10 ms·

I'm convinced that Google is touting its' 'principles' with a hackneyed blog post probably written by some PR flack. As an American, I'm disappointed, and posi

by rmk 8y ago

I'm convinced that Google is touting its' 'principles' with a hackneyed blog post probably written by some PR flack. As an American, I'm disappointed, and positively enraged by the hubris on display here. A bunch of (non-US) employees have pressured Google and therefore compromised the national interests of the United States. See this for an alternative viewpoint: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-google-artificial-intelligence-national-security-project-maven-america-0607-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-per... It's high time these companies are regulated and their malfeasance reined in by the United States.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago
Certainly many US employees were against it. Also Google is a global organization. I don’t believe that corporations should primarily serve the interests of their government, they should serve their users and reflect the attitudes of their employees.
- rmk 8y ago
  I'm sure many US employees were against it, and they were rightfully exercising their voice. Google may have offices all over the world, but it's an American company, and like people (Corporations are like people, no?), it must be held responsible for its actions. I would argue that the public should be especially wary of 'global' corporations such as these (Facebook is another one) that suddenly grow a conscience when it suits them. Surely a company with such high morals and ethics should easily withstand regulation and public scrutiny that protects the national interests of the country that's responsible for the majority of its profits, and provided the fertile ground from which it sprang to life.
  - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
    The whole idea of “protecting the national insterests” of the US creeps me out, as that to me usually means oppressing others, interfering with democracy in foreign countries, and generally sacrificing people outside the US to maintain the global hegemony we promote. I can tell you see it differently, but I hope you see that not all people see promoting “US government interests” as an automatically good thing, given what that phrase has meant historically.
    - rmk 8y ago
      I am aware of America's many follies and villainous acts in support of misguided notions. It's regrettable, but Americans as a group have strived to rectify wrongs and steer our country in the right direction. I deeply cherish our American values and think they're what set us apart from the rest of the world. I can't for the life of me see why Sundar Pichai should be beholden to his (significantly foreign) employees and privilege their interest over that of the nation (his nation). Remember that Google itself is tainted, being complicit in spying over Americans (PRISM, anyone?). Why shouldn't such an entity be regulated?
      - Daishiman 8y ago
        > . It's regrettable, but Americans as a group have strived to rectify wrongs and steer our country in the right direction. I deeply cherish our American values and think they're what set us apart from the rest of the world. Ha. Ha ha. Hahahah. Please, keep drinking that Kool-Aid of American exceptionalism. Apart from the British, which other country has contributed to more invasions in foreign countries for the sake of purely economic interests? Your position is laughable, and the classic, pathetic opinion of the sort of American who hasn't traveled around the world to see that their system of values is not qualitatively different from that of most other developed Western nations.
        rmk 8y ago
        > Please, keep drinking that Kool-Aid of American exceptionalism. Apart from the British, which other country has contributed to more invasions in foreign countries for the sake of purely economic interests? I will! Which country came to the aid of Britain, and all those Western European nations when they were faced with the existential threat of Nazism? Which country has provided refuge and solace to more oppressed and exiled peoples in the world than the US? Which country fought a violent war to rid itself of slavery? Surely not the Western European nations you speak of. America has done a lot of damage in this world, but I can't think of any other nation that has done so much good either.
        8y ago
