21 ms·

Googlers Are Protesting Company’s Deals with Big Oil

288 points by yskchu 7y ago

buboard 7y ago
... and this is on top of their general shameless political activism. I wonder at what stage this kind of "using my company's big guns to bully what i don't like" is considered social terrorism? Google 's employees, smart as they may be, are not the representatives of the people. Yet they act as if their political power is legitimate
alexeiz 7y ago
Google is destroying itself from within. This is great news for competition.
SllX 7y ago
If Googlers want to shoot their own feet off, I’m not seeing a problem with that. This isn’t improving their image as a tech company, and all they are doing is creating gaps in the market for someone else to go in and fill. In the long run, Google will probably lose a lot of business if they continue to give in to these protests.
vinniejames 7y ago
If you give a mouse a cookie...
xyst 7y ago
Surprisingly these protests appear to work. Last summer, employees protested a multi-billion dollar contract with the DoD and was subsequently not renewed for 2019. Albeit, their efforts may have been wasted since the work will just be transferred to another company and internal leaks indicate the project will still leverage Google’s cloud service.
cletus 7y ago
I'm disappointed yet sadly not surprised that the current top comment here is a (so far successful) attempt to hijack and equate protests about Big Oil with AMP. AMP came about because mobile sites suck. My only beef is there weirdly doesn't seem to be an easy opt out (for the user or content producer). While that's less than ideal how can you possibly equate that with: - Environmental damage - Climate change - Developing AI to help the military better kill people with drones (a previous Googler protest) Like, what twisted world view would try and equate any of the above with AMP? If so, I seriously suggest you get over yourselves. I find that attitude entitled and, honestly, reprehensible. The other problem you see here is Whataboutism. Like, "oh sure, Big Oil hid research into the effects of fossil fuels on climate change but what about [my pet issue]?" Not everything has to be about everything. Not tackling every issue doesn't invalidate the protest against a particular issue. Whataboutism is what allowed the likes of Trump to get elected. Seriously. Disclaimer: Xoogler.
- whymauri 7y ago
  Thank you for being a reasonable person. I thought I was taking crazy pills when I saw that on top, dominating the discussion.
- finnthehuman 7y ago
  Google's actions might be orders of magnitude less evil than Big Oil's (and I don't see why they chose AMP as their example over a more salient point). But Google also has orders of magnitude more influence over Google's decisions than they do big oil's. It looks like they're repenting for their lack of self control at home by pushing their moral standards onto others at no direct cost to themselves. I'm just saying it feels incongruous to hear Googlers act moral about "big oil" while making their money maintaining humanity's largest surveillance system, ya know...?
jcims 7y ago
“Googlers” so more than 1?
- sem000 7y ago
  RTA?
josh_fyi 7y ago
No company can thrive when putting politics over profit.
- janpot 7y ago
  Those silly people, believing ethics are more important than pofit...
  - Reedx 7y ago
    That just doesn't compute. If they literally were about ethics > profits or maximizing good, they wouldn't be putting their time into a massively for-profit operation. Collecting large checks and internal perks galore. They'd be more attracted to a non-profit.
    - janpot 7y ago
      I believe your argument classifies as a "no true scotsman"[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    - lghh 7y ago
      Are there no ethical way to make a profit?
      - Reedx 7y ago
        There are. This is certainly not to say that profits are automatically unethical or anything. I just don't buy into the GP’s claim that they're putting ethics over profit.
      - Fnoord 7y ago
        Yes there are. Social enterprises do.
    - taneq 7y ago
      Contributing your (probably unskilled-at-what-you’re-doing ) labour directly at a non-profit is far less effective than working your skilled, high paying job and donating the money.
JohnClark1337 7y ago
More money for Microsoft and Amazon I guess
rapsey 7y ago
Google employees sure love to chip away at the branch they are standing on.
- ravenstine 7y ago
  Google should just call their bluff. The company isn't going to "cut carbon emissions entirely", and I'd bet that next to none of these employees would quit and toss away their fat paycheck over climate change. In the best case scenario, Google spends money to clean up their emissions and these same employees wonder why they're not seeing as big of pay raises.
  - sharemywin 7y ago
    They're not getting big pay raises because they don't understand what an S curve is.
  - ianmobbs 7y ago
    > I'd bet that next to none of these employees would quit and toss away their fat paycheck over climate change. So quitting is the only acceptable solution to disagreeing with your company? That'd ridiculous.
- gdulli 7y ago
  I don't think that's as useful an analogy when there's a million branches and it's easy to find another. Sure, in other industries people don't have the same luxury of speaking up.
- tharne 7y ago
  I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else. A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders, even if that means doing business with ICE, big oil, the military, etc. A CEO who continually turns away legitimate and legal business on moral grounds can be removed, and in some cases sued by the board of directors. If you have qualms with working for a large corporation whose primarily purpose is to maximize value and profit within the boundaries of the law, then you need to find a non-profit or privately held firm that's more aligned with your values and flourish there.
ahelwer 7y ago
Good! Employees should have a say in how their labor is used. Lotta people will say "if you don't like it, quit" but I've never understood this. Running away isn't the only course of action available. So let's be clear: those who say this are making an "ought" statement (if you don't like what a company is doing, you ought to quit and let them do what they want) rather than an "is" statement (if you don't like what a company is doing, the only thing you can do is quit). Really illuminates the belief underlying this sentiment: corporate power is not to be questioned.
- wj 7y ago
  Google isn't an employee-owned company but I imagine that they do own a decent amount of stock due to the compensation structure. Maybe they could use that as an avenue to have their voice heard?
  - brandmeyer 7y ago
    The structure of the company stock grants the founders 10x votes per share, about half of the shares owned by the public have 1x vote per share, and the other half have zero votes per share. Googler's stock compensation is entirely in the non-voting class. Furthermore, most employees convert their google shares into cash or reinvest it in the broader market as it vests instead of just being long GOOG.
- eej71 7y ago
  Ideally there is an even larger group of employees who _do_ support their labor being used in this fashion.
  - ahelwer 7y ago
    Maybe so, maybe so. The important thing is they're able to voice & instrument this desire in a material way rather than just rolling over.
    - eej71 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
xkde 7y ago
I haven’t seen this kind of activism since the 20th Century Motor Corporation.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
malvosenior 7y ago
I really wish we'd see Google employees protesting AMP or abusive search practices... There's so much Google is doing to directly damage the technology ecosystem. It seems silly to protest some customer's business when Google itself is generating a ton of protest worthy things. I don't care about Google employee's opinions on Big Oil or ICE but I absolutely care about their opinions on removing URLs from search results and hijacking link clicks. The latter is something they can and should fix as they created the problem in the first place.
- jayd16 7y ago
