10 ms·

Pushback from employees, human rights groups, and congress has already significantly set back the project. The fight has to continue, but I don't understand you

Pushback from employees, human rights groups, and congress has already significantly set back the project. The fight has to continue, but I don't understand your defeatism. Source: I publicly resigned from Google over dragonfly and dedicated months of my life and income to fighting it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jimmy1 8y ago
> but I don't understand your defeatism. > I publicly resigned from Google Because for every one that resigned, there are most likely hundreds that stay. I do admire your courage and willing to take a stand. In the face of an oppressive government like China I hope I would have the courage to do the same.
- MRD85 8y ago
  And tons that will be willing to replace them.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    Anyone who says "but others will do it instead" to excuse something they're doing is those other people. And someone doing something evil that I chose to not do doesn't actually replace me -- I'm still me, and I'm still glad to have made that choice.
    - defen 8y ago
      Indeed. People are morally responsible for what they actually do; not for their presumed actions in someone else's alternate reality.
    - thisisweirdok 8y ago
      I don't think anyone's using that excuse to justify working for Google, I think they're just saying that a small number of people quitting Google isn't nearly enough to stop them. Google employs at least 20k engineers. I'd be shocked if 100 quit over this news. Google could be murdering kittens to cool servers with their blood and you could probably find enough competent engineers to keep 10 Google's fully staffed. The vast majority of people do not give two shits.
      - PavlovsCat 8y ago
        An infinite number of people working for Google cannot stop me from not working for them. Which makes no difference to them and all the difference to me. Everybody dies anyway, nobody is remembered, or gets to keep anything; we can build what we want, end result is the same. The only brief moment of reality is our experience of the universe and the kind of life we lead, and if what you claim true for "the vast majority of people" was true, IMO that would just mean the vast majority are deeply sick and probably frightened shitless of death. That'd no doubt be very important for them, but how would it matter for me? Should I jump into their pool, to drown alongside them and make them feel better?
        netsec_burn 8y ago
        Wonderfully put.
        PavlovsCat 8y ago
        I'll take credit for stealing well from good people, but no more :) https://pastebin.com/gPgy648A https://pastebin.com/gPgy648A
        kortilla 8y ago
        You’re missing the point. It’s not about whether or not you can pat yourself on the back on your deathbed for not working for google. The point is that if we want to make a meaningful difference to stop google, it takes more action than inaction. All it takes is for a few good people to do nothing...
- idrios 8y ago
  Possibly, but American culture can actually be very good at taking collective action. In fact it can be so effective that often the way for special interest groups to push an agenda is to sway public opinion about a topic.
  - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
    public opinion is an illusion in a world shaped by minority interest groups. It doesn't matter if it's neocons pulling the strings or the neoliberals in power. The outcomes are devastatingly destructive policies to line the pockets of the 1% at the expense of nature and the rest of us. If we remember Occupy Wallstreet and look at how many people have been placed on lists, or how many protesters got hurt, in comparison with what the movement achieved, then it's proof that leaflet-campaigns achieve nothing. The bankers are still not held accountable a decade later and continue to collect fat bonuses all around the world. Peaceful protests aren't the solution. Anyone who reads history knows peaceful discourse has never triggered change when it mattered. Peaceful protests are just a lot of noise. Ranting on facebook or twitter unfortunately solves nothing. Real action is painful and people (often millions) die. That's the only time when change happened in the past. Denying this is wishful thinking (at best) and akin to white-washing history (at worst). "War on the planet" is happening as we speak. Yet all people do is talk while we're getting boiled like proverbial frogs. We rather engage in wishful thinking that tech / science (our new substitute religions) will solve these problems (what else to tell kids in their 20ies today?). The reality on how change can happen is bleaker. A whole spectrum of options are available - but none of them are peaceful. It essentially involves getting rid of at least 2/3 of the global population to give the planet a chance of recovery from humanities crimes against the planet. With the compounded damage from climate change and global dimming, even if the human population is reduced to 10K surviving individuals, it's still no guarantee that the planet survives in that case. So leaflet campaigns and peaceful discourse are laughable considering that all humans do in the face of these terrors is to engage in identity politics and fight for individual "rights" instead of talking about responsibilities. EDIT: clarity/typos
    - aaronbrethorst 8y ago
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  I for one refrain from what I consider evil for my own sake, not for the sake of whoever might perpetrate it instead of me. And I also think it's a misconception that being complicit with evil is safer than resisting it -- the instant gratification may be higher, but that is still invisibly small vs. the long tail of not giving in. I'd be too afraid to throw away what little innocence I may have, for nothing substantial in return. I'm not being idealistic at all, I simply cling to the solid ground I am on, and it's actually kinda easy to defend that against people who are on sand and their weapons made of smoke. Only I could make myself lose what I "have", just like I can't "give" it to anyone else. For me that's not the brave choice, it's the safer one.
chivas 8y ago
I'm wondering which part of dragonfly makes you so unhappy. Is it the censorship itself or the censorship without telling user about it?
- math_and_stuff 8y ago
  I am not okay with a company headquartered in a democratic country actively building tools to suppress political inquiry and organizing. To be clear, this included Google literally building a blacklist containing the terms 'human rights' and 'student protest' and ensuring that the Chinese Communist Party could track Chinese citizens' queries by their phone number.
