost laughably uncharitable, and indicates you’re letting your own biases and preconceptions stop you from reading the memo fairly. > > Also, it’s unfair to say he “pretended” his argument was rooted in biology. The fact is there _is_ persuasive evidence to be made in favour of his position. Not saying he’s right, but there’s enough evidence supporting his argument to convince an honest person without imputing bad motives to him. > > Finally, given the anaphylactic reaction to his memo, it’s more than a little silly to pretend Google culture isn’t hostile to certain conservative opinions. Ironically, many of the quotes you cherry picked were largely borne out by the exceptionally angry reaction of many of his fellow employees. Needless to say, one memo isn’t enough to definitively settle this question. Got anything else? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/45 "2019-06-27T20:23:10Z")
> [@l0k1](#): > > If I understand, the debate here is that tech companies are biased against certain conservative positions. Not low taxes for corporations and billionaires, not no regulations, not unlimited donations to PACs, but biased against white supremacy, misogyny, and homophobia? Hey, those are legitimate Republican policy positions in the Age of Trump™ – and they deserve to be heard! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/46 "2019-06-27T20:23:12Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > So yeah, on balance, and _taken as a whole_ it _is_ a pretty balanced, tepid, and cautiously phrased document. _“My employer’s policies are dangerous bullshit, although my employer means well, and the problems my employer’s dangerous-bullshit policies are shortsightedly intended to address aren’t totally imaginary”_ is not really a “tepid” or “cautiously phrased” assessment, even “taken as a whole”. > [@Unreconstructed Man](#): > > Also, it’s unfair to say he “pretended” his argument was rooted in biology. Well, in the sense that ignorance rather than pretense could be the explanation, yes. But there is no intelligently informed justification for the overall argument he was trying to make. Google HR, and pro-diversity HR policies generally, are saying _“There are a lot of persistent effects of historical discrimination, so we are going to try to counter those by encouraging diversity and trying to overcome ingrained societal bias”._ Damore was saying _“Maybe that stuff is mostly biological, for this and that cherry-picked reason, and more importantly it makes anti-liberal people feel silenced, so the policies are bad and should be changed”_. That argument is not supported by scientific evidence. > [@Unreconstructed Man](#): > > The fact is there _is_ persuasive evidence to be made in favour of his position. Nope. There’s definitely persuasive evidence in favor of the position that all contributing factors to gender/racial differences in cultural expectations and social phenomena need to be studied more deeply, but there is no valid evidence to justify Damore’s sweeping assertions about diversity policies being counterproductive overall. His argument depends fundamentally on ideology and resentment rather than evidence. > [@Unreconstructed Man](#): > > Finally, given the anaphylactic reaction to his memo, it’s more than a little silly to pretend Google culture isn’t hostile to certain conservative opinions. Ironically, many of the quotes you cherry picked were largely borne out by the exceptionally angry reaction of many of his fellow employees. Are we talking about “employee culture” here, or official company positions? This thread is about whether “tech companies are biased against conservatives”, so I thought it was referring to actual company policy. I have no quarrel with the suggestion that a lot of Google’s individual **employees** may well hold anti-conservative beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/47 "2019-06-27T20:31:04Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The algorithm removes according to the law and the TOS. It’s their job description to enforce the TOS so of course they aren’t resisting. > > Any TOS that says “no hate speech, no bullying” is very liable - at this moment in time - to disproportionately target Republicans. And any change to the TOS to remove that restriction would likely cause their platform to lose customers, because most people, left or right, don’t want to hang around a place full of bullies and racists. > > Do you object to the TOS standards? My point was that if they noticed that the algorithms were unfairly targeting some group, they could bring it up with their management. As you noted, developers don’t set policy. I haven’t studied TOS in detail. What I’ve seen of them seems to be designed to be uncontroversial, and are only now controversial because of the extremism of some groups. