17 ms·

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 c

by 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.
      - UncleEntity 8y ago
        Well, technically, we didn't fight a violent war to rid ourselves of slavery -- as hard as the history book try to push that view. Slavery died out pretty much everywhere else in the world without bloodshed so it's pretty safe to assume the US wouldn't have been different in that regard, the freeing of the slaves was more of a punitive action against the seceding states than anything else. Anyhoo, my point being that it isn't a grand example of American exceptionalism. Much better to just link to Kevin Kline's A Fish Called Wanda rant... And why doesn't my iPhone know how to spellcheck "slavery", are we trying to remove it from the language double-plus fast?
        rmk 8y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFwHQYDqf6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFwHQYDqf6c I couldn't resist :)
        fixermark 8y ago
        Worth remembering: slavery was outlawed in the United States after it was outlawed in Great Britain. In the long-view, the whole American Experiment may not have been a net positive for slaves and their descendants relative to a hypothetical alternate history where the Revolutionary War failed and the US was just more British Empire. Nearly impossible to say with certainty, of course, because a Britain that included the US may have had different incentives to push it away from ending slavery.
  - mrep 8y ago
    > 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). He's beholden to his shareholders and every move they have made is all about that. They knew it would be bad PR but they wanted to make money so they took the contract initially and tried to keep it quite. Then, all the leaks happened causing it to backfire, tons of employees and users got upset, and so they reversed directions as they think the good reputation for attracting employees and users will pay off more than military contracts in the long term. > Remember that Google itself is tainted, being complicit in spying over Americans (PRISM, anyone?). Why shouldn't such an entity be regulated? It wasn't just Google that had to comply with prism. They as long with every other company that wants to operate in the US had to comply with it because every company has to comply with the laws of each country they operate in.
    - rmk 8y ago
      > He's beholden to his shareholders and every move they have made is all about that. That's the real nub. I'd posit that this is also about keeping a small but vocal group of employees happy. However, why did Google effectively disavow all cooperation with the military to appease this group? They could have easily set up a division and staffed it with willing people. Or Alphabet the parent company could have started something else up (how costly is it to incorporate, really?). Looks like none of these things was even given serious consideration.
      - mrep 8y ago
        > They could have easily set up a division and staffed it with willing people. Or Alphabet the parent company could have started something else up (how costly is it to incorporate, really?). Looks like none of these things was even given serious consideration. Did you even read up on this story because that is essentially what they tried to do and it backfired?
        rmk 8y ago
        > Did you even read up on this story because that is essentially what they tried to do and it backfired? I read that the 'contract was routed through' some front-company. I don't think that was separate company staffed with people to adapt google AI to this purpose.
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

by rmk 8y ago

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.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      Well, technically, we didn't fight a violent war to rid ourselves of slavery -- as hard as the history book try to push that view. Slavery died out pretty much everywhere else in the world without bloodshed so it's pretty safe to assume the US wouldn't have been different in that regard, the freeing of the slaves was more of a punitive action against the seceding states than anything else. Anyhoo, my point being that it isn't a grand example of American exceptionalism. Much better to just link to Kevin Kline's A Fish Called Wanda rant... And why doesn't my iPhone know how to spellcheck "slavery", are we trying to remove it from the language double-plus fast?
      - rmk 8y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFwHQYDqf6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFwHQYDqf6c I couldn't resist :)
      - fixermark 8y ago
        Worth remembering: slavery was outlawed in the United States after it was outlawed in Great Britain. In the long-view, the whole American Experiment may not have been a net positive for slaves and their descendants relative to a hypothetical alternate history where the Revolutionary War failed and the US was just more British Empire. Nearly impossible to say with certainty, of course, because a Britain that included the US may have had different incentives to push it away from ending slavery.
- mrep 8y ago
  > 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). He's beholden to his shareholders and every move they have made is all about that. They knew it would be bad PR but they wanted to make money so they took the contract initially and tried to keep it quite. Then, all the leaks happened causing it to backfire, tons of employees and users got upset, and so they reversed directions as they think the good reputation for attracting employees and users will pay off more than military contracts in the long term. > Remember that Google itself is tainted, being complicit in spying over Americans (PRISM, anyone?). Why shouldn't such an entity be regulated? It wasn't just Google that had to comply with prism. They as long with every other company that wants to operate in the US had to comply with it because every company has to comply with the laws of each country they operate in.
  - rmk 8y ago
    > He's beholden to his shareholders and every move they have made is all about that. That's the real nub. I'd posit that this is also about keeping a small but vocal group of employees happy. However, why did Google effectively disavow all cooperation with the military to appease this group? They could have easily set up a division and staffed it with willing people. Or Alphabet the parent company could have started something else up (how costly is it to incorporate, really?). Looks like none of these things was even given serious consideration.
    - mrep 8y ago
      > They could have easily set up a division and staffed it with willing people. Or Alphabet the parent company could have started something else up (how costly is it to incorporate, really?). Looks like none of these things was even given serious consideration. Did you even read up on this story because that is essentially what they tried to do and it backfired?
      - rmk 8y ago
        > Did you even read up on this story because that is essentially what they tried to do and it backfired? I read that the 'contract was routed through' some front-company. I don't think that was separate company staffed with people to adapt google AI to this purpose.

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