  - stri8ed 8y ago
    Besides the implicit endorsement, does it really change anything on the ground? Existing search engines are already censored in China, and those that wish to bypass via VPN, can still do so after Google releases their censored version.
    - math_and_stuff 8y ago
      My primary motivation is fighting these types of capitulations becoming precedents. If an American tech company will willfully aid the CCP in preventing information on human rights from spreading and build tools for a nationwide dragnet, what would they ever stand up for?
    - prepend 8y ago
      This is such a weird argument when applied to other areas. “Does it really change anything on the ground? Someone else will make the ovens and gas chambers?” “Does it really change anything on the ground? Someone else will assassinate Archduke Ferdinand?” Etc. being morally opposed to something and trying to abstain from supporting it is not the same as campaigning against something’s existence. I wouldn’t work for a bomb company, but I’m not trying to shut down Lockheed Martin. There’s many different moral systems. Some people are trying to not make things worse. Others are doing different things. It’s ok that there are gradations.
o10449366 8y ago
I truly admire you for taking a stance and fighting for what you believe in. Figuring out what you can and can't stand for morally is a difficult task. I hope others can feel inspired by you to examine whether they can, in good conscience, continue to support Google. I am not advocating defeatism. I am simply trying to be realistic. It is a fact that within the tech community Google has always been given more leniency than their competitors, even when they're all guilty of the same crimes. The tech community assumes the best when it comes to Google and gives them the benefit of the doubt, even when they don't deserve it. Google's executives recognize this and have exploited this goodwill to further maximize their profit margins again and again, knowing that they can always quell any community outrage with empty promises to change and carefully crafted PR statements. Before it was Oracle, but now it's Facebook, Amazon, and Uber--As long as these companies exist, Google just needs to be the "lesser evil" and they'll always be excused. Real, meaningful change would require a paradigm shift in the tech community that simply isn't going to happen while they're still overwhelmingly viewed as the most desirable company to work at and people still believe the "don't be evil" nonsense. The Google Kool-Aid is real and the tech community is drowning in it.
- math_and_stuff 8y ago
  I completely agree that a paradigm shift is required. Thankfully, it seems we are in the middle of one. There is sustained momentum, from tech workers, the press, congress, human rights orgs, etc. to work together to hold them accountable. And we are already making huge impacts. And, if press over the last six months (especially the NYT Rubin expose) is any indicator, Google's management is no longer viewed as benevolent.
  - ajxs 8y ago
    I would contend that the naïveté that would allow someone to have ever seen Google's management as benevolent is that same naïveté that will ultimately allow these practices to continue with impunity.
  - thisisweirdok 8y ago
    It's not big enough or fast to stop Google in China.
sytelus 8y ago
I admire you courage but have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong on this? Probability that China would change anything because of lack of Google products is about zero. In fact, not having Google benefits them even more because now there is no one reviewing of any censorship rules. If Google is there (1) they can minimize censorship as much as possible by pushing back frequently (2) people in China benefits from access to much better search and subsequently gets better educated over time. Consider the fact that vast majority of search queries will not be affected by the censorship. Your actions are depriving billion+ people from these queries. Think of all the things kids could have found out about science and western literature by better search that they currently aren't. Finally, I would to leave a note on cultural aspects. Being in western world, we assume that every culture in the world wants democracy. We firmly believe that every culture resents censorship. From my contact with many asian folks, I have changed my assumptions and such belief. Chinese culture is fundamentally different. Government is not looked at some agency that people allowed to govern but rather an agency that is charted to protect culture even if it is at the expense of individualism. My theory is that even if Chinese government was toppled, the replacement would still have same characteristics because that is the expectation that people have from their government.
- math_and_stuff 8y ago
  As I stated in a comment questioning what possible impact this project could have: "My primary motivation is fighting these types of capitulations becoming precedents. If an American tech company will willfully aid the CCP in preventing information on human rights from spreading and build tools for a nationwide dragnet, what would they ever stand up for?" google.com exists and serves Chinese queries. If the Chinese Communist Party wants to continue blocking that because they don't like their citizens learning about human rights or Nobel prizes (yes, that is literally on the blacklist), then that is their option. But, for an American tech company to actively aid them for profit is a bridge too far. I refuse to help normalize what I now know to be a history of American tech companies committing human rights abuses in exchange for access to foreign funding (with Cisco's creation of a surveilance and torture-management system targeting the Falun Gong being a particularly disturbing example).
ajxs 8y ago
I wholeheartedly salute you. The individual willing to stand up for a principle at great personal expense is the kind of hero the world needs more of. While I admire your resolve, I can't help but feel pessimistic about the cause. My view formed by my own personal experience is that the average consumer is not even remotely interested in understanding the ethical implications of Google's various business practices, let alone taking an informed moral stance and adjusting their behaviour on its basis. Dragonfly is only the tip of the iceberg for me when it comes to Google's unethical behaviour, I've made a concerted effort to avoid allowing Google to earn money from my use of their products. Unfortunately, the masses are miles away from even being concerned about their own personal privacy, let alone being concerned over foreign tyranny. They'll continue using Google services, and google will be able to do largely as it wishes. Also, I'm stumped trying to think of an example of where a nation-state rectified their unethical behaviour on a moral basis alone. Picketing the Chinese government will not change things, nor will Google refusing to do business with them, unfortunately. We should still boycott companies who support such tyranny however.
