5 ms·

And will destroy the company in the process. They already sunk a large military contract and are setting their sights on AI in general. If Google accedes to al

And will destroy the company in the process. They already sunk a large military contract and are setting their sights on AI in general. If Google accedes to all the various pet issues of individuals working there then they won't have a business anymore. This is the risk of appeasement. Google (and every company for that matter) should try a new stance: If you fundamentally disagree with the areas and methods that our leadership has chosen for our business, then find a new place to work. Working for a company while using it as a staging ground for a coup against it is unacceptable.

urbanjunkie 7y ago
Actually it's not unacceptable. But hey, you're unimportant, and your views really don't matter.
adamsea 7y ago
IMHO AI ethics are a legitimate area of discussion, as should be any moral ethical issue w/regards to a business practice. And it sounds like Google is doing basically what you are saying.
ergothus 7y ago
I've always felt that it's good to let people know if you have a problem BEFORE ditching them. If they don't change, then I can leave with a clean conscience. Sometimes they decide to change, sometimes they don't. When they don't, sometimes they change after I leave, sometimes they don't. This is the normal back-and-forth between parties that won't always agree. I don't really see a reason to be upset at communication and get angry about "appeasement".
infinity0 7y ago
Perhaps they already tried to find a different company with better policies, but wasn't able to? There's a few of them around, but not that many of them. Are you the sort of person that tells people not to complain about the politics in your home country or to "move to China/North Korea if you don't like it here"? That would seem consistent with what you're saying.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  Seems a bit different. Google is not a democracy made up of the employees.
  - infinity0 7y ago
    Right, Google, China and North Korea, none of them are democracies. If you fundamentally disagree with their values, find a new place to live? Hey, at least it's possible to move to a democratic country, but a democratic corporation? Not that many of them around.
fzeroracer 7y ago
Would you agree with your own argument when it comes to say, illegal activities? Or how about if we were talking about Facebook instead of Google? Should people have zero insight into issues which could cost a company money or PR? Or should everyone expect to toe the line and simply follow the suits lockstep into hell?
- cloakandswagger 7y ago
  I think there's a clear difference between breaking the law and a personal moral objection to doing business with your country's military.
  - fwip 7y ago
    Is there? The US military violates international law when it commits war crimes.
crispyambulance 7y ago
> Google (and every company for that matter) should try a new stance... The "stance" you describe is not a new stance at all. It is a very old one-- as old as working-for-the-man itself. Perhaps it was pipe dream to actually believe the "don't be evil" pledge? Whatever the case, the outrage of the dissents does seem cloyingly naive and I find it difficult to feel sorry for them. Maybe it's time for people to learn that "mega-corps" aren't exactly the best place for idealists after all. It might be a good thing for google to shed some talent to the wind and see what comes of it. Who knows, it might lower housing cost and seed many more start-ups and small businesses with new people.
- repolfx 7y ago
  New stance for Google. As for "don't be evil" that became useless a long time ago, it was just an invitation for everyone to describe their pet hate as "evil" even when that was clearly over the top. When I worked there I routinely saw trivial things like reskins of Gmail be described as evil (because we're ignoring feedback from users who didn't like it!). The word became debased to the point that it was worthless to even have such a slogan. All the current issues are morally debatable at best, and simply not evil at worst. Even if you consider the US military hopelessly bloated, for example, is their view that the USA shouldn't have an army to defend itself at all? If not, why not, and how is it consistent with wanting Google to not be involved in such matters?
  - crispyambulance 7y ago
    I come to a similar conclusion as you but from an opposite side. It really is morally indefensible that Google provide technology for military drone warfare (for example). If someone working at Google finds that ghoulish, it is their responsibility to speak up about it and leave (or be fired) if that's what it comes down to. Lucky for them, they probably have plenty of job prospects and don't "need" Google. Similarly for the military, they're perfectly capable of funding and staffing their own research centers on novel ways to incinerate human beings. Does a surveillance capitalism platform really need to do that for them?
ben509 7y ago
Honestly, though, speaking as someone who had to use things made by military contractors, having people who object to the military working on them seems like a recipe for disaster. But that's a pretty small slice of Google's business. > Working for a company while using it as a staging ground for a coup against it is unacceptable. So what does unacceptable mean? Historically, coups like this happen to organizations all the time, to the point where conservatives consider it a fact of life.[1][2] It may be unacceptable now, but they'll just keep at it until their view becomes orthodoxy; it's more or less the point of liberalism. I'm also skeptical that the people in senior positions are that far from them ideologically; they simply have legal obligations to shareholders. Another notion of acceptability is whether a coup sinks the company in the meantime. But it's a risk either way, unless the complaints are entirely without merit, and that seems unlikely. Let's say Googlers who dispute this did quietly leave over these issues as you suggest. Google's incentives are structured perversely, the "user as product" business model is just ethically dysfunctional. Losing people who act as a check on bad behavior can thus compound these problems over time. If people then decide they've had enough (buoyed by a string of complaints from ex-Googlers) and go to Congress, that can also effectively sink the company. [1]: https://www.isegoria.net/2008/07/robert-conquests-three-laws-of-politics/ https://www.isegoria.net/2008/07/robert-conquests-three-laws... [2]: https://opc.org/OS/html/V5/1a.html https://opc.org/OS/html/V5/1a.html
- ergothus 7y ago
  > legal obligations to shareholders. I've heard this isn't nearly as true as current conventional wisdom would lead one to believe. (to your point, those in power may feel they MUST do certain things even if they don't have to). If so, push back is one of the ways to correct any deviation and move towards a balance.
  - ben509 7y ago
    Yeah, I abbreviated that point as I felt I was rambling and it's outside my expertise, but it's definitely more complicated than "we must make these profit numbers go up or go to jail."
Aunche 7y ago
To be fair, Google was the one that came up with "Don't be evil" in the first place. I'm sure that attracted a bunch of talented bright-eyed engineers with a black and white sense of morality. This helped them in the past, but they now have to live with the consequences of their narrative.
joejerryronnie 7y ago
Sure these activists can go work for a non-profit which supports their moral stances but who will pay for that $1.5 million dollar mortgage and new tesla in the driveway? I’m sorry but I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who spouts righteous indignation on the evils of big tech but has no problem cashing that fat big tech paycheck.
zorpner 7y ago
Working for a company while using it as a staging ground for a coup against it is unacceptable. You seem to have an internal inconsistency in your argument -- assuming that it has the potential to destroy the company, if one fundamentally disagrees with the areas and methods that the leadership has chosen, by far the most effective means of preventing those actions would seem to be using it as a staging ground for a coup.

