Podcasts about a weird group are not 'evidence', and they certainly are not evidence that some Google employees are nefarious or did anything wrong.

Has there been an investigation, charges?

What happened? When? To whom?

Objectively.

You are using the word 'evidence' when there isn't really any yet - I'm indicating 'we don't really know' a lot about this.

'The Leaders Spent Money on Lavish Things' is worse than evidence, because it's an emotional appeal. Canadian Diplomats just spent $100K on just liquor for a single flight overseas. I'm sure Brin/Page and their billions have bought a few toys.

It's 'Patriarchal' and 'White Supremacist'? Is that an allegation or evidence? Because those words are used a lot these days.

The author clearly had a bit of a breakdown - and for what reason? Because people 'belonging to some group' worked with him?

Were they harassing him? Doing nefarious things? Acting unprofessionally towards others? Trying to press people into the group? Shaming others?

It doesn't seem that way.

It seems like the author reacted in a way that others didn't seem to need to, for some unknown reason.

People are laid off all the time - how do we know he was let go because he indicated there was a 'cult' in Google? What were the circumstances?

'Cliques' happen all over the place, it's not uncommon at all. Maybe a 'flag' to notice, but not otherwise.

And especially - what relation do members have to the leadership who where there seem to be serious allegations?

i.e. what did the English Teacher know about the Choirmaster fondling the kids? Where they involved? Looking the other way? Were victims then participating in victimizing others? Did people take preacautions? Was it bad apples, systematic? What is being done at the school?

... because weird things happen.

I witnessed a high school teacher run off with a student - odd, but legal and technically consensual.

Hey, it's Cali, some people have orgies, it's not a new thing. Some people run around naked in the desert on Labour Day Week/Weekend and some of them have group sex in a weird pyramid looking building, I know this because I (accidentally) witnessed it myself, at Burning Man, an event that many Googlers attend. Does that make them 'Cult Members'? Was someone pressed into the orgy? Were they on drugs? Does that count as 'consent'? What if they consented, but given the nature of the org they were apart of, changes that nature? And then felt ashamed afterwards?

Or maybe someone straight up raped someone?

Sergei Brin is known to have had sex with staffers, on Google Campus. [1]

Does that make him an evil cult leader? I mean, consensual sex in the context of 'power imbalance' changes the nature of consent?

How does that behaviour implicate other Googlers? And leaders? Was there an investigation?

I have some experience looking the nature of 'cults' and I believe they are usually misrepresented - for better and worse - I'm not being defensive of them, other than to say the documentarian narrative is usually a big hyperbole. It takes a big more effort to arrive at the truth.

Aside from people's odd but understandable reactions to them, I believe most 'rank and file' members of these odd groups to be generally good people, maybe, on average, actually much kinder than most people. But also very naive.

Again - the author clearly had a serious emotional reaction to his situation, and therefore, irrespective of the 'goings on', it's going to be hard to take that as a firmly reliable narrative.

And - while there are some serious allegations that I hope are investigated, these things are complicated, and it's I think wrong to start to throw people into the fire, especially those peripherally involved. Consider that they could also be victims.

I'm looking forward to more details, hopefully taken up by press with good capabilities and credentials.

[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/valley-of-genius-exc...