4 ms·
> A person who is opposed to same-sex marriage has no place in a discussion of technical ethics. Following this logic you're saying that ~30% of the population
by Aqua 8y ago
> A person who is opposed to same-sex marriage has no place in a discussion of technical ethics.
Following this logic you're saying that ~30% of the population[0] is unworthy of discussing ethics. I find it amusing how Google has become hostage of its own employees in so many aspects. There already have been outrages when it comes to China censorship projects, military projects and now this. It gives Google a lot of bad publicity and I suppose it got out of control. If you think about it, no other company experiences employee revolt to the same degree as Google.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_mar...
- Traster 8y agoYou say they're hostage to their employees but they've actually appointed someone from the heritage foundation. Conservative politics basically has nothing to offer silicon valley. They don't represent them, they constantly vilify them and their employees as 'liberal coastal elites' and they literally don't have a policy agenda on the issue. Yet somehow they get invited in as a leader in this area. That sounds a lot more like Google is hostage to outside political interests than their employees' political interests.
- tzs 8y ago> Following this logic you're saying that ~30% of the population is unworthy of discussing ethics? I'm having trouble thinking of any unethical action that would not have a good chance of being approved by 30% of the population except perhaps where the unethical action would cause such widespread and apparent harm that it would directly affect a majority.