urbanjunkie 7y ago

Actually it's not unacceptable. But hey, you're unimportant, and your views really don't matter.

adamsea 7y ago

IMHO AI ethics are a legitimate area of discussion, as should be any moral ethical issue w/regards to a business practice. And it sounds like Google is doing basically what you are saying.

ergothus 7y ago

I've always felt that it's good to let people know if you have a problem BEFORE ditching them. If they don't change, then I can leave with a clean conscience. Sometimes they decide to change, sometimes they don't. When they don't, sometimes they change after I leave, sometimes they don't. This is the normal back-and-forth between parties that won't always agree. I don't really see a reason to be upset at communication and get angry about "appeasement".

infinity0 7y ago

Perhaps they already tried to find a different company with better policies, but wasn't able to? There's a few of them around, but not that many of them. Are you the sort of person that tells people not to complain about the politics in your home country or to "move to China/North Korea if you don't like it here"? That would seem consistent with what you're saying.

jjeaff 7y ago
Seems a bit different. Google is not a democracy made up of the employees.
- infinity0 7y ago
  Right, Google, China and North Korea, none of them are democracies. If you fundamentally disagree with their values, find a new place to live? Hey, at least it's possible to move to a democratic country, but a democratic corporation? Not that many of them around.

fzeroracer 7y ago

Would you agree with your own argument when it comes to say, illegal activities? Or how about if we were talking about Facebook instead of Google? Should people have zero insight into issues which could cost a company money or PR? Or should everyone expect to toe the line and simply follow the suits lockstep into hell?

cloakandswagger 7y ago
I think there's a clear difference between breaking the law and a personal moral objection to doing business with your country's military.
- fwip 7y ago
  Is there? The US military violates international law when it commits war crimes.