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    You appear to be suggesting that the government should be able to compel corporations (and thus their employees, ie. normal people) to work on military technology. That sounds antithetical to a lot of freedoms that we hold dear as Americans. >I would argue that the public should be especially wary of 'global' corporations such as these (Facebook is another one) that suddenly grow a conscience when it suits them. How do you mean? To paint this in a very cynical light, the sequence of events here was Google does a thing. Then, many Google employees threaten to quit over that thing (among a bunch of other potential downsides). So, Google agrees to stop doing the thing Is "Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce" something that you should be wary of? That seems like reasonable corporate governance. On the other hand, you can paint this in a much less cynical light, where the sequence was Google does something that is potentially antithetical to its values. Employees object to this thing, claiming that it really is antithetical to those values. As a result, Google reaffirms its values and makes them more explicit, promising not to do the thing. In other words, a very anti-google view sees this as a move for retention, and a pro-google view sees this as a reaffirmation of the "conscience" (read: values) that Google already had. I don't see how your worries apply here. (Am a Googler, but that isn't particularly relevant to this post)
    - rmk 8y ago
      "Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce" Google, an already known to be duplicitous company, changed its policy to maintain its workforce at the expense of US national interests. That's certainly something to be wary about, as a member of the public.
      - joshuamorton 8y ago
        You didn't address the main point of my comment, so I'll ask again more directly: are you suggesting that the government create regulation that compels companies, (and thus individuals) to do work on military technology that it deems relevant to national interests? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?
        rmk 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ajkjk 8y ago
So some people who worked for Google think Google was helping do something that is immoral, and other people agreed, and the collective outrage convinced Google to change their minds. Great, that's how it should work. What else would induce a company to stop doing something immoral, if not outrage? This applies regardless of whether you think this specific example is immoral.
ta0982357 8y ago
> and therefore compromised the national interests of the United States. Did I miss something? Was the Selective Service Act amended to extend to corporations, too? Was Google drafted? Last I checked, cooperation with the United States military has been purely on a volunteer basis since Vietnam.
- rmk 8y ago
  You raise an interesting point. What makes Google the corporation better than males under 26? If you believe in corporate personhood, then Google, Facebook are definitely villains --- avoiding taxes, running ads from enemy states etc, while maintaining a shroud of secrecy and non-accountability --- positively treasonous acts if committed by a person. If you do not, then what right is violated by making corporations subject to the Selective Service Act?
- jimbofisher1 8y ago
  The supreme court has ruled that Corporations are people. So why wouldn't it extend to corporations?
randcraw 8y ago
Maybe. But it takes guts to draw any line in the sand, when none of your rivals has been willing to do it. Sure, it'd be nice if Google tightened up their rhetoric a bit, or proposed concrete ways they intend to act deliberately and publicly to enforce these bylaws. But this is a start, and reveals a willingness to speak out both to their employees and the public at large that company policy disallows some future lines of business, especially building weapons and surveillance tech. IMHO, this is a positive step in the right direction.
cromwellian 8y ago
I’m a US employee and I’m opposed to it. I’m not what you mean by ‘reigned in’, you mean you want the US government to nationalize companies who don’t want to work on military contracts and force their workers to build weapons? don’t worry, The DoD will get their AI weapons, image recognition with machine learning is a commodity now, and some other company will end up doing it.
- rmk 8y ago
  It doesn't have to be that drastic. Plenty of other companies do this kind of stuff. See for example, Boeing. It has a separate Commercial Airplanes division. Plenty of technology sharing happens between the Military arm of Boeing and the DoD. I imagine that people who object to military use of their work could find a happy home on the commercial side and vice versa. My point is, where there is a will, there is a way. Individual rights are sacrosanct, corporations', not so much (or at least, they need to be incentivized to work in the national interest).

