[yieldcrv]

Except people on Blind brag about doing this under the domains they control.

I wouldn't interpret this as a top-level policy, just some individuals in some hiring and pay/leveling decisions with little accountability. This does mean they represent Google though, and one remedy for that is a settlement by the corporate entity.

Ideally shareholders would become interested in rooting this out and creating better, less expensive, accountability.

It creates an environment where everyone (or some additional subset of everyone) feels they need to elevate their own in-group.

[theflyinghorse]

What's the effective difference between unofficial policy of discrimination and individual groups conducting discrimination en mass?

Thinking back to a unicorn I worked for we were unofficially told to favour women in hiring. We all thought it was a great idea at that time, but also I do remember a coworker saying how her group has been doing heavy favouring of women in hiring for years already before being told to do so.

[yieldcrv]

There isn't an effective difference

If people want to change anything about it, they need to know the structure of it

[asabjorn]

I've observed orgs go from diverse to turn largely Indian or Chinese based upon who does the hiring, the only group that doesn't seem to do this is Americans of all ethnicities (Chinese american, indian american, white american etc). White americans seem like the ones having the least legal recourse. When these leaders move they pull these buddies into their new companies, and they often form cliques that operate using their groups culture and protect each other over company interests.