5 ms·

The issue wasn't with the DoD portion of it, it was the drone part. I'm sure Google employees would be fine providing Google Cloud and Docs functionality to the

The issue wasn't with the DoD portion of it, it was the drone part. I'm sure Google employees would be fine providing Google Cloud and Docs functionality to the DoD bureaucracy.

austincheney 8y ago
Irrelevant. Not matter how well intended those employees' motivations it likely cost their employer a substantial piece of this enormous profit pie. Google employees don't get to choose their customers. They certainly don't get to choose candidacy in a federal bidding cycle. If there is confusion on this matter then perhaps you are not a sells person or a business stake holder.
- jchw 8y ago
  Although this is amusing theory, it's non-sense. Google Cloud already has government users. Google employees protested an internal project - a thing that they were working on or being told to work on - not a customer. Regardless of how media reported on it.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    It was a project under contract to a customer. That is not an internal project. It would be risky and foolish for that exact same customer to gamble their next contract under those conditions.
    - jchw 8y ago
      First of all... 1. They didn't cancel the contract. Google pledged to not renew the contract in 2019, and established a "code of ethics" for AI usage, in response to employee outcry. 2. You're implying that this is a game of hurt feewings and it isn't. It's business. The government agencies have just as much to learn from PR backlash against themselves as Google does, because they hire from the public.
      - austincheney 8y ago
        I never said a contract was cancelled. It is, though, a termination of business. > You're implying that this is a game of hurt feewings and it isn't. I also never said or implied that. I have worked all over the country and a few times out of the country. Only in the bay area and Seattle are people so social engrossed with intermingling their personal politics with their work. Most other locations, both inside and outside the US, would consider this ethically collusive. Whether or not that hurts peoples' "feewings" (as you put it) is up to the individuals involved.
        jchw 8y ago
        >It is, though, a termination of business. A promise to not renew a contract is not even the same as not renewing the contract. For all we know, Google might renew it anyways. Either way, Google is doing what they were paid to do for the period they were paid to do it. The DoD has no reason to have sour grapes with that. Other government agencies absolutely have no reason to. >I also never said or implied that. I have worked all over the country and a few times out of the country. Only in the bay area and Seattle are people so social engrossed with intermingling their personal politics with their work. Most other locations, both inside and outside the US, would consider this ethically collusive. Whether or not that hurts peoples' "feewings" (as you put it) is up to the individuals involved. I don't know what you're getting at, I've worked across the country as well (though not out of it.) The consensus among workers is different because the power dynamics are different. When I was working in the midwest, tech jobs were rare and most people did not want to put their jobs in jeopardy. Employees at Google just feel that they have job security, because they do. Not just those in the Bay Area, but certainly those in Pittsburgh, or New York City, as well. The proof is in the pudding: to the best of my knowledge, Google employees were not fired for protesting Project Maven. But of course people in the Bay Area feel especially safe in their endeavors. Again, they are. If a Google employee gets fired for protesting, plenty of other bay area companies will be eager to sweep them up. Some will even throw in a sweet signing bonus to welcome them in. I don't have strong opinions about whether or not these protests are good or bad, but plenty of people across the world would love to be able to speak their mind at their job without it putting their career in jeopardy. The Bay Area is really just the perfect place for this because it is a highly liberal area (in some aspects, anyways) and people feel extremely safe. So you get these sorts of liberal protests. I'm sure it would play out the same anywhere if this set of conditions were true regardless of political leanings.
- tomjakubowski 8y ago
  > Google employees don't get to choose their customers. This theory is completely at odds with what actually happened. The reality is that workers at Google wield enormous power when they act together, and get to make the company drop a customer.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    In that case why would that impacted customer want to do business there again considering that risk?
    - pgodzin 8y ago
      Because they should analyze why workers objected to the other project and understand the motivations rather than assume a blanket mistrust
      - gowld 8y ago
        And when the Pentagon analysis concludes that Google doesn't stay committed to military projects, what would they do?
        pgodzin 8y ago
        Then they shouldn't use Google for military projects, which Google has already said they won't pursue (AI for weapons). But DoD =/= military, and if you are equating them here then you ignored what I wrote and are making a blanket statement rather than analyzing the specific case.
        slavik81 8y ago
        I'm confused. The article states that "JEDI is broader and bigger, seeking a vendor to provide cloud services for all branches of the military" but you seem to be saying it's not for the military.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  >Not matter how well intended those employees' motivations it likely cost their employer a substantial piece of this enormous profit pie. Who makes everything for Google? Who makes everything for the shareholders? The workers, the employees. If they don't want to work on something that is against their morals and ethics as a whole, they get to decide that.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Do you work at Google or is that an assumption?
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      It's true in any circumstance. If you get rid of the employees -- the workers -- who's left to make anything, clean anything, provide food, etc? Capitalists somehow forget that the workers even exist and are a necessary part of businsses, and seemingly think that all work that gets done is by pure magic. It's an immoral and unethical to not care what the workers say in quest of your personal profit.