  They did shut down that China search engine Dragonfly so its not like its non-existent.
- stiray 7y ago
  I can only agree. It is like in our country where people are donating for "poor african children" by UNICEF while there are thousands of people living in 100 miles radious where they could help them much more efficiently by giving them food, shelter, even warm word, without half of their effort (money) sinking into endless pit of UNICEF organisation. Same thing here. Instead of fighting the fight where they could benefit whole internet by obstructing google, lets say it mildly, shady bussiness, they are fighting for some strange, far away couses with doubtfull results (or even - any results). Not saying it is worse than doing nothing but it is more like PR (company or personal) than anything else, somewhere close to: "let us talk, talking doesnt hurt and it doesnt change anything, so lets discuss some more".
  - davidcbc 7y ago
    While I, as a Googler, don't approve of every decision the company makes, I don't think any of them are going to cause a mass extinction event, so climate change is a higher priority for me.
- Yuval_Halevi 7y ago
  >I don't care about Google employee's opinions on Big Oil or ICE but I absolutely care about their opinions on removing URLs from search results and hijacking link clicks. The latter is something they can and should fix as they created the problem in the first place. Such a contervetional saying, but I get what you mean. They have more authority in their niche so they should fight for rights in something they are expert at. But I do think that the fact Google employees are protesting against the company deal with Big Oild is good because it generates a lot of PR and awareness around the subject, Exactly like how Blizzard cause the situation in HK to be x10 more viral
discard0984 7y ago
Ex-Googler here. Google's insane appetite for growth already has it past the point where its principles are going out the window. Those go quietly, one by one, souls sold a nickel at a time, and with lots of self-deception and lies to the contrary. The culture is diluted with new people who do not share it, and when any group grows at 20% YoY, its culture won't last more than a couple years. Now at Google, senior leadership is more concerned with making that 23% YoY revenue bump than literally anything else. Along the way it just accidentally created a huge surveillance network that outclasses most of the world's intelligence services. Whoops. Vote with your feet, not with your stomach. Google doesn't give a flying crap about technology except as a means to more power and money.
throwaway4284 7y ago
Someone should do a story about all us Googlers who are sick of the politics. You won’t see protests, open letters and stories in the media about it, because most of us are afraid of the outrage and call-out culture negatively impacting our careers. However, it’s a common topic among like-minded people in informal conversations.
- jasonlotito 7y ago
  > Someone should do a story about all us Googlers who are sick of the politics. So you are sick of politics... > it’s a common topic among like-minded people in informal conversations. but it's a common topic. I think the real reason you are sick of politics is because you don't agree with the politics being discussed, not politics. The reason you don't talk about politics isn't being you are sick of it, but because "most of us are afraid of the outrage and call-out culture negatively impacting our careers." Even in a throwaway account, you can't be honest with yourself. Are you really sick of politics, or are you just sick of other people's politics? What are you really trying to say. Your comment goes back and forth and it not clear. It's a throwaway account, so maybe you can actually say what you mean?
- mmmeff 7y ago
  Please, interview a few folks and write a piece and mail it to a bunch of publications. Something might stick somewhere.
- Reedx 7y ago
  I suspect we'll see companies starting to avoid hiring people who've made politics their religion. I'd be surprised if Google isn't already trying to take steps in that direction.
  - faizshah 7y ago
    I suspect when companies start doing that you’ll see more people in our industry avoiding these unethical companies. It’s a fact that young people are demanding more ethical workplaces, even finance is adapting to the new labour market.
nabla9 7y ago
(for the benefit of those who take title seriously) They are not protesting, they made a request and wrote a letter asking for release a company-wide climate plan that commits to cutting carbon emissions entirely. I think their suggestion that Google stops voluntarily selling their services for oil companies is wrong way to approach the situation. Only reducing the global demand for oil puts oil business out of business. In some cases a boycott is just a tax for good ethics. If the boycott is indirect subsidy for those who don't care, it does not work.
nexuist 7y ago
Two questions here. One, it is my understanding that most plastic is made directly from oil. If we dropped fossil fuels tomorrow and stopped extracting oil for energy production reasons...wouldn't we still need oil companies to manufacture plastic? I understand there are growing movements to reduce plastic usage as well, but I also think there would be construction niches that only plastic can serve (say, car bumpers). Is the next move synthetic plastic and then we can say goodbye to oil forever? Second, in response to this quote: > “If Google is going to confront its share of responsibility for the climate crisis, that means not helping oil and gas companies extract fossil fuels,” Ike McCreery, an engineer in Google’s cloud division You know that saying, if you're going to do a job, do it right? This is my problem with these tech deal protests. The purpose of all technology is to make work more efficient and more correct. If we deny access to technology for political reasons, aren't we making the problem worse by making it easier for these companies or orgs to make mistakes? For example, imagine if ocean mapping companies denied data requests by oil rig operators. Chances are they're still going to drill (because shareholders demand it), but now they'll be in the dark and the odds of an uncontrollable spill happening shoot up. Similarly, if ICE is denied tech access, it severely harms the good parts of the org (human trafficking / child exploitation prevention, catching violent illegal immigrants). It is possible for an organization, especially at the scale of a government agency, to do both good and bad at the same time. Hell, I'm sure even Googlers have similar thoughts about certain teams within Google itself. I'm sure that losing GitHub access won't hurt ICE that much, and losing Google Cloud is just a bump in the road for oil companies, but the end goal of these protests is to get as many service providers on board as possible. While it is every company's right to choose its customers, there seems to be a common theme among tech protests that we are only doing harm. The article quotes Google Anthos as one of the services provided in the contract. From a quick glance Anthos appears to be some sort of glorified Kubernetes thing. I hope it is not controversial to state that Kubernetes can be used for both good and evil. It is a containerization platform, not a moral arbiter. > “It’s devastating to think the infrastructure I’ve helped build over the last five years would be used to help incarcerate climate refugees,” they said. Again, it cannot be that black or white. The same software that manages prisons can also manage orphanages and homeless shelters. You can use an Excel sheet for a lottery...or genocide. The only way we can stop bad things from happening for sure is to vote. Cancelling contracts will not deter bad actors as long as they can hire someone else to do the same work, and even if every company in the Western world declines a contract on moral ground (which they are privileged to do, given they make enough money to actually get a say in what contracts to take), there are hundreds of thousands of companies in the 3rd world that will do anything for the same contract. I mean, there was an article about a Polish troll farm on the front page of HN just yesterday. Do you think a simple protest will stop them? Here's a thought: Google is one of the richest companies in the world. They could donate $10 million to every politician in Congress right now if they vow to vote yes on legislation banning fossil fuels entirely. $10M would be enough to live comfortably till the end of your days, Big Oil lobbyists and Fox News positions be damned. For a measly $5B Google could end climate destruction tomorrow. Bribery is legal in the U.S. through lobbying. Why do we only let bad actors use it? We have trillion dollar companies with heavy liberal bases and they still donate to Republicans! I don't think these Googlers are wrong to protest these contracts, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that their time would be better spent trying to buy off the Federal government and instituting wide scale regulations that would kill every oil company immediately, rather than trying to cut out a few contracts. Gotta start small though, I know.
