16 ms·

On Resigning from Google

• bla3 7y ago
  > www.alphabetworkers.org/ > The trouble with deep belief > The reason it’s unlikely to work is that although you can persecute the prophets Sounds a bit full of themselves. They worked for a company, they no longer like the company, they quit. Great, move on. No need to make a big deal about it. It's just a job.
  • cjslep 7y ago
    I'd like to hire you for "just a job". I'm gonna make a big deal about how my company is "morally good" and "does no evil". Hitman OK? No? How about I hire you for janitorial duties at first, and slowly transition you to the death squad duties over 10 years? Don't quit, it's "just a job".
    • judge2020 7y ago
      Given that, at Google, he only went from a Network Engineer [2005] to SRE [2020], I don't think you can call that moving to defense contracting, especially as a SRE for the Ad Serving platform.
      • cjslep 7y ago
        I think you are reading way too much into my satirical critique about the terrible "just a job" mindset (avoiding the obvious "I was just doing my job carrying out the Holocaust" analogy), which as a generally independent critique can stand on its own legs without needing to be specifically applied to the current scenario at hand. To really clarify this, I made the exemplary initial job "janitorial duties".
  • commandlinefan 7y ago
    Google (and, really, all of Northern California) has been actively courting these high-minded idealists for a long time. The problem with these types of people is that they invent windmills to tilt at when they run out.
    • shadowgovt 7y ago
      The problem with these types of people is that they actually care about more than the paycheck. ;)
      • umeshunni 7y ago
        Then they should have said no to the paycheck earlier on rather than sucking on it for 14 years. As someone else said, just a bunch of whiny SJWs. Don't they have some caucus-voting app or something to go work on?
        • aaomidi 7y ago
          Why the hate towards someone who is talking about their experiences at Google? Do I sense jealousy?
        • basch 7y ago
          Maybe they believed they could make it a better company from the inside, and have finally given up? If everybody good runs, whats left is no good.
      • knowa42 7y ago
        Didn't seem to care about more than a paycheck until they'd collected a big one for 15 years. Idealism is easy when there's no risk involved.
        • Twixes 7y ago
          Now you're idealizing struggle. It's easier (doesn't mean easy) to influence a group from the inside than from the outside. Quitting Google to avoid its money would be just a nonsensical self-sacrifice.
    • squarefoot 7y ago
      To me it looks like that while the high-minded idealists remained mostly the same, it's Google that transformed itself into something completely different from what it was the early days. It should be noted that in 2005, when this guy joined Google, both Android and the acquisition of Doubleclick were at least 2 years away. Google execs were probably already planning the move into an advertising and spyware behenoth back then, but I'm pretty sure the lower "cogs" like any freshly hired techie, wouldn't know that for quite some time.
  • VikingCoder 7y ago
    If you leave because of principles, it may be useful to others to explain your position. If you don't like content, great, move on. No need to make a big deal about it. It's just a web page.
    • weberc2 7y ago
      Who is making a big deal about it? It’s a Tweet-sized comment...
  • corporateslave5 7y ago
    My thoughts exactly, this kind of thinking is really common among google employees. They think leaving is some “event”, it needs massive justification, a blog post, and manifesto to the world. I’ve seen this among friends that work there
    • uoaei 7y ago
      There's a consistent narrative that people join Google to make the world a better place, and that Googlers keep the working culture bright and not evil. These exposes are about challenging that pre-built image.
      • crdoconnor 7y ago
        To be fair Google did downgrade their "do not evil" value to "it is possible to conduct business without being evil" but it's fair to be reminded of all the evil they do do that led them to downgrade themselves in their own estimation.
    • garbage_88224 7y ago
      They probably see leaving as being excommunicated from a huge social circle that they value greatly.
    • s1artibartfast 7y ago
      I think it is some event, but the importance scales depending on your distance to it. I have had coworkers whose departure was a major shakeup to me and my life. More distant coworkers have provoked some thoughts. The departure of someone at another firm usually has no relevance to the general public. I think it is reasonable to make a statement, but wonder who the target audience was in this case.