The issue wasn't with the DoD portion of it, it was the drone part. I'm sure Google employees would be fine providing Google Cloud and Docs functionality to the DoD bureaucracy.

austincheney 8y ago

Irrelevant. Not matter how well intended those employees' motivations it likely cost their employer a substantial piece of this enormous profit pie. Google employees don't get to choose their customers. They certainly don't get to choose candidacy in a federal bidding cycle. If there is confusion on this matter then perhaps you are not a sells person or a business stake holder.

jchw 8y ago
Although this is amusing theory, it's non-sense. Google Cloud already has government users. Google employees protested an internal project - a thing that they were working on or being told to work on - not a customer. Regardless of how media reported on it.
- austincheney 8y ago
  It was a project under contract to a customer. That is not an internal project. It would be risky and foolish for that exact same customer to gamble their next contract under those conditions.
  - jchw 8y ago
    First of all... 1. They didn't cancel the contract. Google pledged to not renew the contract in 2019, and established a "code of ethics" for AI usage, in response to employee outcry. 2. You're implying that this is a game of hurt feewings and it isn't. It's business. The government agencies have just as much to learn from PR backlash against themselves as Google does, because they hire from the public.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      I never said a contract was cancelled. It is, though, a termination of business. > You're implying that this is a game of hurt feewings and it isn't. I also never said or implied that. I have worked all over the country and a few times out of the country. Only in the bay area and Seattle are people so social engrossed with intermingling their personal politics with their work. Most other locations, both inside and outside the US, would consider this ethically collusive. Whether or not that hurts peoples' "feewings" (as you put it) is up to the individuals involved.
      - jchw 8y ago
        >It is, though, a termination of business. A promise to not renew a contract is not even the same as not renewing the contract. For all we know, Google might renew it anyways. Either way, Google is doing what they were paid to do for the period they were paid to do it. The DoD has no reason to have sour grapes with that. Other government agencies absolutely have no reason to. >I also never said or implied that. I have worked all over the country and a few times out of the country. Only in the bay area and Seattle are people so social engrossed with intermingling their personal politics with their work. Most other locations, both inside and outside the US, would consider this ethically collusive. Whether or not that hurts peoples' "feewings" (as you put it) is up to the individuals involved. I don't know what you're getting at, I've worked across the country as well (though not out of it.) The consensus among workers is different because the power dynamics are different. When I was working in the midwest, tech jobs were rare and most people did not want to put their jobs in jeopardy. Employees at Google just feel that they have job security, because they do. Not just those in the Bay Area, but certainly those in Pittsburgh, or New York City, as well. The proof is in the pudding: to the best of my knowledge, Google employees were not fired for protesting Project Maven. But of course people in the Bay Area feel especially safe in their endeavors. Again, they are. If a Google employee gets fired for protesting, plenty of other bay area companies will be eager to sweep them up. Some will even throw in a sweet signing bonus to welcome them in. I don't have strong opinions about whether or not these protests are good or bad, but plenty of people across the world would love to be able to speak their mind at their job without it putting their career in jeopardy. The Bay Area is really just the perfect place for this because it is a highly liberal area (in some aspects, anyways) and people feel extremely safe. So you get these sorts of liberal protests. I'm sure it would play out the same anywhere if this set of conditions were true regardless of political leanings.
tomjakubowski 8y ago
> Google employees don't get to choose their customers. This theory is completely at odds with what actually happened. The reality is that workers at Google wield enormous power when they act together, and get to make the company drop a customer.
- austincheney 8y ago
  In that case why would that impacted customer want to do business there again considering that risk?
  - pgodzin 8y ago
    Because they should analyze why workers objected to the other project and understand the motivations rather than assume a blanket mistrust
    - gowld 8y ago
      And when the Pentagon analysis concludes that Google doesn't stay committed to military projects, what would they do?
      - pgodzin 8y ago
        Then they shouldn't use Google for military projects, which Google has already said they won't pursue (AI for weapons). But DoD =/= military, and if you are equating them here then you ignored what I wrote and are making a blanket statement rather than analyzing the specific case.
        slavik81 8y ago
        I'm confused. The article states that "JEDI is broader and bigger, seeking a vendor to provide cloud services for all branches of the military" but you seem to be saying it's not for the military.
prolikewh0a 8y ago
>Not matter how well intended those employees' motivations it likely cost their employer a substantial piece of this enormous profit pie. Who makes everything for Google? Who makes everything for the shareholders? The workers, the employees. If they don't want to work on something that is against their morals and ethics as a whole, they get to decide that.
- austincheney 8y ago
  Do you work at Google or is that an assumption?
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    It's true in any circumstance. If you get rid of the employees -- the workers -- who's left to make anything, clean anything, provide food, etc? Capitalists somehow forget that the workers even exist and are a necessary part of businsses, and seemingly think that all work that gets done is by pure magic. It's an immoral and unethical to not care what the workers say in quest of your personal profit.