Traster 7y ago
People are talking about the sort of general idea of politics vs profit, but actually I don't think that's the issue. There are tonnes of companies that are political. The problem is that Google doesn't have a coherent approach to their political position. Frankly, I think this is a self-created problem by talking way too much about politics and encouraging people to bring their politics to work, but taking very little action to actually respond to their employees. Rather than taking the hint that Google were just all-talk, employees decided they were going to force Google to take action and now there are literally no guard rails around what is a political issue and what isn't and what is up for debate and what isn't. How long is it before some Google employee starts kicking up a fuss about the ethical issues surrounding Google's core business?
- vertex-four 7y ago
  "I will accept any business that comes my way, no matter what" is a political position, and not neutral.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  ” How long is it before some Google employee starts kicking up a fuss about the ethical issues surrounding Google's core business?” I for one am super excited for this being the case. I want people to protest the privacy invasions and anti-open-web initiatives.
- mindslight 7y ago
  It's deeper than that. Two decades ago, Google didn't exist. A decade ago, they were still touting "Don't be evil" with most people believing them. Many companies are openly evil to a degree, but there is generally a strong self-selection at work - if one isn't keen on blowing up kids in far off lands, then one does not even send a resume to Raytheon! But Google simply hasn't been around long enough in their unabashed-Skynet state for this to have had an effect. So instead we've got a contingent that signed up thinking they were "disrupting" the status quo to make the world better, yet now find themselves at the center of the modern surveillance and control apparatus. And so that cognitive dissonance comes crashing down in different ways, one of them being trying to change the company into what they thought it was.
there_the_and 7y ago
[deleted]
- Kiro 7y ago
  Comments like these are the reason we never see Google employees openly post here anymore. We used to get comments directly from the source whenever Google released something new.
  - meddlepal 7y ago
    They post on Blind now.
  - Shivetya 7y ago
    No, they post here but anonymous to hide from their own coworkers and possibly management. while some posts here may be hostile to their point of view they cannot directly affect their job like being identified by those who sjw at work.
arnvald 7y ago
Man, the comments here are depressing. So much cynicism in one place. Workers protests have been successful in the past (guess why you work 8h a day and have 2-day weekends?). I don't see why you criticise the employees that try to make their company better. They don't need to and don't have to threaten they'll quit, they don't have to leave for non-profits. They can protest from within the company and try to make it better. Quitting is not the only way company can feel there's a problem. Lower morale of the team, fewer new ideas and initiatives coming from employees - these are visible things, and can make a change. How big a change? How successful change? I don't know, but I support the fact that people are trying. Even if they still get their salaries and still work at Google.
- gimmeThaBeet 7y ago
  Call me cynical every day of the week and twice on sundays, I'm critical because at this point, a letter doesn't feel like they are taking much ownership of the issue. People wanted those benefits for themselves, and there's little question of trying to reap benefits for one's self and then push the potential downsides elsewhere. I realize climate change is a broad societal issue that does indeed heavily involve externalizing costs to society, but I think it's difficult to dispute that the ideal scenario would have no impact on them, and when it comes to Google's business and other employees, the outcomes probably slant negative. Are there employees who don't mind working with energy companies? Are there people who explicitly don't want to limit Google's customer base? Do they make Google worse? Should we be critical of them?
- rapsey 7y ago
  > I don't see why you criticise the employees that try to make their company better. “better” is an entirely relative term.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Closer to perfection nonetheless.
    - dgudkov 7y ago
cascom 7y ago
It’s always easier to think someone else should do something [that won’t really affect you personally] so that you feel good about yourself vs taking the hard actions involved in making changes yourself. In this case wanting their employer to do something - safe in the knowledge that google is so big it won’t show up in their paycheck. I would be shocked to learn (and this is conjecture on my part) that the typical google employee leads a truly low carbon lifestyle (petrochemical, electricity, transportation included)
- ahelwer 7y ago
  I highly doubt that Google employees, who earn in the top 10% of incomes in one of the highest-per-capita emissions countries in the world, have a low carbon lifestyle by any standards.
duxup 7y ago
How many? We hear these stories all the time and I'm not sure "googlers are protesting" means 10 or 10,000 employees. We've seen googler's post here indicate that various employee initiatives have varying levels of support but as far as media reports go they report them all the same.
- mmcconnell1618 7y ago
  The petition was signed by about 1,100 Googlers (from the article). Google has well over 100,000 full time employees so the number who signed represent around 1%
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  100% agreed. There are something like 100k people who could be considered "googlers". You can find 100 or even 1000 people who believe in anything.
RockmanX 7y ago
come on, all these "googlers protesting google" dramas are made by google itself for promotion.
obayesshelton 7y ago
So I guess when they sell their shares in Google, they will be donating that money to climate change...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
flyGuyOnTheSly 7y ago
Factories used to position immigrant workers who spoke different languages beside each other so that they would not congregate and organize. Not quite the same when you have thousands of highly intelligent people all speaking the same language, in the same building, connected to the world's fastest messaging system. We will only see more of this, and I am happy for that.
noetic_techy 7y ago
You will eventually simply end up with a bifurcated system with Tech companies that will do business with certain companies associated with one side of the aisle, and other who will not. The money is already moving in that direction. Rupert Murdock often quipped that he started Fox News to serve a niche market: half the country (US). Wait until you have the Fox News equivalent of Google and Facebook and Twitter, willing to serve the Pentagon and Oil Companies and the other half of the country. Careful what you wish for.
- tharne 7y ago
  You're 100% right, and we already have those companies. See Palantir.