  • dblohm7 7y ago
    It seems to me that "I work for Google" is the new "I'm a member of Mensa" or "I went to Harvard."
    • uoaei 7y ago
      Only if their intention is to talk about how useless Mensa is and to break the fetishization of being a member of this club.
      • dblohm7 7y ago
        And working for Google hasn't been fetishized?
        • uoaei 7y ago
          It is. That's the point. Read again.
      • crdoconnor 7y ago
        I'd probably read an article by a ex member of mensa that wrote that. Arguing vociferously about how that "wasn't such a big deal" would make me wonder what ax you had to grind with people who talk shit about mensa.
        • uoaei 7y ago
          Exactly. I'm a little surprised at the size of the immediate and vicious reaction. There's more that people aren't saying besides "Google isn't that special".
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  • shadowgovt 7y ago
    Bruce makes the excellent point that it's not just a company. It's a Fortune 50 with a reach to touch a couple billion users, the technical competency and contacts to make decisions that impact the future of humanity, and is undergoing a significant cultural shift from the kind of company it is perceived to be by past reputation. If one finds oneself in such a circumstance, it's a correct thing to do to speak out about it.
    • weberc2 7y ago
      All the more reason to be glad when said company tilts away from the sort of fringe ideological positions described in TFA. A fortune 50 company shouldn’t be driving extreme positions; if you disagree, consider if they were driving extreme positions antithetical to your own.
      • shadowgovt 7y ago
        Is "Don't fire labor agitators" an extreme position? I'm pretty sure it's actually the law. One could, perhaps, consider "Don't stumble blindly into improving the technology used for automated weapons" an extreme position in the US, but given that it's the country that brought us the atomic bomb, perhaps it is the correct extreme position to take.
    • tmpz22 7y ago
      > Impact the future of humanity If Google disappeared off the face of the earth, every system, server, and employee, mitigations would be in place by the end of the week - and a year later it would be like nothing ever changed. Let's not overvalue an adserver, free email, etc. These services are important but never life defining outside of the relatively small number of people they have made RICH.
      • vharuck 7y ago
        This is like saying the President of the United States has no effect on the country because the person in office is replaced within the span of a day every four or eight years.
  • mberning 7y ago
    It is extremely self important. The fact that so many people with these proclivities have gravitated to Google can not be a good thing. I have to imagine Google HR is not too troubled by shedding noisy moralizers within their ranks.
    • shadowgovt 7y ago
      Google spent decades selecting for these "moralizers" and is now reaping what it sowed; "don't be evil" was a cultural slogan that carries consequences if it attracts a particular kind of mindset. And in a few cases, yeah; HR is shitting bricks because it's losing people who built the underlying fabric of the system (which anyone who has built a large system will tell you increases risk to the entire software company; they're pretty sure the exiting employee has written down all the mission-critical knowledge of how to operate the system riding around in their head, and Google has a corporate culture of minimizing the "bus factor" of key systems, but there's always a risk that the next time something significant catches fire, the employee with 1.5 decades of experience who just walked out the door is the one who could have fixed it fastest). It'll be interesting to see if quality of product suffers (i.e. if there was actually correlation between technical competence and a care about the fate of the world and fellow employees).
      • crdoconnor 7y ago
        >Google spent decades selecting for these "moralizers" and is now reaping what it sowed; "don't be evil" was a cultural slogan that carries consequences if it attracts a particular kind of mindset. And apparently that mindset drove an enormous amount of profit and, at least in the beginning, gave the company some sort of social conscience. It's amazing that you can be so against these things
        • shadowgovt 7y ago
          If that last sentence was directed at me, I fail to see what you've perceived me to be against. I'm in favor of people who may feel they were sold a false bill of goods when they joined re-evaluating their position and either fighting internally to change the direction the ship is steering or leaving the company if they don't see the direction as changeable.
  • crdoconnor 7y ago
    A lot of people on hacker news get threatened by collective action. This is understandable, given the number of employers, wannabe employers and people with large portfolios who frequent this site. This is kind of why I expected some people to make a big deal out of how this isn't a big deal. Tech unionisation is genuinely threatening to many here and this Google walkout stuff is a potential sign of things to come in this industry.
