7 ms·

If you have "Google Engineer" on your resume, quitting your job and finding another is a much simpler task than for 99% of the rest of the world. This guy? He c

by mabbo 8y ago

If you have "Google Engineer" on your resume, quitting your job and finding another is a much simpler task than for 99% of the rest of the world. This guy? He can quit and he'll be fine. He can walk into any dev shop in Toronto and we'd take him- maybe not at Google salary rates, but close. Now consider the rest of the world. The large majority of people for whom quitting for moral/ethical reasons means a significant risk of your kids going hungry. They can't just quit without something else lined up ahead of time. When you're precariously employed (and a growing percentage of the world is) you can't take that kind of a risk even if you work for the devil himself. So given this dichotomy between employees, you would think that there would be more than just a handful of Googlers quitting for ethical reasons over Dragonfly. But there aren't. The sad truth is, the thought of making just that little bit less money per year at another company (but still more than enough to live well), the thought of losing that status symbol of "Googler", that's enough that they're willing to accept that their work will support suppression of human rights. Instead, they'll find a mental justification for why it's okay. That's far easier. Look, Sundar Pichai has done a wonderful job of it. And so that is why Google won't stop. Because there's no reason to. They won't lose many employees. They're dominant enough that they won't lose customers. They'll be just fine.

godelski 8y ago
> f you have "Google Engineer" on your resume, quitting your job and finding another is a much simpler task than for 99% of the rest of the world. This guy? He can quit and he'll be fine. He can walk into any dev shop in Toronto and we'd take him- maybe not at Google salary rates, but close. > And so that is why Google won't stop. Because there's no reason to. They won't lose many employees. They're dominant enough that they won't lose customers. They'll be just fine. What you're saying here is that this guy is a good employee, at minimum is above the medium in tech skills. So he is valuable. This seems like a reason WHY Google would stop. If they keep losing valuable talent, then they can't maintain a reputation of having the best. Or if they have an extremely high turn over rate (where people get their stamp of approval and leave. Not being let go), then Google (or any company) can't maintain a high quality product. You need high quality people to develop high quality products. This is actually why Google (and other companies) have caved to employees concerns in the past. Because in reality it is good business practice to pay attention to your employees' ethical concerns.
- GauntletWizard 8y ago
  Google no longer has the management skill to see that. Edit: to be more precise: I'm not certain they ever did, or if they simply got lucky/stumbled their way through previous incidents.
- mabbo 8y ago
  The two lines you just quoted me on, did you read the part in between them? As I said: > you would think that there would be more than just a handful of Googlers quitting for ethical reasons over Dragonfly. But there aren't. The sad truth is, the thought of making just that little bit less money per year at another company (but still more than enough to live well), the thought of losing that status symbol of "Googler", that's enough that they're willing to accept that their work will support suppression of human rights. My point is that people are not quitting, will not quit, and Google has no real worries about an employee uprising. Because other than this guy and a handful of others, nobody is going to quit over this. Google leadership doesn't care. There's too much money for them to worry about ethics.
scarejunba 8y ago
True. Just like people working at Amazon can justify the conditions they impose on their warehouse employees. Or people at Boeing/Lockheed-Martin/Northrup-Grumman can rationalize their work despite it being aimed at killing people - not all of whom were about to cause harm. There's no way any of us would accept not being employed over principle like this when the harm is so far removed from us. This guy is an exception.
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  "Or people at Boeing/Lockheed-Martin/Northrup-Grumman can rationalize their work despite it being aimed at killing people - not all of whom were about to cause harm." The overwhelming majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians.
- ironmagma 8y ago
  It’s very different for a current employee versus a prospective employee, though. There are an unknowable number of people simply not applying to work at your company if you are engaging in unethical practices. I certainly know a few quality candidates who have knocked companies out of their pool of interest on morals alone.
manfredo 8y ago
Or alternatively, the employees have reasoned through the benefits and potential negatives of doing business in mainland China and have concluded that the benefits outweigh the negatives. How, exactly, does Dragonfly make the world a worse place? Sure, I'm opposed to censorship or policing citizens' interests. But there's no real indication that the censorship or surveillance is any worse than the existing search engines present in China. As far as that front is concerned, Google in China would be no worse than the status quo. The potential benefits are substantial. Google could be the first big tech player to break into what is usually seen as a walled off market. Over time economic ties could bring the countries closer together, and reduce the likelihood of conflict (this is the original rationale behind the EU, for example). As far a I can see, Dragonfly is not any worse than the status quo, and had potential benefits - and this is speaking from someone who had no incentive to see Google succeed. I don't work there nor do I own any stocks in the company.