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/48 "2019-06-27T20:55:45Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The grand majority do not stay in the US. They work here for a few years and then return to their country. > > The ones who don’t fit back home would, presumably, be the ones to stay. Have a source for this? The closest thing I can find is a headline saying that 1/3 of Chinese immigrants to Vancouver return. All those I know seem to fit quite well into their home country, returning for conferences or for family visits. China is now heavily recruiting people to return, which is not surprising. I know of some who have returned for a new job. There are also quite a few tech companies with offices in India who encourage immigrant employees to move there. I know of quite a few who did this. Sure some return, but that has always been the case. Irving Howe, in “World of Our Fathers” talks about the Jews who went back to Eastern Europe from New York. My great grandfather did with his youngest daughter sometime in the 1910s. There might be some more who are forced to return when their visas run out. I’m not sure that should count, as it is involuntary. And there are those who overstay their visas. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/49 "2019-06-27T21:46:04Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The grand majority do not stay in the US. They work here for a few years and then return to their country. Even more :dubious: > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The ones who don’t fit back home would, presumably, be the ones to stay. And it does not contradict what I found, in reality most do remain in the USA and they are not amused with the virulent anti-immigrant rhetoric from the Republicans nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/50 "2019-06-28T02:59:24Z")
Facebook’s “fact checker” is funded by Tucker Carlson. Please continue to tell me how they’re soooooooooooooooo biased against conservatives. That, combined with the fact Trump hasn’t been banned on Twitter, should tell you all about how “biased” most social media platforms are. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/51 "2019-06-28T06:52:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Even more :dubious: > > And it does not contradict what I found, in reality most do remain in the USA and they are not amused with the virulent anti-immigrant rhetoric from the Republicans nowadays. For an H-1B worker to get a green card, their employer has to file a Form I-140 on their behalf. This will be either an EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3 preference request. The country breakout for that is on page 12: [https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45447](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45447) India (EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3) is 33,779. China is 7,696. However, note that this number is by human being and includes children, housewives, etc. H-1B statistics by country: [https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/reports-studies/Characteristics-of-Specialty-Occupation-Workers-H-1B-Fiscal-Year-2017.pdf](https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/reports-studies/Characteristics-of-Specialty-Occupation-Workers-H-1B-Fiscal-Year-2017.pdf) (page 6) The number of H-1B visas for initial employment issued are 67,815 for India and 15,165 for China. However, it should be noted that these numbers don’t include children, marital partners, etc. as you’ll note by the under 20 count on page 9 of the document. Based on personal experience and the breakout for unemployed people given in the statistics of lawful permanent resident statistics ([Profiles on Lawful Permanent Residents: 2017 Country | Homeland Security](https://www.dhs.gov/profiles-lawful-permanent-residents-2017-country)) I think it’s likely that the total number of people who come to the US on an H-1B visa is about double the number of H-1B visas that are issued, because of people bringing over their spouse and children. I would expect that there are about 130,000 Indians in the US via H-1B and about 30,000 Chinese. Overall, I would say that about 26% of people attempt to convert from H-1B to a lawful permanent resident. Though, “attempt” is a meaningful word: > **[Approval and Denial Statistics for I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers...](https://www.uscis.gov/archive-reports/approval-and-denial-statistics-for-i-140-immigrant-petition-for-alien-workers)** > > Table A provides data on the approval and denial for the E-11 classification (Alien of Extraordinary Ability) of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers.T The numbers are too inconsistent, year to year, to guess what percentage of people will be denied in any given year, but 20-50% rejection is fairly possible. If we assume a 35% rejection rate, then we only expect about 17% of H-1B workers to actually succeed at becoming a lawful permanent resident. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2019, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/52 "2019-07-02T14:14:45Z")
…based on their being H-1B workers. There are other legal methods, such as the time-honored “marry a citizen”. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2019, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/53 "2019-07-07T12:04:16Z")