Trias11 7y ago
How many of these 1,100 workers are helping big oil companies themselves by regularly filling their own car tanks with gas?
- ahelwer 7y ago
  Are we still doing this? https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha
  - ng12 7y ago
    Doesn't really apply. Oil companies exist because we buy oil -- both directly (fueling our cars) and indirectly (buying produce shipped from South America or clothing shipped from India). Saying "oil companies shouldn't have good IT solutions" doesn't really help anything.
    - ahelwer 7y ago
      It does, though. Refusing to assist with the destruction of our planet slows down the destruction of our planet. Why would I want to work to make these companies more effective?
      - ng12 7y ago
        Because when they're ineffective oil gets spilled. We have a vested interest in oil being produced as cleanly and effectively as possible until we can lessen our dependence on it. Furthermore, the OPEC countries don't care at all and will happily sell you oil at a nice markup if Shell and Exxon can't.
        ahelwer 7y ago
        This is the same argument in favor of building oil pipelines, because they spill less oil per mile than trucks or trains. It ignores second-order effects that is, since it's cheaper for the oil companies to operate, they'll produce even more oil than they otherwise would have. And we want them to produce less oil. Preferably none.
badrabbit 7y ago
Ffs, what a clueless bunch. Why do they have to bundle all their complaints and make it us vs. Them?? So now if you dislike ICE you have to dislike big oil also? And vice versa? What's next? Google should not do business with Chickfila because their employees dislike the ceo? I mean I dislike google so the worse business risk with google. gets the bettet I say. I am just afraid I will be put into a position where I either support lgbtq+climate change+blacklives matter+anti-china+anti-russia to use any tech service in the west or I learn chinese or russian and use their services. I mean, why are they so intolerant of anyone who does not conform to their very specific set of ideology and world view? They're worse than the people they fight. You can be lgbtq and work at chickfila just fine,you can be for green energy and work for ice,you can be against ICE and big oil will do business with you. No matter how correct they think they are,they cause more problems than solutions. This is why otherwise sane people are trump supporters,because to support the alternative you have to conform to this long list of ideological views. Only intellectual cowards who can't be bothered to patiently discuss their views with their peers corner people into picking between two extremes -- where deviance is met with hostility. I refuse to accept any view or movement where I have to surrender critical thinking and be either for the movement or against it. Now big oil has to band together with ICE? Good job on uniting your enemies against you! I can't accept any result from people like this. Ends don't justify means and freedom to think and disagree is very important.
ThomPete 7y ago
The very companies and resource that made their job possible.
m23khan 7y ago
All I hope for is Google to settle this amicably with the discontented employees and at same time not upset their clients. Because, actions in both extreme would set a bad precedent for a tech giant like Google: Extreme 1 - Fire the employees or serve them notice to shut up. Extreme 2 - End contracts / don't sell further to big oil companies. In process, lose out vast sums of money and forever shut yourself out from the industry even if they discovered something called 'clean, sustainable oil' in future.
kyrieeschaton 7y ago
This is what happens when you have a couple products that make approximately one hundred percent of your revenue on auto-pilot, and everything else is just hazy synergy plays. People find ways to entertain themselves.
dj_powerpoint 7y ago
I'm confused about the timing of events. Ike McCreery, who is quoted in this article, hasn't worked at Google since 2016 (http://blog.robotswithhearts.org/2016/07/11/my-decision-to-leave-google.html http://blog.robotswithhearts.org/2016/07/11/my-decision-to-l...).
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
The AWS and Azure sales people are giddy with joy right now. If Google does not strongly repudiate the protest, Google Cloud is saying that Defense companies, Oil and gas companies, and Car companies (except Tesla) are unwelcome on Google Cloud. If you look at the largest companies by revenue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by... these types of companies make up a large proportion. In addition, other companies such as Big Pharma, Health Insurance and Big Banks which are unpopular with the left would also be worried about when they would be the focus of a new protest.
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  News alert: choosing not to do evil is not always compatible with maximizing profit.
  - edanm 7y ago
    > News alert: choosing not to do evil is not always compatible with maximizing profit. I am so sick and tired of this attitude. In what world is working with the military / defense contractors evil? Do people really believe that the military is inherently evil? Is there literally no regard to history, or the fact that not having a military is basically tantamount to allowing other countries to do whatever they want with you?
- antpls 7y ago
  If Google bans Defense and Oil companies from its cloud, I would consider buying some GOOGL stocks, actually. Or use Google Cloud.
m0zg 7y ago
This is so dumb, I have no words. Google has the cleanest energy mix in the cloud business, and the strongest carbon neutrality commitments. If anything, their participation in these contracts will only reduce the carbon footprint compared to the alternatives. They're also not the only cloud provider, so if they don't go for it, Amazon or MS will be quite happy to oblige, spewing tons more CO2 into the atmosphere.
084537 7y ago
If you work for Google, the most effective thing you can do to fight evil IMHO is to stop working for Google. Stop helping Google create ever more refined digital portfolios on every internet user. Google does not intend for their digital portfolios to fall into the hands of the US Government, but if the US Government ever becomes significantly undemocratic, Google cannot stop that from happening -- and Google's management knows that or would know it if they would spend 5 consecutive minutes being genuinely curious about it. Stop helping Google turn the web into an ever more refined machine for extracting money from web users while continuing to make the web less well-suited for important purposes it was originally well-suited for: namely the publication of textual and simple graphical information not motivated by profit. (The money flows from users of the web to organizations that use Google to advertise, then to Google.)
Starkus 7y ago
Google censors and manipulates their search engine and are an enemy to free flow of information.
cgb223 7y ago
Wait until they start protesting companies that do mass surveillance and data collection...
neonate 7y ago
http://archive.is/IhGTh http://archive.is/IhGTh
whatitdobooboo 7y ago
I think there's something weird about relying on corporations to be judges on other companies. I'm not trying to defend big oil, but I think the focus should be on more scrutiny on how government and other institutions deal with it. If googlers wants to actually change things maybe they should develop ways to monitor these agreements. There is a sense of arrogance in believing that (in this case googlers) know the best course of action on every issue - especially when they are unelected
maxlamb 7y ago
I see these Googler's point of view, but if Google refuses to have contracts with big oil, won't these companies just find another tech company to provide services for them? How is that going to help fight climate change? Wouldn't it be more effective for Google to still have deals with them but pledge that all net profits from those deals will go towards Alphabet's renewable energy projects?
rajivjain 7y ago
What’s next, big oil employees railing against sale of oil to big tech? Where does it all end?

