5 ms·

> allow people in the valley to maintain a (sorry to use this word) delusion that what they are doing is "moral" People refusing to work on military technology

> allow people in the valley to maintain a (sorry to use this word) delusion that what they are doing is "moral" People refusing to work on military technology isn't "appearing moral". It's just "moral", at least if you consider war to be generally amoral. People here and elsewhere have been throwing the term "virtue signalling" around a lot in the last year or so. This is a perfect counterexample: Google employees speaking out against military tech are shouldering the risk of appearing disloyal to their employer. If Google were to cut their military ties, they would forgo whatever benefit they previously sought in that relationship.

opportune 9y ago
Right, it's reminiscent of decrying "virtue signaling" as if there is anything bad with doing something because it's virtuous We shouldn't make fun of people because they "do the right thing". That sounds like something Facebook would do
- nickpinkston 9y ago
  The problem is when you write off your culpability to do more because "At least I did something" via virtue signaling. So no, it's not wrong to virtue signal necessarily, but often is seen as an empty gesture by people who don't talk/act towards the actual problems.
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    It's an intellectually dishonest argument, because it actually uses someone's profession of good intentions, accepts them, and then somehow turns it against the speaker. As used on the internet, it's also useless because it always assumes the speaker doesn't actually act on their believes, and there usually is no way for them to prove their willingness to act on their believes. It also ignores that even just stating such believes can have an effect. After all, these statements are used to convince others to adopt them. The best proof of the last point may actually be this protest by Google employees: their conviction was probably formed by reading and hearing about the ethical responsibility of engineers, a topic that is certainly teeming with "virtue signalling" according to the common definition. They might even be the product of Google's own "virtue signalling", i. e. "Do no Evil". Maybe Larry Page and Sergey Brin only ever wanted to pay lip service to ethical behaviour. But their employees didn't get the full memo, took them by their word, and are now acting upon it. In this sense, "virtue signalling" aka "Greenwashing" or "diversity boilerplate" may start as a cynical profit-motivated lie, and end up changing the world for the better.
    - jpttsn 9y ago
      Reliable signals are as a rule expensive. In decrying “virtue signaling”, I think critics express “talk is cheap” not just “talk can be false.”
      - AndyNemmity 9y ago
        Saying "talk is cheap" implores the listener to act on their statements. Saying "virtue signaling" implores the listeners to stop expressing their views.
        olleromam91 9y ago
        Potato potato
    - nickpinkston 9y ago
      Yea, I don't think virtue signaling is always wrong, but I think there is wrong virtue signaling. A lot of the vitriol on the internet is destructive virtue signaling using holier than thou approaches that alienate people close to your position, this causes division, not unity, and is one of the key issues on the Left - i.e. the Left attacking itself over minutiae as the Right marches on.
  - opportune 9y ago
    Sure, and I agree that Google shouldn't stop here. But then again there is a difference, at least in my opinion, between doing something that helps the military in a support role and doing something that actively assists them in killing people. Letting the military use google cloud or google search is different than working on an AI-assisted targeting system for drones. That is where I would draw the line for myself.
needToSay 9y ago
There's nothing more immoral than working for Google. Stop your bullshit, people working for it are cowards contributing to spy machine.
- wilsonnb 9y ago
  There are plenty of jobs that are more immoral than working for Google. You don't even have to look outside of the tech field. I'm sure someone is making a lot of money helping distribute child pornography over the internet. Plenty of tech jobs in human trafficking, too, I would imagine.
  - needToSay 9y ago
    Typical white male excuse. You are privileged enough to work in Google then you have no problem finding a new job. Strawman right away with child porn? Color me surprised.
adsgjlnionio 9y ago
Do you think the US should stop developing military technology? I doubt it, and I doubt many Google employees do, either. I doubt they would be happy to live in a world where the U.S. has a weaker military than countries like China or Russia. I also doubt they would approve of throwing out our advanced targeting technology in favor of Vietnam-style carpet bombing. They are uncomfortable with killing people even though a technologically-advanced military is probably a good thing. They are comfortable with tracking and manipulating millions of people even though it's definitely a bad thing. This is squeamishness, not morality.
- teen 9y ago
  .
  - sureaboutthis 9y ago
    If that would ever happen, we wouldn't be talking about this at all. Reality check!
- musage 9y ago
  What you say about "your country" kinda legitimates anyone saying that about "their" country, too. There's plenty of arms dealer selling to all sorts of sides, are there not? And generally speaking, at best soldiers defend against invading soldiers, at worst they are invading or "just" murdering some or a lot of civilians. Remember when the cold war ended, for a while, but military budgets didn't exactly collapse? Isn't that "funny" how that works, and how we have no problem realizing that in other contexts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) You make war profitable, you will have more war. The details are trickier, sure. Slogans aren't enough. But if you don't even have the will, don't worry about finding a way. > I doubt they would be happy to live in a world where the U.S. has a weaker military than countries like China or Russia. Yeah, nevermind the big nations all having their go at weaker nations, and the US wars of aggression, under exactly that pretense. No, it's really that the every last person in that huuuuuge industry -- shoveling tax dollars into gadgets that can be used to defend, to destroy, to enforce resource extraction as well as for domestic control -- wants to look out for you, because you have the same nationality in the passport. It's the children on non-Americans that get labels like "fun-sized terroris", American children have names. Those lines could not ever blur. Yes, you can't just unilaterally disarm. But you also can't keep hitting others (and yourself) while gearing up even more, at increasing rate, while subverting self-determination of others and intellectual honesty of self at every corner, and then say "it just happens to be a dangerous world, I'm just reacting". The people you're just reacting to say the same thing, and the people who sell you and them that lie laugh all the way to the bank, and should there be need for it, they won't share their bunker with you. They'd sooner share it with Russian and Chinese war profiteers, so to speak.
pathseeker 9y ago
>It's just "moral", at least if you consider war to be generally amoral. The military is also responsible for defense and disaster recovery (national guard). There are many technologies created to be resilient and life-saving by the military (ARPANET). Working with on certain military-funded projects is definitely non black-and-white like you imply.