I’ve seen these accusations, but no examples that weren’t violations of their content policies. Those who use these platforms agreed to those policies. Also, I’ve yet to run into any accusation of Twitter shadowbanning that actually involved, well, shadowbanning. The “victim” will still have an account, and their supposedly blocked tweet will be clearly visible. When Twitter bans, there is nothing secret about it. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2019, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/54 "2019-07-07T21:29:44Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I’ve seen these accusations, but no examples that weren’t violations of their content policies. Those who use these platforms agreed to those policies. > > Also, I’ve yet to run into any accusation of Twitter shadowbanning that actually involved, well, shadowbanning. The “victim” will still have an account, and their supposedly blocked tweet will be clearly visible. When Twitter bans, there is nothing secret about it. Ah, but see that’s how sneaky shadowbanning is ! You’re still on Twitter, and your posts are still 100% public, but you just \*feel \*banned. And you can’t prove to anyone that you are, you just know it. Talk about gaslighting on Twitter’s part ! ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2019, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/55 "2019-07-07T22:52:38Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Ah, but see that’s how sneaky shadowbanning is ! You’re still on Twitter, and your posts are still 100% public, but you just \*feel \*banned. And you can’t prove to anyone that you are, you just know it. Talk about gaslighting on Twitter’s part ! How else can you explain it? Your independent brilliance shines forth with every link to YouTube, every retweeted meme, every insight that you post. And yet your likeless and downvoted posts are relegated to the bottom of everyone’s feed. It’s a conspiracy, I tell you. [http://harddawn.com/facebook-friends-hate-you-for-obama/](http://harddawn.com/facebook-friends-hate-you-for-obama/) This link is from my favorite parody site. And it’s old. I know the site is a parody site and I know the story is not recent. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2019, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/56 "2019-07-07T23:54:56Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > You’re cherry-picking. His memo also said: > > > [@](#): > > > > I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. > > > > Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this. > > > > I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. > > > > I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases > > > > I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite I understand some of his best friends are women, too. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/57 "2019-07-08T02:01:59Z")
They don’t ban people for being conservatives. They do ban people for being assholes. It is hardly the fault of the tech companies that there’s _such_ a high overlap these days. Add to that the number of folks on the right who _intentionally_ act like assholes so that they’ll be banned and then can feed the rightie meme that tech companies are biased against conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/58 "2019-07-08T02:46:13Z")
I tend to think that they demonstrate a bias against conservatives, sometimes deliberately sometimes not. I think that that is obviously true. I don’t care enough and it’s not important enough to me that I need to prove it to myself or anybody else. So, no. I won’t be providing cites or evidence. Deliberate or not, these are private platforms, and I believe they should be free to discriminate as they see fit. I think it is stupid to do so. I want to know what everybody is thinking. I want everybody to have a voice. Nazis, white supremacists, left wing radicals all should be heard. The crazier they are, the more offensive they are, the more hateful they are, the more they should be heard. It’s important to keep an eye and an ear on them, and if they are willing to help you do so, why would you want to stop them. Also, the nutjobs and the hateful are often people with legitimate grievances or problems who are truly suffering. The results of their circumstances may have turned them to truly odious or evil viewpoints but that doesn’t mean they don’t have real problems and aren’t suffering from real issues that are worth are attention. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/59 "2019-07-08T03:46:47Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Ah, but see that’s how sneaky shadowbanning is ! You’re still on Twitter, and your posts are still 100% public, but you just \*feel \*banned. And you can’t prove to anyone that you are, you just know it. Talk about gaslighting on Twitter’s part ! Explain shadowbanning and your post to me as if I don’t know anything about how Twitter works. Because I don’t. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2019, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/60 "2019-07-08T04:15:24Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > For an H-1B worker to get a green card, their employer has to file a Form I-140 on their behalf. This will be either an EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3 preference request. The country breakout for that is on page 12: That is nice, but little to do with the point I made, Hindus and Chinese that stay in the USA may not show much personal involvement with politics on the surface, but when we do talk votes most naturalized Hindu and Chinese Americans are not amused with the anti-immigrant trash coming from the current Republican party. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095.md?page=4)