  • jodrellblank 7y ago
    Did you read the post all the way through the concerns about supporting oil and gas industry, delaying of renewable development, comparisons with IBM and the Holocaust, drone warfare and military technologies? Regardless of how accurate those comparisons are or are not, if they are sincerely held by the author, are they not good reasons to make a big deal of things? If they aren’t, what is?
  • xkemp 7y ago
    Quitting in protest really requires you to do it somewhat publicly if you want to maximize its impact. Losing one employee has some, but not much impact. But the publicity destroys a lot of goodwill among prospective employees and the general public, and might serve as an example for others (both at Google as well as others). Besides, the protests over the last year or so have always attracted dozens of why-dont-you-quit-hot takes on HN, and seems only fair to let people know when their demands are met.
  • mr_isomies 7y ago
    While I approve with the general direction of your comment, I think that characterizing Google merely as "a company" is disingenuous. Obviously it was not "just a job" for those who resigned. There is nothing that I do at my job that could potentially disrupt the live of many; hence I don't feel an overwhelming sense of responsibility. Now if I would be part of an enterprise whose name is said, typed or thought by billions every day, yeah maybe my sense of responsibility would be heighten and yes, maybe I would think it warrant a greater tribune or more sensational language. Overall, that the essay was quite constructive, no?
• nkcmr 7y ago
  Seems to be in a redirect loop: * Connection #0 to host www.alphabetworkers.org left intact * Maximum (50) redirects followed
• AcerbicZero 7y ago
  While I don't particularly agree with any of their points, (Seems a bit SJW-ish, mixed with some climate drama) at least they believe in them strongly enough to actually stop taking a paycheck from the company they've come to hate.
  • rboyd 7y ago
    "hey, why are you leaving?" "imo the company makes its money in some really shady ways." "what's next for you?" "oh, I'm retiring.. made a lot of money here." ???
    • shadowgovt 7y ago
      There's no doubt that working at Google + frugal living can give a rank-and-file engineer enough "fuck-you money" to make their own calls. I don't see that as a bad thing though. Just because it's not a liberty everyone has to stop working for a firm they find morally repugnant doesn't imply one shouldn't take the liberty if one has it.
      • replyguy912 7y ago
        Except they were there for 14 years. Unless it became instantly diametrically opposed to their belief system in the past couple of months, the author has put up with the changing environment for a long time. They're not some skill-less laborer; after all, they worked at google! they could get another job pretty easily, no, one with a company that shared their personal values?
        • shadowgovt 7y ago
          The company has pivoted significantly in the past approximately three to five years (first with the founding of Alphabet, which resulted in Larry and Sergey stepping back from the helm, then with the appointment of Sundar as CEO). Some extremely unsavory things about the way the company operated at the top-tier management level during Larry and Sergey's years also came to light in that time period. My wild guess is the author stuck around long enough to see if things would turn around and has become convinced they will not, and this is Alphabet's new trajectory as a compnay.
• JimboOmega 7y ago
  The post talks about Google supposedly persecuting LGBTQ employees for speaking up. But the linked articles only talk about them (possibly) getting retaliated against for protesting other issues, like border security or sexual harassment. As an LGBT person (who does her fair share of activism), I'm not clear what the LGBTQ angle is here other than if the people involved happened to be LGBTQ. It seems like even if they are being retaliated against for their activism, it's not LGBTQ activism. Did I miss something?
  • aaomidi 7y ago
    LGBTQ+ activism doesn't just involve fighting for rights for people who fall within those labels. It has evolved onto fighting for rights of EVERYONE who is currently being harrassed, targetted, and discriminate against. It's activism for human rights for everyone. Not every LGBTQ+ activist agrees with this evolution, but a large group do. I'm personally in that group.
    • maps 7y ago
      Yeah that is pretty disgusting. By doing this, it steals a label with a 'fairly' clear meaning, agenda, and history to prop up any old complaint. This is beyond disingenuous and actually will end up causing more harm to LGBT issues in the future.