- math_and_stuff 8y ago
  There are many different fronts to wage this fight on; changing consumer behavior is only one of them. Getting the project halted is important in its own right for the reason that it helps prevent the normalization of American tech companies actively aiding political oppression under the guise of abiding by 'local laws and regulations'. As I stated in a few comments down below: if we let American tech companies build custom tools to enable authoritarian governments in their political oppression, how could we possibly think they would stand up to protect something actually controversial, like a protester or a labor organizer?
  - marcus_holmes 8y ago
    I totally understand and support your stance. Total respect for resigning for idealistic reasons. But I have another point of view on the subject after having worked in SE Asia. I'm not trying to contradict anyone here, just give my (hopefully informed) opinion. There are no democracies in SE Asia. There are a couple of countries that pretend to democracy (Cambodia and the Philippines spring to mind), but even these are highly controlled, and elections are not "free" as we would understand the term. For most of SE Asia, it's worse than that, and any elections are a complete sham. E.g. Thailand, where a king and a military junta rule the country, and the elections are insignificant in terms of actual power. This situation is portrayed in western media as being a result of bad governments and oppressive regimes. But having lived there and talked to locals, it's more complicated than that. SE Asian culture (actually a whole set of diverse cultures, but they have this in common) have a large "power distance". This means they tolerate large amounts of differences in power levels between individuals. In practice, this means that they don't expect to be equal. There is a strong concept of karma between lives (you're born into the life you deserve based on your karma from previous lives) and a strong concept of community, respecting your elders, looking after your family, working together for the good of the whole group. Individuality is frowned on, truth is less important than respect (this one was hard to grok- it's better to tell your boss what they want to hear than to tell them the truth. It sounds like cowardice to us, but it's actually all about respect and social harmony). It's very hard for westerners to understand this culture. We come from a different set of base assumptions about life and how it should be lived. And SE Asians don't understand our assumptions either. This cultural gap plays into the efforts to make Asian democracies. It doesn't work like that there. Most of the efforts I've seen make no effort at all to understand the culture they're trying to change, and make a blanket assumption that western democracy is a one-size-fits-all best-practice method for governing a country. I thought that, too, until I actually went there and experienced it. Now I understand why democracy has never worked in SE Asia, and I understand why they like "strong" rulers, and I understand why free speech isn't important to them. I don't want to paint efforts to liberate SE Asia in such a bad light, but there is, still, a strong element of cultural imperialism here. The opinion the "West is Best" and that our democratic values are superior to the undemocratic values held by SE Asians is strong. There are organisations out there promoting western values who have no clue about the SE Asian values (and the ancient, strong cultures behind them) that they're trying to change. It's not coming from a place of understanding, but from assumed superiority. I have no idea if Google has spent the time to understand the Chinese market, but creating a search engine that doesn't return "sensitive" topics would be consistent with that kind of research. I get that it contradicts western ideals of free speech, but those values are less important there. Social harmony is more important. It sounds weird and wrong to us, and it would be if it was being implemented in a western country. But this ain't Kansas, and the rules are different.
bsder 8y ago
> Source: I publicly resigned from Google over dragonfly and dedicated months of my life and income to fighting it. Rather than fight it, wouldn't it have been more effective to try to replace it? A couple of really smart folks with some funding can found "NotGoogle, and actually not evil." Breaking Google's monopoly would do far more good than just taking on this single issue.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Rather than fight it, wouldn't it have been more effective to try to replace it? No, probably not, even if it would be more effective if you did actually replace it. > A couple of really smart folks with some funding can found "NotGoogle, and actually not evil." Isn't that the concept of DDF? > Breaking Google's monopoly would do far more good than just taking on this single issue. Perhaps. But if displacing Google were “easy” (like on the scale of “it would only take some of the best tech talent in the world and an enormous supply of capital”), the FAA and M of FAANGMAN, and some others, would each already have done it.
tssva 8y ago
Google already operates in multiple countries with histories of and ongoing human rights violations. What has triggered such a reaction from you about expansion into China vs their operation in say Saudi Arabia which was ongoing while you were at Google?
- hurr_durr 8y ago
  Funny how no one replied to this.
- math_and_stuff 8y ago
  I never saw the blacklist for the KSA. If I had seen something like what I saw for China, I'm sure I would have fought that too. I have spent about a month visiting a university in the KSA (once during the public flogging of Raif Badawi) and care very much about Google's concessions and complicity there.
JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
I know my words aren’t worth much, but this anonymous human on the internet is very proud of you for standing up for what is right.
- math_and_stuff 8y ago
  Thank you!
abacona 8y ago
as a new silicon valley engineer who is trying to work out his morals and boundaries, you are an inspiration to me your impact is larger than you think - thank you
pimmen 8y ago
What you've done is admirable. If more people were willing to value other human beings over their own comfort like you, the world would truly be a better place. You're a kind person. You'll probably be alright economically, but if you ever feel socially excluded for what you've done, remember that what you did was right.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jimmy1 8y ago

