5 ms·

This is a toothless, short-sighted, and self-serving philosophy that does not solve any problem. I will explain, but first let it be known that I am a scorned

This is a toothless, short-sighted, and self-serving philosophy that does not solve any problem. I will explain, but first let it be known that I am a scorned Google user. I jumped on board the magic carpet of every Google service as soon as I could and loved it the whole time, but it has become clear to me that Google and my values no longer align. So I'm leaving. However, telling the workers to "just quit" won't solve anything. In fact, it guarantees that the company will have a higher percentage of people you morally disagree with leading to, by your moral standards and actions, a more evil product. Additionally, quitting because you disagree with company politics is the least meaningful protest you could levy. Inaction from the sidelines is just as damning as internal complicency. If you want to split moral hairs and feel Superior because you quit, go for it but don't pretend like you're a hero or in any way part of the solution. To be specific, Google won't reverse it's whole company plan and Buck the entire industry trend due to a _temporary_ uptick an employee turnover of a few percentage points (if that). Change can come from internal activism and external Market pressures. Quitting is neither of those and actively contrary to the former.

braythwayt 8y ago
To be specific, my words above are: “If you can’t change your organization, change organizations.” If the argument is that by staying they can create change, our views are compatible. If the argument is that “although they may try, they can’t change anything, but they should still stay,” then my argument is that they have chosen to be complicit, and it is appropriate to hold them to account. Nobody is really telling anyone to quit, but the argument above is that if they don’t quit, they cannot be held accountable. I reject that notion.
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  > To be specific, my words above are: > “If you can’t change your organization, change organizations.” > Nobody is really telling anyone to quit, but the argument above is that if they don’t quit, they cannot be held accountable. I reject that notion. This is a false dichotomy. The world exists in grey areas. Just because you are passionate about security and privacy does not mean joe the google engineer is culpable for the _industry accepted_ practices you disagree with. People are fallible and so are companies. If everyone had to change-or-quit every company they worked at, no one would work anywhere. Your philosophy is not sustainable, logical, or implementable. In the spectrum of immoralities, fingerprinting users is pretty far down on the list, although it is certainly present.
ntsplnkv2 8y ago
> However, telling the workers to "just quit" won't solve anything. In fact, it guarantees that the company will have a higher percentage of people you morally disagree with leading to, by your moral standards and actions, a more evil product. Not necessarily. Thank God Albert Einstein "just quit" as opposed to returning to Germany to influence it from the inside and change it from within. Perhaps that engineer could go on to work for companies that care more about privacy and help them succeed, or explain to others why he left and convince others to as well. Movements are not collections of popular supermen who do extraordinary things. You make it seem as if, unless you can completely change the course of the company, don't bother. Same as "don't vote your vote doesn't matter."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Skrillex 8y ago
  I drew a different conclusion from reading the parent. The issue with "your vote doesn't matter", however true it may be, is that the decision not to vote results in removing yourself from the decision-making process, giving more power to those you oppose. That seems to be specifically what the parent is arguing not to do, as someone who has quit no longer has any power within the organization.
  - ntsplnkv2 8y ago
    That may be true in a closed system, but Google is not a closed system, and that person can do any number of things outside of that system. A person leaving is essentially a vote. It says I no longer have faith in the decision makers of this current group of leaders at google. You no longer will offer your value to them - that on its own, is most likely a loss (they would not have kept you if you didn't offer value.) On top of that, you add value to a potential competitor, or the EFF, or here on HN, where many have already switched to Firefox. On its own, it doesn't mean much. But collectively, it could be devastating. If not, oh well. My job isn't to ensure Google decides to be good and not evil. But I can determine if I will support something evil or not. And I choose not.
wu-ikkyu 8y ago
>Change can come from internal activism and external Market pressures. Quitting is neither of those and actively contrary to the former. False. A mass exodus of employees can certainly increase market pressures as it signals instability; it can also be extremely difficult (sometimes impossible) for new hires to understand big legacy code bases -- so quitting can be a form of legal/indirect sabotage
conradfr 8y ago
We saw what happened when you try to do that on their mailing-lists. Between things decided by data and management I'm not sure what a single developer can influence. I guess it sill more than by quitting, because you won't say anything in the exit interview in case you want to come back.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

braythwayt 8y ago

To be specific, my words above are: “If you can’t change your organization, change organizations.” If the argument is that by staying they can create change, our views are compatible. If the argument is that “although they may try, they can’t change anything, but they should still stay,” then my argument is that they have chosen to be complicit, and it is appropriate to hold them to account. Nobody is really telling anyone to quit, but the argument above is that if they don’t quit, they cannot be held accountable. I reject that notion.

kryogen1c 8y ago
> To be specific, my words above are: > “If you can’t change your organization, change organizations.” > Nobody is really telling anyone to quit, but the argument above is that if they don’t quit, they cannot be held accountable. I reject that notion. This is a false dichotomy. The world exists in grey areas. Just because you are passionate about security and privacy does not mean joe the google engineer is culpable for the _industry accepted_ practices you disagree with. People are fallible and so are companies. If everyone had to change-or-quit every company they worked at, no one would work anywhere. Your philosophy is not sustainable, logical, or implementable. In the spectrum of immoralities, fingerprinting users is pretty far down on the list, although it is certainly present.

ntsplnkv2 8y ago

> However, telling the workers to "just quit" won't solve anything. In fact, it guarantees that the company will have a higher percentage of people you morally disagree with leading to, by your moral standards and actions, a more evil product. Not necessarily. Thank God Albert Einstein "just quit" as opposed to returning to Germany to influence it from the inside and change it from within. Perhaps that engineer could go on to work for companies that care more about privacy and help them succeed, or explain to others why he left and convince others to as well. Movements are not collections of popular supermen who do extraordinary things. You make it seem as if, unless you can completely change the course of the company, don't bother. Same as "don't vote your vote doesn't matter."

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Skrillex 8y ago
I drew a different conclusion from reading the parent. The issue with "your vote doesn't matter", however true it may be, is that the decision not to vote results in removing yourself from the decision-making process, giving more power to those you oppose. That seems to be specifically what the parent is arguing not to do, as someone who has quit no longer has any power within the organization.
- ntsplnkv2 8y ago
  That may be true in a closed system, but Google is not a closed system, and that person can do any number of things outside of that system. A person leaving is essentially a vote. It says I no longer have faith in the decision makers of this current group of leaders at google. You no longer will offer your value to them - that on its own, is most likely a loss (they would not have kept you if you didn't offer value.) On top of that, you add value to a potential competitor, or the EFF, or here on HN, where many have already switched to Firefox. On its own, it doesn't mean much. But collectively, it could be devastating. If not, oh well. My job isn't to ensure Google decides to be good and not evil. But I can determine if I will support something evil or not. And I choose not.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago

>Change can come from internal activism and external Market pressures. Quitting is neither of those and actively contrary to the former. False. A mass exodus of employees can certainly increase market pressures as it signals instability; it can also be extremely difficult (sometimes impossible) for new hires to understand big legacy code bases -- so quitting can be a form of legal/indirect sabotage

conradfr 8y ago

We saw what happened when you try to do that on their mailing-lists. Between things decided by data and management I'm not sure what a single developer can influence. I guess it sill more than by quitting, because you won't say anything in the exit interview in case you want to come back.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]