288 points by yskchu 7y ago

... and this is on top of their general shameless political activism. I wonder at what stage this kind of "using my company's big guns to bully what i don't like" is considered social terrorism? Google 's employees, smart as they may be, are not the representatives of the people. Yet they act as if their political power is legitimate

alexeiz 7y ago

Google is destroying itself from within. This is great news for competition.

SllX 7y ago

If Googlers want to shoot their own feet off, I’m not seeing a problem with that. This isn’t improving their image as a tech company, and all they are doing is creating gaps in the market for someone else to go in and fill. In the long run, Google will probably lose a lot of business if they continue to give in to these protests.

vinniejames 7y ago

If you give a mouse a cookie...

xyst 7y ago

Surprisingly these protests appear to work. Last summer, employees protested a multi-billion dollar contract with the DoD and was subsequently not renewed for 2019. Albeit, their efforts may have been wasted since the work will just be transferred to another company and internal leaks indicate the project will still leverage Google’s cloud service.

cletus 7y ago

I'm disappointed yet sadly not surprised that the current top comment here is a (so far successful) attempt to hijack and equate protests about Big Oil with AMP. AMP came about because mobile sites suck. My only beef is there weirdly doesn't seem to be an easy opt out (for the user or content producer). While that's less than ideal how can you possibly equate that with: - Environmental damage - Climate change - Developing AI to help the military better kill people with drones (a previous Googler protest) Like, what twisted world view would try and equate any of the above with AMP? If so, I seriously suggest you get over yourselves. I find that attitude entitled and, honestly, reprehensible. The other problem you see here is Whataboutism. Like, "oh sure, Big Oil hid research into the effects of fossil fuels on climate change but what about [my pet issue]?" Not everything has to be about everything. Not tackling every issue doesn't invalidate the protest against a particular issue. Whataboutism is what allowed the likes of Trump to get elected. Seriously. Disclaimer: Xoogler.

whymauri 7y ago
Thank you for being a reasonable person. I thought I was taking crazy pills when I saw that on top, dominating the discussion.
finnthehuman 7y ago
Google's actions might be orders of magnitude less evil than Big Oil's (and I don't see why they chose AMP as their example over a more salient point). But Google also has orders of magnitude more influence over Google's decisions than they do big oil's. It looks like they're repenting for their lack of self control at home by pushing their moral standards onto others at no direct cost to themselves. I'm just saying it feels incongruous to hear Googlers act moral about "big oil" while making their money maintaining humanity's largest surveillance system, ya know...?

jcims 7y ago

“Googlers” so more than 1?

sem000 7y ago
RTA?

josh_fyi 7y ago

No company can thrive when putting politics over profit.

janpot 7y ago
Those silly people, believing ethics are more important than pofit...
- Reedx 7y ago
  That just doesn't compute. If they literally were about ethics > profits or maximizing good, they wouldn't be putting their time into a massively for-profit operation. Collecting large checks and internal perks galore. They'd be more attracted to a non-profit.
  - janpot 7y ago
    I believe your argument classifies as a "no true scotsman"[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
  - lghh 7y ago
    Are there no ethical way to make a profit?
    - Reedx 7y ago
      There are. This is certainly not to say that profits are automatically unethical or anything. I just don't buy into the GP’s claim that they're putting ethics over profit.
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      Yes there are. Social enterprises do.
  - taneq 7y ago
    Contributing your (probably unskilled-at-what-you’re-doing ) labour directly at a non-profit is far less effective than working your skilled, high paying job and donating the money.

JohnClark1337 7y ago

More money for Microsoft and Amazon I guess

rapsey 7y ago

Google employees sure love to chip away at the branch they are standing on.

ravenstine 7y ago
Google should just call their bluff. The company isn't going to "cut carbon emissions entirely", and I'd bet that next to none of these employees would quit and toss away their fat paycheck over climate change. In the best case scenario, Google spends money to clean up their emissions and these same employees wonder why they're not seeing as big of pay raises.
- sharemywin 7y ago
  They're not getting big pay raises because they don't understand what an S curve is.
- ianmobbs 7y ago
  > I'd bet that next to none of these employees would quit and toss away their fat paycheck over climate change. So quitting is the only acceptable solution to disagreeing with your company? That'd ridiculous.
gdulli 7y ago
I don't think that's as useful an analogy when there's a million branches and it's easy to find another. Sure, in other industries people don't have the same luxury of speaking up.
tharne 7y ago
I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else. A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders, even if that means doing business with ICE, big oil, the military, etc. A CEO who continually turns away legitimate and legal business on moral grounds can be removed, and in some cases sued by the board of directors. If you have qualms with working for a large corporation whose primarily purpose is to maximize value and profit within the boundaries of the law, then you need to find a non-profit or privately held firm that's more aligned with your values and flourish there.

ahelwer 7y ago

Good! Employees should have a say in how their labor is used. Lotta people will say "if you don't like it, quit" but I've never understood this. Running away isn't the only course of action available. So let's be clear: those who say this are making an "ought" statement (if you don't like what a company is doing, you ought to quit and let them do what they want) rather than an "is" statement (if you don't like what a company is doing, the only thing you can do is quit). Really illuminates the belief underlying this sentiment: corporate power is not to be questioned.

wj 7y ago
Google isn't an employee-owned company but I imagine that they do own a decent amount of stock due to the compensation structure. Maybe they could use that as an avenue to have their voice heard?
- brandmeyer 7y ago
  The structure of the company stock grants the founders 10x votes per share, about half of the shares owned by the public have 1x vote per share, and the other half have zero votes per share. Googler's stock compensation is entirely in the non-voting class. Furthermore, most employees convert their google shares into cash or reinvest it in the broader market as it vests instead of just being long GOOG.
eej71 7y ago
Ideally there is an even larger group of employees who _do_ support their labor being used in this fashion.
- ahelwer 7y ago
  Maybe so, maybe so. The important thing is they're able to voice & instrument this desire in a material way rather than just rolling over.
  - eej71 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

xkde 7y ago

I haven’t seen this kind of activism since the 20th Century Motor Corporation.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

malvosenior 7y ago

I really wish we'd see Google employees protesting AMP or abusive search practices... There's so much Google is doing to directly damage the technology ecosystem. It seems silly to protest some customer's business when Google itself is generating a ton of protest worthy things. I don't care about Google employee's opinions on Big Oil or ICE but I absolutely care about their opinions on removing URLs from search results and hijacking link clicks. The latter is something they can and should fix as they created the problem in the first place.

