I'd like it if you were a bit more specific :). This will remain a matter of interpretation and, while my reasoning may be sound, your interpretation may diffe

I'd like it if you were a bit more specific :). This will remain a matter of interpretation and, while my reasoning may be sound, your interpretation may differ (much like those employees that pose that designing and developing a censored and spying China search engine app is consistent with "organize the world's information..."). First off, some premises: - Information Retrieval, Ranking, Spam filtering, etc. are part of AI. Dragonfly applies to these principles. - Publishing the AI at Google Principles and packaging it the way they did, allows me as an outsider to hold Google accountable to these principles, question their leadership, and critique them if they apparently skirt these principles. - China's government spying on political dissidents violates international norms on surveillance. - Google shut out privacy and security teams from evaluating project Dragonfly. - Shutting out security teams makes it harder to build projects designed and tested for user security. - Shutting out privacy teams makes it harder to build projects designed and tested for user privacy. Censored search terms are not transparent. You don't control which data of yours get shared with the government. - Sundar Pichai lied to employees when he said the project was just an innocent proof-of-concept. There was no room for many voices in that conversation, because people lacked moral authority to form an opinion on the matter (they were kept in the dark). - A fully operational Dragonfly project would make it impossible for Chinese users to use Google to find information about this very controversy (AKA: Google and its behavior itself becomes part of censorship) - Human Right Organizations were correct in denouncing Dragonfly for its potential to do damage to Human Rights. - Getting in trouble with the government over search terms that may denote a political preference opposed to the government causes an unjust impact. - Censored search terms (without showing a notice: "Some results may have been censored it accordance with Chinese law") remove control from humans without any recourse or opportunity for feedback (or choosing another company). By facilitating a censored search engine Google can't point at a government and say: It was entirely their fault. - A Chinese Google Search Engine which leaks user data to the government is easily adaptable to harmful usage (with little power for Google to push back/notice/monitor once deployed). - A Chinese Google Search Engine will have significant impact. - Google is deeply involved, making a custom solution, which enlarges their duties and responsibilities. - The (user) benefits do not substantially outweight the potential for grave harm - A censored and spying government-controlled search engine can be viewed as an information warfare weapon. With these premises in mind, I see them violating all the principles, but one.