> but I don't understand your defeatism. > I publicly resigned from Google Because for every one that resigned, there are most likely hundreds that stay. I do admire your courage and willing to take a stand. In the face of an oppressive government like China I hope I would have the courage to do the same.

MRD85 8y ago
And tons that will be willing to replace them.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  Anyone who says "but others will do it instead" to excuse something they're doing is those other people. And someone doing something evil that I chose to not do doesn't actually replace me -- I'm still me, and I'm still glad to have made that choice.
  - defen 8y ago
    Indeed. People are morally responsible for what they actually do; not for their presumed actions in someone else's alternate reality.
  - thisisweirdok 8y ago
    I don't think anyone's using that excuse to justify working for Google, I think they're just saying that a small number of people quitting Google isn't nearly enough to stop them. Google employs at least 20k engineers. I'd be shocked if 100 quit over this news. Google could be murdering kittens to cool servers with their blood and you could probably find enough competent engineers to keep 10 Google's fully staffed. The vast majority of people do not give two shits.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      An infinite number of people working for Google cannot stop me from not working for them. Which makes no difference to them and all the difference to me. Everybody dies anyway, nobody is remembered, or gets to keep anything; we can build what we want, end result is the same. The only brief moment of reality is our experience of the universe and the kind of life we lead, and if what you claim true for "the vast majority of people" was true, IMO that would just mean the vast majority are deeply sick and probably frightened shitless of death. That'd no doubt be very important for them, but how would it matter for me? Should I jump into their pool, to drown alongside them and make them feel better?
      - netsec_burn 8y ago
        Wonderfully put.
        PavlovsCat 8y ago
        I'll take credit for stealing well from good people, but no more :) https://pastebin.com/gPgy648A https://pastebin.com/gPgy648A
      - kortilla 8y ago
        You’re missing the point. It’s not about whether or not you can pat yourself on the back on your deathbed for not working for google. The point is that if we want to make a meaningful difference to stop google, it takes more action than inaction. All it takes is for a few good people to do nothing...
idrios 8y ago
Possibly, but American culture can actually be very good at taking collective action. In fact it can be so effective that often the way for special interest groups to push an agenda is to sway public opinion about a topic.
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  public opinion is an illusion in a world shaped by minority interest groups. It doesn't matter if it's neocons pulling the strings or the neoliberals in power. The outcomes are devastatingly destructive policies to line the pockets of the 1% at the expense of nature and the rest of us. If we remember Occupy Wallstreet and look at how many people have been placed on lists, or how many protesters got hurt, in comparison with what the movement achieved, then it's proof that leaflet-campaigns achieve nothing. The bankers are still not held accountable a decade later and continue to collect fat bonuses all around the world. Peaceful protests aren't the solution. Anyone who reads history knows peaceful discourse has never triggered change when it mattered. Peaceful protests are just a lot of noise. Ranting on facebook or twitter unfortunately solves nothing. Real action is painful and people (often millions) die. That's the only time when change happened in the past. Denying this is wishful thinking (at best) and akin to white-washing history (at worst). "War on the planet" is happening as we speak. Yet all people do is talk while we're getting boiled like proverbial frogs. We rather engage in wishful thinking that tech / science (our new substitute religions) will solve these problems (what else to tell kids in their 20ies today?). The reality on how change can happen is bleaker. A whole spectrum of options are available - but none of them are peaceful. It essentially involves getting rid of at least 2/3 of the global population to give the planet a chance of recovery from humanities crimes against the planet. With the compounded damage from climate change and global dimming, even if the human population is reduced to 10K surviving individuals, it's still no guarantee that the planet survives in that case. So leaflet campaigns and peaceful discourse are laughable considering that all humans do in the face of these terrors is to engage in identity politics and fight for individual "rights" instead of talking about responsibilities. EDIT: clarity/typos
  - aaronbrethorst 8y ago
PavlovsCat 8y ago
I for one refrain from what I consider evil for my own sake, not for the sake of whoever might perpetrate it instead of me. And I also think it's a misconception that being complicit with evil is safer than resisting it -- the instant gratification may be higher, but that is still invisibly small vs. the long tail of not giving in. I'd be too afraid to throw away what little innocence I may have, for nothing substantial in return. I'm not being idealistic at all, I simply cling to the solid ground I am on, and it's actually kinda easy to defend that against people who are on sand and their weapons made of smoke. Only I could make myself lose what I "have", just like I can't "give" it to anyone else. For me that's not the brave choice, it's the safer one.