jayd16 7y ago
They did shut down that China search engine Dragonfly so its not like its non-existent.
stiray 7y ago
I can only agree. It is like in our country where people are donating for "poor african children" by UNICEF while there are thousands of people living in 100 miles radious where they could help them much more efficiently by giving them food, shelter, even warm word, without half of their effort (money) sinking into endless pit of UNICEF organisation. Same thing here. Instead of fighting the fight where they could benefit whole internet by obstructing google, lets say it mildly, shady bussiness, they are fighting for some strange, far away couses with doubtfull results (or even - any results). Not saying it is worse than doing nothing but it is more like PR (company or personal) than anything else, somewhere close to: "let us talk, talking doesnt hurt and it doesnt change anything, so lets discuss some more".
- davidcbc 7y ago
  While I, as a Googler, don't approve of every decision the company makes, I don't think any of them are going to cause a mass extinction event, so climate change is a higher priority for me.
Yuval_Halevi 7y ago
>I don't care about Google employee's opinions on Big Oil or ICE but I absolutely care about their opinions on removing URLs from search results and hijacking link clicks. The latter is something they can and should fix as they created the problem in the first place. Such a contervetional saying, but I get what you mean. They have more authority in their niche so they should fight for rights in something they are expert at. But I do think that the fact Google employees are protesting against the company deal with Big Oild is good because it generates a lot of PR and awareness around the subject, Exactly like how Blizzard cause the situation in HK to be x10 more viral

discard0984 7y ago

Ex-Googler here. Google's insane appetite for growth already has it past the point where its principles are going out the window. Those go quietly, one by one, souls sold a nickel at a time, and with lots of self-deception and lies to the contrary. The culture is diluted with new people who do not share it, and when any group grows at 20% YoY, its culture won't last more than a couple years. Now at Google, senior leadership is more concerned with making that 23% YoY revenue bump than literally anything else. Along the way it just accidentally created a huge surveillance network that outclasses most of the world's intelligence services. Whoops. Vote with your feet, not with your stomach. Google doesn't give a flying crap about technology except as a means to more power and money.

throwaway4284 7y ago

Someone should do a story about all us Googlers who are sick of the politics. You won’t see protests, open letters and stories in the media about it, because most of us are afraid of the outrage and call-out culture negatively impacting our careers. However, it’s a common topic among like-minded people in informal conversations.

jasonlotito 7y ago
> Someone should do a story about all us Googlers who are sick of the politics. So you are sick of politics... > it’s a common topic among like-minded people in informal conversations. but it's a common topic. I think the real reason you are sick of politics is because you don't agree with the politics being discussed, not politics. The reason you don't talk about politics isn't being you are sick of it, but because "most of us are afraid of the outrage and call-out culture negatively impacting our careers." Even in a throwaway account, you can't be honest with yourself. Are you really sick of politics, or are you just sick of other people's politics? What are you really trying to say. Your comment goes back and forth and it not clear. It's a throwaway account, so maybe you can actually say what you mean?
mmmeff 7y ago
Please, interview a few folks and write a piece and mail it to a bunch of publications. Something might stick somewhere.
Reedx 7y ago
I suspect we'll see companies starting to avoid hiring people who've made politics their religion. I'd be surprised if Google isn't already trying to take steps in that direction.
- faizshah 7y ago
  I suspect when companies start doing that you’ll see more people in our industry avoiding these unethical companies. It’s a fact that young people are demanding more ethical workplaces, even finance is adapting to the new labour market.

nabla9 7y ago

(for the benefit of those who take title seriously) They are not protesting, they made a request and wrote a letter asking for release a company-wide climate plan that commits to cutting carbon emissions entirely. I think their suggestion that Google stops voluntarily selling their services for oil companies is wrong way to approach the situation. Only reducing the global demand for oil puts oil business out of business. In some cases a boycott is just a tax for good ethics. If the boycott is indirect subsidy for those who don't care, it does not work.

nexuist 7y ago

Two questions here. One, it is my understanding that most plastic is made directly from oil. If we dropped fossil fuels tomorrow and stopped extracting oil for energy production reasons...wouldn't we still need oil companies to manufacture plastic? I understand there are growing movements to reduce plastic usage as well, but I also think there would be construction niches that only plastic can serve (say, car bumpers). Is the next move synthetic plastic and then we can say goodbye to oil forever? Second, in response to this quote: > “If Google is going to confront its share of responsibility for the climate crisis, that means not helping oil and gas companies extract fossil fuels,” Ike McCreery, an engineer in Google’s cloud division You know that saying, if you're going to do a job, do it right? This is my problem with these tech deal protests. The purpose of all technology is to make work more efficient and more correct. If we deny access to technology for political reasons, aren't we making the problem worse by making it easier for these companies or orgs to make mistakes? For example, imagine if ocean mapping companies denied data requests by oil rig operators. Chances are they're still going to drill (because shareholders demand it), but now they'll be in the dark and the odds of an uncontrollable spill happening shoot up. Similarly, if ICE is denied tech access, it severely harms the good parts of the org (human trafficking / child exploitation prevention, catching violent illegal immigrants). It is possible for an organization, especially at the scale of a government agency, to do both good and bad at the same time. Hell, I'm sure even Googlers have similar thoughts about certain teams within Google itself. I'm sure that losing GitHub access won't hurt ICE that much, and losing Google Cloud is just a bump in the road for oil companies, but the end goal of these protests is to get as many service providers on board as possible. While it is every company's right to choose its customers, there seems to be a common theme among tech protests that we are only doing harm. The article quotes Google Anthos as one of the services provided in the contract. From a quick glance Anthos appears to be some sort of glorified Kubernetes thing. I hope it is not controversial to state that Kubernetes can be used for both good and evil. It is a containerization platform, not a moral arbiter. > “It’s devastating to think the infrastructure I’ve helped build over the last five years would be used to help incarcerate climate refugees,” they said. Again, it cannot be that black or white. The same software that manages prisons can also manage orphanages and homeless shelters. You can use an Excel sheet for a lottery...or genocide. The only way we can stop bad things from happening for sure is to vote. Cancelling contracts will not deter bad actors as long as they can hire someone else to do the same work, and even if every company in the Western world declines a contract on moral ground (which they are privileged to do, given they make enough money to actually get a say in what contracts to take), there are hundreds of thousands of companies in the 3rd world that will do anything for the same contract. I mean, there was an article about a Polish troll farm on the front page of HN just yesterday. Do you think a simple protest will stop them? Here's a thought: Google is one of the richest companies in the world. They could donate $10 million to every politician in Congress right now if they vow to vote yes on legislation banning fossil fuels entirely. $10M would be enough to live comfortably till the end of your days, Big Oil lobbyists and Fox News positions be damned. For a measly $5B Google could end climate destruction tomorrow. Bribery is legal in the U.S. through lobbying. Why do we only let bad actors use it? We have trillion dollar companies with heavy liberal bases and they still donate to Republicans! I don't think these Googlers are wrong to protest these contracts, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that their time would be better spent trying to buy off the Federal government and instituting wide scale regulations that would kill every oil company immediately, rather than trying to cut out a few contracts. Gotta start small though, I know.