opportune 9y ago

Right, it's reminiscent of decrying "virtue signaling" as if there is anything bad with doing something because it's virtuous We shouldn't make fun of people because they "do the right thing". That sounds like something Facebook would do

nickpinkston 9y ago
The problem is when you write off your culpability to do more because "At least I did something" via virtue signaling. So no, it's not wrong to virtue signal necessarily, but often is seen as an empty gesture by people who don't talk/act towards the actual problems.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  It's an intellectually dishonest argument, because it actually uses someone's profession of good intentions, accepts them, and then somehow turns it against the speaker. As used on the internet, it's also useless because it always assumes the speaker doesn't actually act on their believes, and there usually is no way for them to prove their willingness to act on their believes. It also ignores that even just stating such believes can have an effect. After all, these statements are used to convince others to adopt them. The best proof of the last point may actually be this protest by Google employees: their conviction was probably formed by reading and hearing about the ethical responsibility of engineers, a topic that is certainly teeming with "virtue signalling" according to the common definition. They might even be the product of Google's own "virtue signalling", i. e. "Do no Evil". Maybe Larry Page and Sergey Brin only ever wanted to pay lip service to ethical behaviour. But their employees didn't get the full memo, took them by their word, and are now acting upon it. In this sense, "virtue signalling" aka "Greenwashing" or "diversity boilerplate" may start as a cynical profit-motivated lie, and end up changing the world for the better.
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    Reliable signals are as a rule expensive. In decrying “virtue signaling”, I think critics express “talk is cheap” not just “talk can be false.”
    - AndyNemmity 9y ago
      Saying "talk is cheap" implores the listener to act on their statements. Saying "virtue signaling" implores the listeners to stop expressing their views.
      - olleromam91 9y ago
        Potato potato
  - nickpinkston 9y ago
    Yea, I don't think virtue signaling is always wrong, but I think there is wrong virtue signaling. A lot of the vitriol on the internet is destructive virtue signaling using holier than thou approaches that alienate people close to your position, this causes division, not unity, and is one of the key issues on the Left - i.e. the Left attacking itself over minutiae as the Right marches on.
- opportune 9y ago
  Sure, and I agree that Google shouldn't stop here. But then again there is a difference, at least in my opinion, between doing something that helps the military in a support role and doing something that actively assists them in killing people. Letting the military use google cloud or google search is different than working on an AI-assisted targeting system for drones. That is where I would draw the line for myself.

needToSay 9y ago

There's nothing more immoral than working for Google. Stop your bullshit, people working for it are cowards contributing to spy machine.

wilsonnb 9y ago
There are plenty of jobs that are more immoral than working for Google. You don't even have to look outside of the tech field. I'm sure someone is making a lot of money helping distribute child pornography over the internet. Plenty of tech jobs in human trafficking, too, I would imagine.
- needToSay 9y ago
  Typical white male excuse. You are privileged enough to work in Google then you have no problem finding a new job. Strawman right away with child porn? Color me surprised.

adsgjlnionio 9y ago

Do you think the US should stop developing military technology? I doubt it, and I doubt many Google employees do, either. I doubt they would be happy to live in a world where the U.S. has a weaker military than countries like China or Russia. I also doubt they would approve of throwing out our advanced targeting technology in favor of Vietnam-style carpet bombing. They are uncomfortable with killing people even though a technologically-advanced military is probably a good thing. They are comfortable with tracking and manipulating millions of people even though it's definitely a bad thing. This is squeamishness, not morality.

teen 9y ago
.
- sureaboutthis 9y ago
  If that would ever happen, we wouldn't be talking about this at all. Reality check!
musage 9y ago
What you say about "your country" kinda legitimates anyone saying that about "their" country, too. There's plenty of arms dealer selling to all sorts of sides, are there not? And generally speaking, at best soldiers defend against invading soldiers, at worst they are invading or "just" murdering some or a lot of civilians. Remember when the cold war ended, for a while, but military budgets didn't exactly collapse? Isn't that "funny" how that works, and how we have no problem realizing that in other contexts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) You make war profitable, you will have more war. The details are trickier, sure. Slogans aren't enough. But if you don't even have the will, don't worry about finding a way. > I doubt they would be happy to live in a world where the U.S. has a weaker military than countries like China or Russia. Yeah, nevermind the big nations all having their go at weaker nations, and the US wars of aggression, under exactly that pretense. No, it's really that the every last person in that huuuuuge industry -- shoveling tax dollars into gadgets that can be used to defend, to destroy, to enforce resource extraction as well as for domestic control -- wants to look out for you, because you have the same nationality in the passport. It's the children on non-Americans that get labels like "fun-sized terroris", American children have names. Those lines could not ever blur. Yes, you can't just unilaterally disarm. But you also can't keep hitting others (and yourself) while gearing up even more, at increasing rate, while subverting self-determination of others and intellectual honesty of self at every corner, and then say "it just happens to be a dangerous world, I'm just reacting". The people you're just reacting to say the same thing, and the people who sell you and them that lie laugh all the way to the bank, and should there be need for it, they won't share their bunker with you. They'd sooner share it with Russian and Chinese war profiteers, so to speak.

pathseeker 9y ago

>It's just "moral", at least if you consider war to be generally amoral. The military is also responsible for defense and disaster recovery (national guard). There are many technologies created to be resilient and life-saving by the military (ARPANET). Working with on certain military-funded projects is definitely non black-and-white like you imply.