chivas 8y ago

I'm wondering which part of dragonfly makes you so unhappy. Is it the censorship itself or the censorship without telling user about it?

math_and_stuff 8y ago
I am not okay with a company headquartered in a democratic country actively building tools to suppress political inquiry and organizing. To be clear, this included Google literally building a blacklist containing the terms 'human rights' and 'student protest' and ensuring that the Chinese Communist Party could track Chinese citizens' queries by their phone number.
- stri8ed 8y ago
  Besides the implicit endorsement, does it really change anything on the ground? Existing search engines are already censored in China, and those that wish to bypass via VPN, can still do so after Google releases their censored version.
  - math_and_stuff 8y ago
    My primary motivation is fighting these types of capitulations becoming precedents. If an American tech company will willfully aid the CCP in preventing information on human rights from spreading and build tools for a nationwide dragnet, what would they ever stand up for?
  - prepend 8y ago
    This is such a weird argument when applied to other areas. “Does it really change anything on the ground? Someone else will make the ovens and gas chambers?” “Does it really change anything on the ground? Someone else will assassinate Archduke Ferdinand?” Etc. being morally opposed to something and trying to abstain from supporting it is not the same as campaigning against something’s existence. I wouldn’t work for a bomb company, but I’m not trying to shut down Lockheed Martin. There’s many different moral systems. Some people are trying to not make things worse. Others are doing different things. It’s ok that there are gradations.