Traster 7y ago

People are talking about the sort of general idea of politics vs profit, but actually I don't think that's the issue. There are tonnes of companies that are political. The problem is that Google doesn't have a coherent approach to their political position. Frankly, I think this is a self-created problem by talking way too much about politics and encouraging people to bring their politics to work, but taking very little action to actually respond to their employees. Rather than taking the hint that Google were just all-talk, employees decided they were going to force Google to take action and now there are literally no guard rails around what is a political issue and what isn't and what is up for debate and what isn't. How long is it before some Google employee starts kicking up a fuss about the ethical issues surrounding Google's core business?

vertex-four 7y ago
"I will accept any business that comes my way, no matter what" is a political position, and not neutral.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
” How long is it before some Google employee starts kicking up a fuss about the ethical issues surrounding Google's core business?” I for one am super excited for this being the case. I want people to protest the privacy invasions and anti-open-web initiatives.
mindslight 7y ago
It's deeper than that. Two decades ago, Google didn't exist. A decade ago, they were still touting "Don't be evil" with most people believing them. Many companies are openly evil to a degree, but there is generally a strong self-selection at work - if one isn't keen on blowing up kids in far off lands, then one does not even send a resume to Raytheon! But Google simply hasn't been around long enough in their unabashed-Skynet state for this to have had an effect. So instead we've got a contingent that signed up thinking they were "disrupting" the status quo to make the world better, yet now find themselves at the center of the modern surveillance and control apparatus. And so that cognitive dissonance comes crashing down in different ways, one of them being trying to change the company into what they thought it was.

there_the_and 7y ago

[deleted]

Kiro 7y ago
Comments like these are the reason we never see Google employees openly post here anymore. We used to get comments directly from the source whenever Google released something new.
- meddlepal 7y ago
  They post on Blind now.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  No, they post here but anonymous to hide from their own coworkers and possibly management. while some posts here may be hostile to their point of view they cannot directly affect their job like being identified by those who sjw at work.

arnvald 7y ago

Man, the comments here are depressing. So much cynicism in one place. Workers protests have been successful in the past (guess why you work 8h a day and have 2-day weekends?). I don't see why you criticise the employees that try to make their company better. They don't need to and don't have to threaten they'll quit, they don't have to leave for non-profits. They can protest from within the company and try to make it better. Quitting is not the only way company can feel there's a problem. Lower morale of the team, fewer new ideas and initiatives coming from employees - these are visible things, and can make a change. How big a change? How successful change? I don't know, but I support the fact that people are trying. Even if they still get their salaries and still work at Google.

gimmeThaBeet 7y ago
Call me cynical every day of the week and twice on sundays, I'm critical because at this point, a letter doesn't feel like they are taking much ownership of the issue. People wanted those benefits for themselves, and there's little question of trying to reap benefits for one's self and then push the potential downsides elsewhere. I realize climate change is a broad societal issue that does indeed heavily involve externalizing costs to society, but I think it's difficult to dispute that the ideal scenario would have no impact on them, and when it comes to Google's business and other employees, the outcomes probably slant negative. Are there employees who don't mind working with energy companies? Are there people who explicitly don't want to limit Google's customer base? Do they make Google worse? Should we be critical of them?
rapsey 7y ago
> I don't see why you criticise the employees that try to make their company better. “better” is an entirely relative term.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Closer to perfection nonetheless.
  - dgudkov 7y ago

cascom 7y ago

It’s always easier to think someone else should do something [that won’t really affect you personally] so that you feel good about yourself vs taking the hard actions involved in making changes yourself. In this case wanting their employer to do something - safe in the knowledge that google is so big it won’t show up in their paycheck. I would be shocked to learn (and this is conjecture on my part) that the typical google employee leads a truly low carbon lifestyle (petrochemical, electricity, transportation included)

ahelwer 7y ago
I highly doubt that Google employees, who earn in the top 10% of incomes in one of the highest-per-capita emissions countries in the world, have a low carbon lifestyle by any standards.

duxup 7y ago

How many? We hear these stories all the time and I'm not sure "googlers are protesting" means 10 or 10,000 employees. We've seen googler's post here indicate that various employee initiatives have varying levels of support but as far as media reports go they report them all the same.

mmcconnell1618 7y ago
The petition was signed by about 1,100 Googlers (from the article). Google has well over 100,000 full time employees so the number who signed represent around 1%
oh_sigh 7y ago
100% agreed. There are something like 100k people who could be considered "googlers". You can find 100 or even 1000 people who believe in anything.

RockmanX 7y ago

come on, all these "googlers protesting google" dramas are made by google itself for promotion.

obayesshelton 7y ago

So I guess when they sell their shares in Google, they will be donating that money to climate change...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

flyGuyOnTheSly 7y ago

Factories used to position immigrant workers who spoke different languages beside each other so that they would not congregate and organize. Not quite the same when you have thousands of highly intelligent people all speaking the same language, in the same building, connected to the world's fastest messaging system. We will only see more of this, and I am happy for that.

noetic_techy 7y ago

You will eventually simply end up with a bifurcated system with Tech companies that will do business with certain companies associated with one side of the aisle, and other who will not. The money is already moving in that direction. Rupert Murdock often quipped that he started Fox News to serve a niche market: half the country (US). Wait until you have the Fox News equivalent of Google and Facebook and Twitter, willing to serve the Pentagon and Oil Companies and the other half of the country. Careful what you wish for.

tharne 7y ago
You're 100% right, and we already have those companies. See Palantir.

