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

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