o10449366 8y ago

I truly admire you for taking a stance and fighting for what you believe in. Figuring out what you can and can't stand for morally is a difficult task. I hope others can feel inspired by you to examine whether they can, in good conscience, continue to support Google. I am not advocating defeatism. I am simply trying to be realistic. It is a fact that within the tech community Google has always been given more leniency than their competitors, even when they're all guilty of the same crimes. The tech community assumes the best when it comes to Google and gives them the benefit of the doubt, even when they don't deserve it. Google's executives recognize this and have exploited this goodwill to further maximize their profit margins again and again, knowing that they can always quell any community outrage with empty promises to change and carefully crafted PR statements. Before it was Oracle, but now it's Facebook, Amazon, and Uber--As long as these companies exist, Google just needs to be the "lesser evil" and they'll always be excused. Real, meaningful change would require a paradigm shift in the tech community that simply isn't going to happen while they're still overwhelmingly viewed as the most desirable company to work at and people still believe the "don't be evil" nonsense. The Google Kool-Aid is real and the tech community is drowning in it.

math_and_stuff 8y ago
I completely agree that a paradigm shift is required. Thankfully, it seems we are in the middle of one. There is sustained momentum, from tech workers, the press, congress, human rights orgs, etc. to work together to hold them accountable. And we are already making huge impacts. And, if press over the last six months (especially the NYT Rubin expose) is any indicator, Google's management is no longer viewed as benevolent.
- ajxs 8y ago
  I would contend that the naïveté that would allow someone to have ever seen Google's management as benevolent is that same naïveté that will ultimately allow these practices to continue with impunity.
- thisisweirdok 8y ago
  It's not big enough or fast to stop Google in China.

sytelus 8y ago

I admire you courage but have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong on this? Probability that China would change anything because of lack of Google products is about zero. In fact, not having Google benefits them even more because now there is no one reviewing of any censorship rules. If Google is there (1) they can minimize censorship as much as possible by pushing back frequently (2) people in China benefits from access to much better search and subsequently gets better educated over time. Consider the fact that vast majority of search queries will not be affected by the censorship. Your actions are depriving billion+ people from these queries. Think of all the things kids could have found out about science and western literature by better search that they currently aren't. Finally, I would to leave a note on cultural aspects. Being in western world, we assume that every culture in the world wants democracy. We firmly believe that every culture resents censorship. From my contact with many asian folks, I have changed my assumptions and such belief. Chinese culture is fundamentally different. Government is not looked at some agency that people allowed to govern but rather an agency that is charted to protect culture even if it is at the expense of individualism. My theory is that even if Chinese government was toppled, the replacement would still have same characteristics because that is the expectation that people have from their government.

math_and_stuff 8y ago
As I stated in a comment questioning what possible impact this project could have: "My primary motivation is fighting these types of capitulations becoming precedents. If an American tech company will willfully aid the CCP in preventing information on human rights from spreading and build tools for a nationwide dragnet, what would they ever stand up for?" google.com exists and serves Chinese queries. If the Chinese Communist Party wants to continue blocking that because they don't like their citizens learning about human rights or Nobel prizes (yes, that is literally on the blacklist), then that is their option. But, for an American tech company to actively aid them for profit is a bridge too far. I refuse to help normalize what I now know to be a history of American tech companies committing human rights abuses in exchange for access to foreign funding (with Cisco's creation of a surveilance and torture-management system targeting the Falun Gong being a particularly disturbing example).

ajxs 8y ago

I wholeheartedly salute you. The individual willing to stand up for a principle at great personal expense is the kind of hero the world needs more of. While I admire your resolve, I can't help but feel pessimistic about the cause. My view formed by my own personal experience is that the average consumer is not even remotely interested in understanding the ethical implications of Google's various business practices, let alone taking an informed moral stance and adjusting their behaviour on its basis. Dragonfly is only the tip of the iceberg for me when it comes to Google's unethical behaviour, I've made a concerted effort to avoid allowing Google to earn money from my use of their products. Unfortunately, the masses are miles away from even being concerned about their own personal privacy, let alone being concerned over foreign tyranny. They'll continue using Google services, and google will be able to do largely as it wishes. Also, I'm stumped trying to think of an example of where a nation-state rectified their unethical behaviour on a moral basis alone. Picketing the Chinese government will not change things, nor will Google refusing to do business with them, unfortunately. We should still boycott companies who support such tyranny however.