crispyambulance 7y ago

> Google (and every company for that matter) should try a new stance... The "stance" you describe is not a new stance at all. It is a very old one-- as old as working-for-the-man itself. Perhaps it was pipe dream to actually believe the "don't be evil" pledge? Whatever the case, the outrage of the dissents does seem cloyingly naive and I find it difficult to feel sorry for them. Maybe it's time for people to learn that "mega-corps" aren't exactly the best place for idealists after all. It might be a good thing for google to shed some talent to the wind and see what comes of it. Who knows, it might lower housing cost and seed many more start-ups and small businesses with new people.

repolfx 7y ago
New stance for Google. As for "don't be evil" that became useless a long time ago, it was just an invitation for everyone to describe their pet hate as "evil" even when that was clearly over the top. When I worked there I routinely saw trivial things like reskins of Gmail be described as evil (because we're ignoring feedback from users who didn't like it!). The word became debased to the point that it was worthless to even have such a slogan. All the current issues are morally debatable at best, and simply not evil at worst. Even if you consider the US military hopelessly bloated, for example, is their view that the USA shouldn't have an army to defend itself at all? If not, why not, and how is it consistent with wanting Google to not be involved in such matters?
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  I come to a similar conclusion as you but from an opposite side. It really is morally indefensible that Google provide technology for military drone warfare (for example). If someone working at Google finds that ghoulish, it is their responsibility to speak up about it and leave (or be fired) if that's what it comes down to. Lucky for them, they probably have plenty of job prospects and don't "need" Google. Similarly for the military, they're perfectly capable of funding and staffing their own research centers on novel ways to incinerate human beings. Does a surveillance capitalism platform really need to do that for them?

ben509 7y ago

Honestly, though, speaking as someone who had to use things made by military contractors, having people who object to the military working on them seems like a recipe for disaster. But that's a pretty small slice of Google's business. > Working for a company while using it as a staging ground for a coup against it is unacceptable. So what does unacceptable mean? Historically, coups like this happen to organizations all the time, to the point where conservatives consider it a fact of life.[1][2] It may be unacceptable now, but they'll just keep at it until their view becomes orthodoxy; it's more or less the point of liberalism. I'm also skeptical that the people in senior positions are that far from them ideologically; they simply have legal obligations to shareholders. Another notion of acceptability is whether a coup sinks the company in the meantime. But it's a risk either way, unless the complaints are entirely without merit, and that seems unlikely. Let's say Googlers who dispute this did quietly leave over these issues as you suggest. Google's incentives are structured perversely, the "user as product" business model is just ethically dysfunctional. Losing people who act as a check on bad behavior can thus compound these problems over time. If people then decide they've had enough (buoyed by a string of complaints from ex-Googlers) and go to Congress, that can also effectively sink the company. [1]: https://www.isegoria.net/2008/07/robert-conquests-three-laws-of-politics/ https://www.isegoria.net/2008/07/robert-conquests-three-laws... [2]: https://opc.org/OS/html/V5/1a.html https://opc.org/OS/html/V5/1a.html

ergothus 7y ago
> legal obligations to shareholders. I've heard this isn't nearly as true as current conventional wisdom would lead one to believe. (to your point, those in power may feel they MUST do certain things even if they don't have to). If so, push back is one of the ways to correct any deviation and move towards a balance.
- ben509 7y ago
  Yeah, I abbreviated that point as I felt I was rambling and it's outside my expertise, but it's definitely more complicated than "we must make these profit numbers go up or go to jail."

Aunche 7y ago

To be fair, Google was the one that came up with "Don't be evil" in the first place. I'm sure that attracted a bunch of talented bright-eyed engineers with a black and white sense of morality. This helped them in the past, but they now have to live with the consequences of their narrative.

joejerryronnie 7y ago

Sure these activists can go work for a non-profit which supports their moral stances but who will pay for that $1.5 million dollar mortgage and new tesla in the driveway? I’m sorry but I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who spouts righteous indignation on the evils of big tech but has no problem cashing that fat big tech paycheck.

zorpner 7y ago

Working for a company while using it as a staging ground for a coup against it is unacceptable. You seem to have an internal inconsistency in your argument -- assuming that it has the potential to destroy the company, if one fundamentally disagrees with the areas and methods that the leadership has chosen, by far the most effective means of preventing those actions would seem to be using it as a staging ground for a coup.