- fossuser 8y ago
  Not worse than the status quo can still be something unethical to be involved in. If a government is currently using software to target, kidnap, and torture journalists and you supply them with new software that basically does the same thing then you're still complicit in the bad behavior. You're still responsible for your actions even if others would be willing to do it if you didn't. In China's case there's also a history of this rationalization that getting involved will help westernize the country, while there's some truth to this with their embrace of capitalism - the government is not trending in a good direction. Eliminating presidential term limits, deep packet inspection, social credit system, total/unrestricted surveillance. Western companies that operate there in a capacity larger than just manufacturing seem to just have their IP stolen and then a Chinese approved local company gets explicit government support. It's important to help citizens of countries where the people are more vulnerable - I'd argue it's irresponsible for a company to help an authoritarian government oppress its own people. It's not a question of whether or not it's legal, something can be legal and still be wrong.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > does Dragonfly make the world a worse place? Yes. It normalizes suppressing political speech that disagrees with the incumbent power. That flies in the face of values democracies hold dear. "Someone else would do it" isn't a valid excuse. If you're doing it, you're complicit. (Also, Google will do it better than almost anyone else. That a respected American technology giant will work with China's censorship regime gives the institution legitimacy.)
mda 8y ago
"And so that is why Google won't stop. Because there's no reason to." I completely disagree, look at what happened to project Maven.
throwawaymsft 8y ago
This is one of the most important reasons for FIRE / FU money. It's not about drinking martinis on a beach, it's about not having your values held hostage to economics.
- harlanji 8y ago
  I quit 2 jobs due to mistreatment and indeed, my old social network now sees me as a leper and I’ve been homeless for 6 months. This is what I want FU money for... never cared about having money before, thought skills and limitless attitude were enough.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    I think in some ways one of the saddest things I've come to observe in the world as I grow older is that human history was not just full of mistakes, but that people are basically still like that. Groups of people can still betray or harm other people for entirely stupid or even invented reasons and it happens all the time. It's really easy to not look at it if it never happens to you.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mattnewton 8y ago
Googler here; my opinions are my own. Not saying I have a position on dragonfly I would quit over, but several people in the company who do stay because they believe leadership is responsive to employee concerns and believe they can influence the direction here. I believe that personally as well. I certainly didn’t believe that about any other company I had worked at before.
- mabbo 8y ago
  > believe leadership is responsive to employee concerns and believe they can influence the direction here And that belief is great. But what happens if leadership does nothing? What if they do as they are currently doing and making excuses about it? They aren't currently saying there are any plans to change the course on this. Will those same people you mention leave when nothing changes in another year? I doubt it. As I said above: your friends want their free lunches, their high salary, their status-symbol job. They'll convince themselves leadership listened to them and will ignore that they didn't change anything. And lest you think I'm being an asshole about this because I'm not in the situation: I have quit a good job over ethical concerns before. Had meetings with senior leaders that I truly respect and said "this is wrong". They wouldn't budge so I walked. Got a job paying less money. Slept a lot better at night.
  - mattnewton 8y ago
    Counterpoint: Project Maven is canceled and Google ended forced arbitration on harassment cases going forward. Employees have been heard before, and the product hasn’t launched yet. I think it’s premature to know these things about concerned Googlers.
obastani 8y ago
Google's original rational for exiting China was to protest suppression of information. Has it done anyone any good? China simply developed their own search technology in house to replace Google, but with censorship. By doing so, they strengthened their local tech talent, and now they might outsource the technology they developed to other regimes. If Google had developed this tech from the beginning, they may have been able to avoid letting this tech get into the hands of regimes even worse than China. Of course, we will never know the alternative outcome. And I appreciate the value of a company standing for moral principals even when it goes against practical considerations. But I think it is highly reductionist to suggest that yours is the only or "obvious" moral view on the situation.
nu2ycombinator 8y ago
I came here to post the exact same thing. :)
mcny 8y ago
> Now consider the rest of the world. The large majority of people for whom quitting for moral/ethical reasons means a significant risk of your kids going hungry. There is only one logical conclusion: don't have (any more) children. If you don't have children, consider not having any children. If you do, consider not having any more. If the society as a whole doesn't want to pay for the cost of raising a child, why should you grind your bones?