by rmk 8y ago

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

Certainly many US employees were against it. Also Google is a global organization. I don’t believe that corporations should primarily serve the interests of their government, they should serve their users and reflect the attitudes of their employees.

rmk 8y ago
I'm sure many US employees were against it, and they were rightfully exercising their voice. Google may have offices all over the world, but it's an American company, and like people (Corporations are like people, no?), it must be held responsible for its actions. I would argue that the public should be especially wary of 'global' corporations such as these (Facebook is another one) that suddenly grow a conscience when it suits them. Surely a company with such high morals and ethics should easily withstand regulation and public scrutiny that protects the national interests of the country that's responsible for the majority of its profits, and provided the fertile ground from which it sprang to life.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  The whole idea of “protecting the national insterests” of the US creeps me out, as that to me usually means oppressing others, interfering with democracy in foreign countries, and generally sacrificing people outside the US to maintain the global hegemony we promote. I can tell you see it differently, but I hope you see that not all people see promoting “US government interests” as an automatically good thing, given what that phrase has meant historically.
  - rmk 8y ago
    I am aware of America's many follies and villainous acts in support of misguided notions. It's regrettable, but Americans as a group have strived to rectify wrongs and steer our country in the right direction. I deeply cherish our American values and think they're what set us apart from the rest of the world. I can't for the life of me see why Sundar Pichai should be beholden to his (significantly foreign) employees and privilege their interest over that of the nation (his nation). Remember that Google itself is tainted, being complicit in spying over Americans (PRISM, anyone?). Why shouldn't such an entity be regulated?
    - Daishiman 8y ago
      > . It's regrettable, but Americans as a group have strived to rectify wrongs and steer our country in the right direction. I deeply cherish our American values and think they're what set us apart from the rest of the world. Ha. Ha ha. Hahahah. Please, keep drinking that Kool-Aid of American exceptionalism. Apart from the British, which other country has contributed to more invasions in foreign countries for the sake of purely economic interests? Your position is laughable, and the classic, pathetic opinion of the sort of American who hasn't traveled around the world to see that their system of values is not qualitatively different from that of most other developed Western nations.
      - rmk 8y ago
        > Please, keep drinking that Kool-Aid of American exceptionalism. Apart from the British, which other country has contributed to more invasions in foreign countries for the sake of purely economic interests? I will! Which country came to the aid of Britain, and all those Western European nations when they were faced with the existential threat of Nazism? Which country has provided refuge and solace to more oppressed and exiled peoples in the world than the US? Which country fought a violent war to rid itself of slavery? Surely not the Western European nations you speak of. America has done a lot of damage in this world, but I can't think of any other nation that has done so much good either.
        8y ago
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  You appear to be suggesting that the government should be able to compel corporations (and thus their employees, ie. normal people) to work on military technology. That sounds antithetical to a lot of freedoms that we hold dear as Americans. >I would argue that the public should be especially wary of 'global' corporations such as these (Facebook is another one) that suddenly grow a conscience when it suits them. How do you mean? To paint this in a very cynical light, the sequence of events here was Google does a thing. Then, many Google employees threaten to quit over that thing (among a bunch of other potential downsides). So, Google agrees to stop doing the thing Is "Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce" something that you should be wary of? That seems like reasonable corporate governance. On the other hand, you can paint this in a much less cynical light, where the sequence was Google does something that is potentially antithetical to its values. Employees object to this thing, claiming that it really is antithetical to those values. As a result, Google reaffirms its values and makes them more explicit, promising not to do the thing. In other words, a very anti-google view sees this as a move for retention, and a pro-google view sees this as a reaffirmation of the "conscience" (read: values) that Google already had. I don't see how your worries apply here. (Am a Googler, but that isn't particularly relevant to this post)
  - rmk 8y ago
    "Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce" Google, an already known to be duplicitous company, changed its policy to maintain its workforce at the expense of US national interests. That's certainly something to be wary about, as a member of the public.
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      You didn't address the main point of my comment, so I'll ask again more directly: are you suggesting that the government create regulation that compels companies, (and thus individuals) to do work on military technology that it deems relevant to national interests? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?
      - rmk 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ajkjk 8y ago

So some people who worked for Google think Google was helping do something that is immoral, and other people agreed, and the collective outrage convinced Google to change their minds. Great, that's how it should work. What else would induce a company to stop doing something immoral, if not outrage? This applies regardless of whether you think this specific example is immoral.

ta0982357 8y ago

> and therefore compromised the national interests of the United States. Did I miss something? Was the Selective Service Act amended to extend to corporations, too? Was Google drafted? Last I checked, cooperation with the United States military has been purely on a volunteer basis since Vietnam.

rmk 8y ago
You raise an interesting point. What makes Google the corporation better than males under 26? If you believe in corporate personhood, then Google, Facebook are definitely villains --- avoiding taxes, running ads from enemy states etc, while maintaining a shroud of secrecy and non-accountability --- positively treasonous acts if committed by a person. If you do not, then what right is violated by making corporations subject to the Selective Service Act?
jimbofisher1 8y ago
The supreme court has ruled that Corporations are people. So why wouldn't it extend to corporations?

randcraw 8y ago

Maybe. But it takes guts to draw any line in the sand, when none of your rivals has been willing to do it. Sure, it'd be nice if Google tightened up their rhetoric a bit, or proposed concrete ways they intend to act deliberately and publicly to enforce these bylaws. But this is a start, and reveals a willingness to speak out both to their employees and the public at large that company policy disallows some future lines of business, especially building weapons and surveillance tech. IMHO, this is a positive step in the right direction.

cromwellian 8y ago

I’m a US employee and I’m opposed to it. I’m not what you mean by ‘reigned in’, you mean you want the US government to nationalize companies who don’t want to work on military contracts and force their workers to build weapons? don’t worry, The DoD will get their AI weapons, image recognition with machine learning is a commodity now, and some other company will end up doing it.

rmk 8y ago
It doesn't have to be that drastic. Plenty of other companies do this kind of stuff. See for example, Boeing. It has a separate Commercial Airplanes division. Plenty of technology sharing happens between the Military arm of Boeing and the DoD. I imagine that people who object to military use of their work could find a happy home on the commercial side and vice versa. My point is, where there is a will, there is a way. Individual rights are sacrosanct, corporations', not so much (or at least, they need to be incentivized to work in the national interest).