4 ms·

The motivations are public: https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter.pdf https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter.... > W

The motivations are public: https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter.pdf https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter.... > We believe that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.

austincheney 8y ago
In that one instance the motivation is known, but it is a horrible and dangerous blanket business requirement that cannot be enforced. There is no way that ends well for a business relationship. It is up to the employer to discern and address the motivations of its employees. When this responsibility falls on the customer the business ceases to have customers. It doesn't make sense for a customer to pay for a service and be charged with the management of their service provider's managerial concerns, because if that were the case the service provider would become an internal business unit. What is interesting is that the letter says this: This plan will irreparably damage Google’s brand and its ability to compete for talent. The letter is completely addressing the concern for reputational harm, but the company did not do so prior to the establishment of the relationship as a matter of its due diligence considerations. If this is cause for the DOD to pass on Google's bid for a larger project the harm is absolutely manifest. This is analogous to the Streisand Effect where the harm was neither well known nor established but achieves both due to the complaint - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Also, the DOD is the US military and those terms can be safely and definitively interchanged. I can affirm this as a military officer. https://www.defense.gov/About/DoD-101/ https://www.defense.gov/About/DoD-101/

austincheney 8y ago

In that one instance the motivation is known, but it is a horrible and dangerous blanket business requirement that cannot be enforced. There is no way that ends well for a business relationship. It is up to the employer to discern and address the motivations of its employees. When this responsibility falls on the customer the business ceases to have customers. It doesn't make sense for a customer to pay for a service and be charged with the management of their service provider's managerial concerns, because if that were the case the service provider would become an internal business unit. What is interesting is that the letter says this: This plan will irreparably damage Google’s brand and its ability to compete for talent. The letter is completely addressing the concern for reputational harm, but the company did not do so prior to the establishment of the relationship as a matter of its due diligence considerations. If this is cause for the DOD to pass on Google's bid for a larger project the harm is absolutely manifest. This is analogous to the Streisand Effect where the harm was neither well known nor established but achieves both due to the complaint - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Also, the DOD is the US military and those terms can be safely and definitively interchanged. I can affirm this as a military officer. https://www.defense.gov/About/DoD-101/ https://www.defense.gov/About/DoD-101/