by mabbo 8y ago

godelski 8y ago

> f you have "Google Engineer" on your resume, quitting your job and finding another is a much simpler task than for 99% of the rest of the world. This guy? He can quit and he'll be fine. He can walk into any dev shop in Toronto and we'd take him- maybe not at Google salary rates, but close. > And so that is why Google won't stop. Because there's no reason to. They won't lose many employees. They're dominant enough that they won't lose customers. They'll be just fine. What you're saying here is that this guy is a good employee, at minimum is above the medium in tech skills. So he is valuable. This seems like a reason WHY Google would stop. If they keep losing valuable talent, then they can't maintain a reputation of having the best. Or if they have an extremely high turn over rate (where people get their stamp of approval and leave. Not being let go), then Google (or any company) can't maintain a high quality product. You need high quality people to develop high quality products. This is actually why Google (and other companies) have caved to employees concerns in the past. Because in reality it is good business practice to pay attention to your employees' ethical concerns.

GauntletWizard 8y ago
Google no longer has the management skill to see that. Edit: to be more precise: I'm not certain they ever did, or if they simply got lucky/stumbled their way through previous incidents.
mabbo 8y ago
The two lines you just quoted me on, did you read the part in between them? As I said: > you would think that there would be more than just a handful of Googlers quitting for ethical reasons over Dragonfly. But there aren't. The sad truth is, the thought of making just that little bit less money per year at another company (but still more than enough to live well), the thought of losing that status symbol of "Googler", that's enough that they're willing to accept that their work will support suppression of human rights. My point is that people are not quitting, will not quit, and Google has no real worries about an employee uprising. Because other than this guy and a handful of others, nobody is going to quit over this. Google leadership doesn't care. There's too much money for them to worry about ethics.

scarejunba 8y ago

True. Just like people working at Amazon can justify the conditions they impose on their warehouse employees. Or people at Boeing/Lockheed-Martin/Northrup-Grumman can rationalize their work despite it being aimed at killing people - not all of whom were about to cause harm. There's no way any of us would accept not being employed over principle like this when the harm is so far removed from us. This guy is an exception.

pmoriarty 8y ago
"Or people at Boeing/Lockheed-Martin/Northrup-Grumman can rationalize their work despite it being aimed at killing people - not all of whom were about to cause harm." The overwhelming majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians.
ironmagma 8y ago
It’s very different for a current employee versus a prospective employee, though. There are an unknowable number of people simply not applying to work at your company if you are engaging in unethical practices. I certainly know a few quality candidates who have knocked companies out of their pool of interest on morals alone.

manfredo 8y ago

Or alternatively, the employees have reasoned through the benefits and potential negatives of doing business in mainland China and have concluded that the benefits outweigh the negatives. How, exactly, does Dragonfly make the world a worse place? Sure, I'm opposed to censorship or policing citizens' interests. But there's no real indication that the censorship or surveillance is any worse than the existing search engines present in China. As far as that front is concerned, Google in China would be no worse than the status quo. The potential benefits are substantial. Google could be the first big tech player to break into what is usually seen as a walled off market. Over time economic ties could bring the countries closer together, and reduce the likelihood of conflict (this is the original rationale behind the EU, for example). As far a I can see, Dragonfly is not any worse than the status quo, and had potential benefits - and this is speaking from someone who had no incentive to see Google succeed. I don't work there nor do I own any stocks in the company.

