4 ms·

There are a couple of recurring themes here: 1. the hyper-moralising over google's business decisions, they're not the only company that modifies its business

There are a couple of recurring themes here: 1. the hyper-moralising over google's business decisions, they're not the only company that modifies its business to access the chinese market nor is the chinese government the only one that demands censorship. 2. google employees' attempts to sabotage the company's business prospects.

confeit 8y ago
1. It is because we/I expect better from Google. Google has such a huge responsibility, being the gateway to the world's information, and we trust them with that position. For-profit and deliberate blocking access to information erodes that trust. I would not care about other companies doing this, but seeing I care about Google doing this shows me that Google has a great PR/goodwill they've build up over the years. With this move I am left wondering if that is deserved, or if it was merely manipulating me for fanboy profit. 2. I think that is because they love working there, they hold their employer to a very high standard, and they don't want to take a pay cut to work for another (perhaps US-only) company with morals more aligned to theirs. Doing (or even thinking about) ethical business, puts you at a disadvantage over those that care more about profit and increasing their power. Losing prospective profits by doing the right thing is not a popular choice for a commercial business, so the incentives are there to just sell out your soul and go along with censorship (or spying on your users). For Facebook, this went on for years, until they found themselves in a mess. This mess was the result of 1000s of decisions made by all employees (not just upper management). I commend Google's employees for standing up for their beliefs and vision for the company. Only in a very Ayn Rand world is this sabotage. I am sure the big chief in charge of foreign markets views it as sabotage, but luckily Google is not run by only Eric Schmidt's.
- sharcerer 8y ago
  Agree with all your points. I am wondering what justification Sergey,Larry will give for this. If they took good ethical decisions, they would gain more respect from people. I read the book The Google Guys when I was 13 (now 20). Larry,Sergey were the first 2 people i sorta idolized. Been a Google fanboy mainly due to their incredibe R&D,STEM focus. Now, i feel sad. Obviously, not gonna defend bad actions but it's difficult to overcome that bias,fanboyism cultivated over the years. I also wonder why Larry,Sergey are so out of action. They should have at least been more public till they're about 50 years old. Weird thought: maybe somehow Google will help overthrow the communist govt in China in the future. The fact that this news makes so many people sad is evidence of the fact that we expect better from Google.
knockingat3am 8y ago
Having a whiff of human decency is not hyper-moralising, it's really just having a whiff of human decency. > google employees' attempts to sabotage the company's business prospects. So having concerns about people getting killed for their opinions and whatnot is "hyper-moralising", but having concerns about "backstabbing" your employer isn't. Gotcha. And it's not even backstabbing. When a friend of yours has a really horrible idea -- and that is putting it hyper-mildly in this context -- you are being more of a friend to them when you try to stop them.
wu-ikkyu 8y ago
>hyper-moralising over google's business decisions People are hyper moralizing because Google is hyper powerful. "With great power comes great responsibility". >google employees' attempts to sabotage the company's business prospects. Perhaps they are doing so because they see these as attemts to sabotage Google's mission: "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
- tanilama 8y ago
  It is because Google put that hyper moralising hat on itself. In their hay days, they crafted that hippy/liberal/sensible young alpha image to win customer approval, reducing government regulation and eat market shares against those faceless corporates. Now they are the new baddies in town, the image no longer does them any good. They will retire it by then and be a normal company.
  - pnw_hazor 8y ago
    No, they will concentrate their hyper-moralising and virtue signalling on the US. China, et al, will get a pass.
- ionised 8y ago
  > "With great power comes great responsibility". Remember this is HN. That saying has been warped to read: "With great power comes great piles of cash"
ehsankia 8y ago
3. Western people feeling outraged in place of people from other countries. I would love to hear from more native Chinese people, but from what I've seen so far, most of them would much rather have access to limited services than nothing at all. Not being able to make Duo calls, access Play Store, access AppEngine, access Youtube, etc is far more of an issue to them than not being able to Google about tiananmen square.

confeit 8y ago

1. It is because we/I expect better from Google. Google has such a huge responsibility, being the gateway to the world's information, and we trust them with that position. For-profit and deliberate blocking access to information erodes that trust. I would not care about other companies doing this, but seeing I care about Google doing this shows me that Google has a great PR/goodwill they've build up over the years. With this move I am left wondering if that is deserved, or if it was merely manipulating me for fanboy profit. 2. I think that is because they love working there, they hold their employer to a very high standard, and they don't want to take a pay cut to work for another (perhaps US-only) company with morals more aligned to theirs. Doing (or even thinking about) ethical business, puts you at a disadvantage over those that care more about profit and increasing their power. Losing prospective profits by doing the right thing is not a popular choice for a commercial business, so the incentives are there to just sell out your soul and go along with censorship (or spying on your users). For Facebook, this went on for years, until they found themselves in a mess. This mess was the result of 1000s of decisions made by all employees (not just upper management). I commend Google's employees for standing up for their beliefs and vision for the company. Only in a very Ayn Rand world is this sabotage. I am sure the big chief in charge of foreign markets views it as sabotage, but luckily Google is not run by only Eric Schmidt's.

sharcerer 8y ago
Agree with all your points. I am wondering what justification Sergey,Larry will give for this. If they took good ethical decisions, they would gain more respect from people. I read the book The Google Guys when I was 13 (now 20). Larry,Sergey were the first 2 people i sorta idolized. Been a Google fanboy mainly due to their incredibe R&D,STEM focus. Now, i feel sad. Obviously, not gonna defend bad actions but it's difficult to overcome that bias,fanboyism cultivated over the years. I also wonder why Larry,Sergey are so out of action. They should have at least been more public till they're about 50 years old. Weird thought: maybe somehow Google will help overthrow the communist govt in China in the future. The fact that this news makes so many people sad is evidence of the fact that we expect better from Google.

knockingat3am 8y ago

Having a whiff of human decency is not hyper-moralising, it's really just having a whiff of human decency. > google employees' attempts to sabotage the company's business prospects. So having concerns about people getting killed for their opinions and whatnot is "hyper-moralising", but having concerns about "backstabbing" your employer isn't. Gotcha. And it's not even backstabbing. When a friend of yours has a really horrible idea -- and that is putting it hyper-mildly in this context -- you are being more of a friend to them when you try to stop them.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago

>hyper-moralising over google's business decisions People are hyper moralizing because Google is hyper powerful. "With great power comes great responsibility". >google employees' attempts to sabotage the company's business prospects. Perhaps they are doing so because they see these as attemts to sabotage Google's mission: "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

tanilama 8y ago
It is because Google put that hyper moralising hat on itself. In their hay days, they crafted that hippy/liberal/sensible young alpha image to win customer approval, reducing government regulation and eat market shares against those faceless corporates. Now they are the new baddies in town, the image no longer does them any good. They will retire it by then and be a normal company.
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  No, they will concentrate their hyper-moralising and virtue signalling on the US. China, et al, will get a pass.
ionised 8y ago
> "With great power comes great responsibility". Remember this is HN. That saying has been warped to read: "With great power comes great piles of cash"

ehsankia 8y ago

3. Western people feeling outraged in place of people from other countries. I would love to hear from more native Chinese people, but from what I've seen so far, most of them would much rather have access to limited services than nothing at all. Not being able to make Duo calls, access Play Store, access AppEngine, access Youtube, etc is far more of an issue to them than not being able to Google about tiananmen square.