3 ms·
> While I appreciate the engineers speaking out, it isn't really practical for a company the size of Google, with the resources it has, to not have programs tha
by Eridrus 9y ago
> While I appreciate the engineers speaking out, it isn't really practical for a company the size of Google, with the resources it has, to not have programs that work with the military in one form or another.
This is nonsense, Google has plenty of revenue and other non-defense avenues for growth.
Companies are not beholden to chase every last dollar, especially if it could alienate their workforce.
I don't have the same anti-defense leanings as others around here, but to say Google has no choice is ridiculous.
Google probably couldn't (and shouldn't IMO) stop the DoD using Android phones if they want to, but they can certainly refuse to work with the defense sector.
- stevehawk 9y agoWell, they sort of became beholden when they became publicly traded and exchanged Do No Evil for Maximize Shareholder Returns.
- s3r3nity 9y agoI agree with you somewhat, but I imagine the shareholders would revolt against upper-management from the significant loss in revenue + media backlash that would be inevitable ("Google hates the US government!" etc etc.) As a comparison, imagine if Tim Cook took a stronger privacy stance in China that we have in the states on moral grounds, and the result was China banning all Apple sales there. He would be tossed immediately, even though most of the comments here would be in support of the ethical position.
- icebraining 9y ago1) The shareholders are part of Google. 2) A very small group of people control all the votes in Google, thanks to different classes of shares. While this is not foolproof, courts rarely overrule decisions. 3) You can incur in loss of revenue too if a non-insignificant part of your workforce is resentful.