fossuser 8y ago
Not worse than the status quo can still be something unethical to be involved in. If a government is currently using software to target, kidnap, and torture journalists and you supply them with new software that basically does the same thing then you're still complicit in the bad behavior. You're still responsible for your actions even if others would be willing to do it if you didn't. In China's case there's also a history of this rationalization that getting involved will help westernize the country, while there's some truth to this with their embrace of capitalism - the government is not trending in a good direction. Eliminating presidential term limits, deep packet inspection, social credit system, total/unrestricted surveillance. Western companies that operate there in a capacity larger than just manufacturing seem to just have their IP stolen and then a Chinese approved local company gets explicit government support. It's important to help citizens of countries where the people are more vulnerable - I'd argue it's irresponsible for a company to help an authoritarian government oppress its own people. It's not a question of whether or not it's legal, something can be legal and still be wrong.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> does Dragonfly make the world a worse place? Yes. It normalizes suppressing political speech that disagrees with the incumbent power. That flies in the face of values democracies hold dear. "Someone else would do it" isn't a valid excuse. If you're doing it, you're complicit. (Also, Google will do it better than almost anyone else. That a respected American technology giant will work with China's censorship regime gives the institution legitimacy.)

mda 8y ago

"And so that is why Google won't stop. Because there's no reason to." I completely disagree, look at what happened to project Maven.

throwawaymsft 8y ago

This is one of the most important reasons for FIRE / FU money. It's not about drinking martinis on a beach, it's about not having your values held hostage to economics.

harlanji 8y ago
I quit 2 jobs due to mistreatment and indeed, my old social network now sees me as a leper and I’ve been homeless for 6 months. This is what I want FU money for... never cared about having money before, thought skills and limitless attitude were enough.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  I think in some ways one of the saddest things I've come to observe in the world as I grow older is that human history was not just full of mistakes, but that people are basically still like that. Groups of people can still betray or harm other people for entirely stupid or even invented reasons and it happens all the time. It's really easy to not look at it if it never happens to you.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mattnewton 8y ago

Googler here; my opinions are my own. Not saying I have a position on dragonfly I would quit over, but several people in the company who do stay because they believe leadership is responsive to employee concerns and believe they can influence the direction here. I believe that personally as well. I certainly didn’t believe that about any other company I had worked at before.

mabbo 8y ago
> believe leadership is responsive to employee concerns and believe they can influence the direction here And that belief is great. But what happens if leadership does nothing? What if they do as they are currently doing and making excuses about it? They aren't currently saying there are any plans to change the course on this. Will those same people you mention leave when nothing changes in another year? I doubt it. As I said above: your friends want their free lunches, their high salary, their status-symbol job. They'll convince themselves leadership listened to them and will ignore that they didn't change anything. And lest you think I'm being an asshole about this because I'm not in the situation: I have quit a good job over ethical concerns before. Had meetings with senior leaders that I truly respect and said "this is wrong". They wouldn't budge so I walked. Got a job paying less money. Slept a lot better at night.
- mattnewton 8y ago
  Counterpoint: Project Maven is canceled and Google ended forced arbitration on harassment cases going forward. Employees have been heard before, and the product hasn’t launched yet. I think it’s premature to know these things about concerned Googlers.

obastani 8y ago

Google's original rational for exiting China was to protest suppression of information. Has it done anyone any good? China simply developed their own search technology in house to replace Google, but with censorship. By doing so, they strengthened their local tech talent, and now they might outsource the technology they developed to other regimes. If Google had developed this tech from the beginning, they may have been able to avoid letting this tech get into the hands of regimes even worse than China. Of course, we will never know the alternative outcome. And I appreciate the value of a company standing for moral principals even when it goes against practical considerations. But I think it is highly reductionist to suggest that yours is the only or "obvious" moral view on the situation.

nu2ycombinator 8y ago

I came here to post the exact same thing. :)

mcny 8y ago

> Now consider the rest of the world. The large majority of people for whom quitting for moral/ethical reasons means a significant risk of your kids going hungry. There is only one logical conclusion: don't have (any more) children. If you don't have children, consider not having any children. If you do, consider not having any more. If the society as a whole doesn't want to pay for the cost of raising a child, why should you grind your bones?