IMHO the Damore memo got way too heavy into the political angles at the end (straying away from the science and citing non-analytical political opinion pieces a

IMHO the Damore memo got way too heavy into the political angles at the end (straying away from the science and citing non-analytical political opinion pieces and even an anti-feminist Wordpress blog of all things), so I'm not sure I'd call it "100% honest". That being said, my personal impression is that such was more driven by naivety than malice; firing was an over-reaction. For the capitulation to China, though, the scale seems different. I would agree with the parent that this seems to contradict core philosophy -- much of the words espoused in their "Owner's Manual for Google Shareholders" in their IPO (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504142742/ds1a.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504...) now seem hollow (for reasons more than just this). Do they still believe strongly in the "long term" as they claim? How does submitting to one of the world's most repressive places (information wise) "make the world a better place"? You certainly can't claim "unbiased and objective" search results when there is a government telling you certain things you can't include. Companies may be amoral by design (as another poster said) but Google at least in their manifesto certainly seemed to strive to be different. Not anymore, apparently.