| For interest here's where you can find the relevant motions being referred to in the article: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000130817918... The ones being referred to are: Proposal Number 6 Stockholder Proposal Regarding a Report on Gender Pay Proposal Number 9 Stockholder Proposal Regarding Board Diversity and Qualifications Proposal Number 10 Stockholder Proposal Regarding a Report on Content Governance I'm not that familiar with corporate motions so I might be misinterpreting what I'm reading but it looks like the motions are for Alphabet to produce a report about gender pay discrimination, to disclose the qualifications of the board (including ideological leanings and biographical data), and to produce a report on the efficacy of Alphabet's terms of service enforcement (in particular around user uploaded content). Alphabet's disagreeing statements on the first one is largely of the form "we think gender pay is an important issue (see existing published reports) but we don't think this is motion is a good idea". The second one they actually support saying "sure, a diverse board is a good idea". For the third one their response is along the lines of "We take this seriously to the tune of hiring thousands of people to enforce our terms of service". My biggest surprise after seeing the article and reading the materials myself was that the second proposal (board diversity) claims that Alphabet is known to "operate in ideological hegemony that eschews conservative people" which is not the impression I took away from the article. |