3 ms·

I wonder if the foundational idealism ("don't be evil") is acting more like a baggage. Look at Microsoft. There were dissenting voices in the company regarding

I wonder if the foundational idealism ("don't be evil") is acting more like a baggage. Look at Microsoft. There were dissenting voices in the company regarding their involvement with the military, but the CEO was blunt. "We made a principled decision that we’re not going to withhold technology from institutions that we have elected in democracies to protect the freedoms we enjoy” [1] On the other hand, Google had to back down [2]. I don't think this would work out for Google in the long term, that is, if they keep caving in to pressure from employees. Maybe trust erosion is inevitable if you're trying to pretend you're not just another profit-making corporation. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18240300/microsoft-ceo-defends-pentagon-contract-ar-headsets-employee-outcry https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18240300/microsoft-ceo-de... [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/01/google-to-drop-pentagon-ai-contract-after-employees-called-it-the-business-of-war/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/01...

dwoozle 7y ago
Microsoft has a less passionate employee base. They want to show up and get their check and go home to their families. Not as many single twenty somethings who take a lot of pride in being “Googlers” and care a lot about what that means.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  This is a dysfunction in Google’s culture, not Microsoft’s. Being a “member” of a company shouldn’t be akin to being a member of, say, a church.
Traster 7y ago
I'm actually quite impressed by that line from Microsoft, it's clear, well thought out, and communicates a simple moral principle that can be used to reason about their entire policy. It's also quite bold in that it clearly implies that it won't co-operate with non-democratic regimes on projects they think are wrong, which I'm sure is not a zero cost decision.
- praptak 7y ago
  I see it as one using weasel wording to sound principled while in fact it's not. In particular using "institutions we have elected to do X" instead of just "institutions that do X" steps around the question whether the institutions really do X. Which is, incidentally, the major concern of the opponents.

dwoozle 7y ago

Microsoft has a less passionate employee base. They want to show up and get their check and go home to their families. Not as many single twenty somethings who take a lot of pride in being “Googlers” and care a lot about what that means.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
goatinaboat 7y ago
This is a dysfunction in Google’s culture, not Microsoft’s. Being a “member” of a company shouldn’t be akin to being a member of, say, a church.

Traster 7y ago

I'm actually quite impressed by that line from Microsoft, it's clear, well thought out, and communicates a simple moral principle that can be used to reason about their entire policy. It's also quite bold in that it clearly implies that it won't co-operate with non-democratic regimes on projects they think are wrong, which I'm sure is not a zero cost decision.

praptak 7y ago
I see it as one using weasel wording to sound principled while in fact it's not. In particular using "institutions we have elected to do X" instead of just "institutions that do X" steps around the question whether the institutions really do X. Which is, incidentally, the major concern of the opponents.