Trias11 7y ago

How many of these 1,100 workers are helping big oil companies themselves by regularly filling their own car tanks with gas?

ahelwer 7y ago
Are we still doing this? https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha
- ng12 7y ago
  Doesn't really apply. Oil companies exist because we buy oil -- both directly (fueling our cars) and indirectly (buying produce shipped from South America or clothing shipped from India). Saying "oil companies shouldn't have good IT solutions" doesn't really help anything.
  - ahelwer 7y ago
    It does, though. Refusing to assist with the destruction of our planet slows down the destruction of our planet. Why would I want to work to make these companies more effective?
    - ng12 7y ago
      Because when they're ineffective oil gets spilled. We have a vested interest in oil being produced as cleanly and effectively as possible until we can lessen our dependence on it. Furthermore, the OPEC countries don't care at all and will happily sell you oil at a nice markup if Shell and Exxon can't.
      - ahelwer 7y ago
        This is the same argument in favor of building oil pipelines, because they spill less oil per mile than trucks or trains. It ignores second-order effects that is, since it's cheaper for the oil companies to operate, they'll produce even more oil than they otherwise would have. And we want them to produce less oil. Preferably none.

badrabbit 7y ago

Ffs, what a clueless bunch. Why do they have to bundle all their complaints and make it us vs. Them?? So now if you dislike ICE you have to dislike big oil also? And vice versa? What's next? Google should not do business with Chickfila because their employees dislike the ceo? I mean I dislike google so the worse business risk with google. gets the bettet I say. I am just afraid I will be put into a position where I either support lgbtq+climate change+blacklives matter+anti-china+anti-russia to use any tech service in the west or I learn chinese or russian and use their services. I mean, why are they so intolerant of anyone who does not conform to their very specific set of ideology and world view? They're worse than the people they fight. You can be lgbtq and work at chickfila just fine,you can be for green energy and work for ice,you can be against ICE and big oil will do business with you. No matter how correct they think they are,they cause more problems than solutions. This is why otherwise sane people are trump supporters,because to support the alternative you have to conform to this long list of ideological views. Only intellectual cowards who can't be bothered to patiently discuss their views with their peers corner people into picking between two extremes -- where deviance is met with hostility. I refuse to accept any view or movement where I have to surrender critical thinking and be either for the movement or against it. Now big oil has to band together with ICE? Good job on uniting your enemies against you! I can't accept any result from people like this. Ends don't justify means and freedom to think and disagree is very important.

ThomPete 7y ago

The very companies and resource that made their job possible.

m23khan 7y ago

All I hope for is Google to settle this amicably with the discontented employees and at same time not upset their clients. Because, actions in both extreme would set a bad precedent for a tech giant like Google: Extreme 1 - Fire the employees or serve them notice to shut up. Extreme 2 - End contracts / don't sell further to big oil companies. In process, lose out vast sums of money and forever shut yourself out from the industry even if they discovered something called 'clean, sustainable oil' in future.

kyrieeschaton 7y ago

This is what happens when you have a couple products that make approximately one hundred percent of your revenue on auto-pilot, and everything else is just hazy synergy plays. People find ways to entertain themselves.

dj_powerpoint 7y ago

I'm confused about the timing of events. Ike McCreery, who is quoted in this article, hasn't worked at Google since 2016 (http://blog.robotswithhearts.org/2016/07/11/my-decision-to-leave-google.html http://blog.robotswithhearts.org/2016/07/11/my-decision-to-l...).

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

The AWS and Azure sales people are giddy with joy right now. If Google does not strongly repudiate the protest, Google Cloud is saying that Defense companies, Oil and gas companies, and Car companies (except Tesla) are unwelcome on Google Cloud. If you look at the largest companies by revenue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by... these types of companies make up a large proportion. In addition, other companies such as Big Pharma, Health Insurance and Big Banks which are unpopular with the left would also be worried about when they would be the focus of a new protest.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago
News alert: choosing not to do evil is not always compatible with maximizing profit.
- edanm 7y ago
  > News alert: choosing not to do evil is not always compatible with maximizing profit. I am so sick and tired of this attitude. In what world is working with the military / defense contractors evil? Do people really believe that the military is inherently evil? Is there literally no regard to history, or the fact that not having a military is basically tantamount to allowing other countries to do whatever they want with you?
antpls 7y ago
If Google bans Defense and Oil companies from its cloud, I would consider buying some GOOGL stocks, actually. Or use Google Cloud.

m0zg 7y ago

This is so dumb, I have no words. Google has the cleanest energy mix in the cloud business, and the strongest carbon neutrality commitments. If anything, their participation in these contracts will only reduce the carbon footprint compared to the alternatives. They're also not the only cloud provider, so if they don't go for it, Amazon or MS will be quite happy to oblige, spewing tons more CO2 into the atmosphere.

084537 7y ago

If you work for Google, the most effective thing you can do to fight evil IMHO is to stop working for Google. Stop helping Google create ever more refined digital portfolios on every internet user. Google does not intend for their digital portfolios to fall into the hands of the US Government, but if the US Government ever becomes significantly undemocratic, Google cannot stop that from happening -- and Google's management knows that or would know it if they would spend 5 consecutive minutes being genuinely curious about it. Stop helping Google turn the web into an ever more refined machine for extracting money from web users while continuing to make the web less well-suited for important purposes it was originally well-suited for: namely the publication of textual and simple graphical information not motivated by profit. (The money flows from users of the web to organizations that use Google to advertise, then to Google.)

Starkus 7y ago

Google censors and manipulates their search engine and are an enemy to free flow of information.

cgb223 7y ago

Wait until they start protesting companies that do mass surveillance and data collection...

neonate 7y ago

http://archive.is/IhGTh http://archive.is/IhGTh

whatitdobooboo 7y ago

I think there's something weird about relying on corporations to be judges on other companies. I'm not trying to defend big oil, but I think the focus should be on more scrutiny on how government and other institutions deal with it. If googlers wants to actually change things maybe they should develop ways to monitor these agreements. There is a sense of arrogance in believing that (in this case googlers) know the best course of action on every issue - especially when they are unelected

maxlamb 7y ago

I see these Googler's point of view, but if Google refuses to have contracts with big oil, won't these companies just find another tech company to provide services for them? How is that going to help fight climate change? Wouldn't it be more effective for Google to still have deals with them but pledge that all net profits from those deals will go towards Alphabet's renewable energy projects?

rajivjain 7y ago

What’s next, big oil employees railing against sale of oil to big tech? Where does it all end?