math_and_stuff 8y ago
There are many different fronts to wage this fight on; changing consumer behavior is only one of them. Getting the project halted is important in its own right for the reason that it helps prevent the normalization of American tech companies actively aiding political oppression under the guise of abiding by 'local laws and regulations'. As I stated in a few comments down below: if we let American tech companies build custom tools to enable authoritarian governments in their political oppression, how could we possibly think they would stand up to protect something actually controversial, like a protester or a labor organizer?
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
  I totally understand and support your stance. Total respect for resigning for idealistic reasons. But I have another point of view on the subject after having worked in SE Asia. I'm not trying to contradict anyone here, just give my (hopefully informed) opinion. There are no democracies in SE Asia. There are a couple of countries that pretend to democracy (Cambodia and the Philippines spring to mind), but even these are highly controlled, and elections are not "free" as we would understand the term. For most of SE Asia, it's worse than that, and any elections are a complete sham. E.g. Thailand, where a king and a military junta rule the country, and the elections are insignificant in terms of actual power. This situation is portrayed in western media as being a result of bad governments and oppressive regimes. But having lived there and talked to locals, it's more complicated than that. SE Asian culture (actually a whole set of diverse cultures, but they have this in common) have a large "power distance". This means they tolerate large amounts of differences in power levels between individuals. In practice, this means that they don't expect to be equal. There is a strong concept of karma between lives (you're born into the life you deserve based on your karma from previous lives) and a strong concept of community, respecting your elders, looking after your family, working together for the good of the whole group. Individuality is frowned on, truth is less important than respect (this one was hard to grok- it's better to tell your boss what they want to hear than to tell them the truth. It sounds like cowardice to us, but it's actually all about respect and social harmony). It's very hard for westerners to understand this culture. We come from a different set of base assumptions about life and how it should be lived. And SE Asians don't understand our assumptions either. This cultural gap plays into the efforts to make Asian democracies. It doesn't work like that there. Most of the efforts I've seen make no effort at all to understand the culture they're trying to change, and make a blanket assumption that western democracy is a one-size-fits-all best-practice method for governing a country. I thought that, too, until I actually went there and experienced it. Now I understand why democracy has never worked in SE Asia, and I understand why they like "strong" rulers, and I understand why free speech isn't important to them. I don't want to paint efforts to liberate SE Asia in such a bad light, but there is, still, a strong element of cultural imperialism here. The opinion the "West is Best" and that our democratic values are superior to the undemocratic values held by SE Asians is strong. There are organisations out there promoting western values who have no clue about the SE Asian values (and the ancient, strong cultures behind them) that they're trying to change. It's not coming from a place of understanding, but from assumed superiority. I have no idea if Google has spent the time to understand the Chinese market, but creating a search engine that doesn't return "sensitive" topics would be consistent with that kind of research. I get that it contradicts western ideals of free speech, but those values are less important there. Social harmony is more important. It sounds weird and wrong to us, and it would be if it was being implemented in a western country. But this ain't Kansas, and the rules are different.

bsder 8y ago

> Source: I publicly resigned from Google over dragonfly and dedicated months of my life and income to fighting it. Rather than fight it, wouldn't it have been more effective to try to replace it? A couple of really smart folks with some funding can found "NotGoogle, and actually not evil." Breaking Google's monopoly would do far more good than just taking on this single issue.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Rather than fight it, wouldn't it have been more effective to try to replace it? No, probably not, even if it would be more effective if you did actually replace it. > A couple of really smart folks with some funding can found "NotGoogle, and actually not evil." Isn't that the concept of DDF? > Breaking Google's monopoly would do far more good than just taking on this single issue. Perhaps. But if displacing Google were “easy” (like on the scale of “it would only take some of the best tech talent in the world and an enormous supply of capital”), the FAA and M of FAANGMAN, and some others, would each already have done it.

tssva 8y ago

Google already operates in multiple countries with histories of and ongoing human rights violations. What has triggered such a reaction from you about expansion into China vs their operation in say Saudi Arabia which was ongoing while you were at Google?

hurr_durr 8y ago
Funny how no one replied to this.
math_and_stuff 8y ago
I never saw the blacklist for the KSA. If I had seen something like what I saw for China, I'm sure I would have fought that too. I have spent about a month visiting a university in the KSA (once during the public flogging of Raif Badawi) and care very much about Google's concessions and complicity there.

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

I know my words aren’t worth much, but this anonymous human on the internet is very proud of you for standing up for what is right.

math_and_stuff 8y ago
Thank you!

abacona 8y ago

as a new silicon valley engineer who is trying to work out his morals and boundaries, you are an inspiration to me your impact is larger than you think - thank you

pimmen 8y ago

What you've done is admirable. If more people were willing to value other human beings over their own comfort like you, the world would truly be a better place. You're a kind person. You'll probably be alright economically, but if you ever feel socially excluded for what you've done, remember that what you did was right.