      • aaomidi 7y ago
        Okay thank you for your input. We'll continue to fight for the rights of everyone who is being discriminated against. You should learn more about intersectional activism :)
        • judge2020 7y ago
          Please do, but doing so in the name of LGBTQ+ and not simply as a fellow human/coworker is hurting the label, as @maps said.
• gnicholas 7y ago
  > Attacks like this were an attack on people’s jobs and physical security: if you can strip a reform-oriented pastor of their PCUSA ordination, you also strip them of their employment and their health insurance If I'm understanding correctly, the argument with regard to "physical security" is that if you try to get someone fired, which would result in them losing their employer-provided health insurance, that they would have less security in their physical body. Is there some other linkage to physical security that I'm missing? Because if this is the only connection, then anytime someone tries to get anyone fired, it would be deemed "an attack on the physical security" of that person. That seems a bit of a stretch (and overlooks the fact that there are other ways to get health insurance, either via another job or via the health care exchanges). To be clear, I'm not weighing in on the specific circumstances of the example — I'm just trying to understand how physical security was implicate, and how the term is being used.
  • shadowgovt 7y ago
    Yes, and it's a common thinking that's a quirk of the US; it's not a stretch in the US that an attack on one's employement is an attack on one's "physical security" or "well-being" because the US tied most people's health insurance to continued and stable employment.
  • dionidium 7y ago
    The irony, of course, is that it's a defining feature of some political cohorts to rejoice in getting people fired for things they've said online. I think it's clearly the case that an attempt on one's livelihood is a far more credible violation of "safety" than is, say, public speech on a topic with which you strongly disagree, but it's the latter that's described as such, while the former is often celebrated.
    • dionidium 7y ago
      By the way, as with so many things, this is something for which there is a pronounced class divide. Upwardly-mobile, highly-educated Hacker Newsers may see a firing as a bump in the road, a legitimate slap on the wrist for bad behavior, but I assure you that working-class people with working-class prospects interpret an attack on their job in the real world as a seriously disproportionate response.
• m0zg 7y ago
  This is what people write when they run out of stock refresh grants.
  • shaan1 7y ago
    agreed
• paxys 7y ago
  Random thoughts: 1. I applaud the fact that they are actually quitting the company to voice their disapproval of these policies. In my mind all the "internal activism" happening at Google and others is massively hypocritical. One cannot publicly criticize a company while enjoying cushy paychecks fueled by those very activities they despise. 2. If they think Google is discriminatory towards LGBT employees and minorities, contributing to climate change etc., they are in for a big shock once they are really out of the Google and SV bubble.
  • binthere 7y ago
    https://i0.wp.com/thenib.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/mister-gotcha-4-9faefa-1.jpg https://i0.wp.com/thenib.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/mist...
    • gnicholas 7y ago
      That oversimplifies things a bit — leaving a company is not as extreme as "leaving society".
  • shadowgovt 7y ago
    Regarding (2): while it's true that the average is absolutely terrible, that can actually increase the importance of not letting the leaders off the hook for screwing up. i.e. the world ought to look more like the leader, not the average; regression to the mean is not desirable.
  • pm90 7y ago
    Strongly disagree. > In my mind all the "internal activism" happening at Google and others is massively hypocritical. One cannot publicly criticize a company while enjoying cushy paychecks fueled by those very activities they despise. Absolutely incorrect. Paychecks have nothing to do with whether you as a person find the company's policies palatable or not. Google employees provide a lot more value to Google than they are compensated for. They are well within their rights and should be encouraged to voice their honest opinions. > 2. If they think Google is discriminatory towards LGBT employees and minorities, contributing to climate change etc., they are in for a big shock once they are really out of the Google and SV bubble. So you would have them STFU, because the rest of the country sucks? This sounds completely backwards and doesn't make any sense to me.
• agoodthrowaway 7y ago
  Being principled and high minded is wonderful when you are financially independent. Given Google’s amazing financial success, I’d imagine the author is or should be financially independent and can choose to do whatever he wants. Some of the rest of us are not in a position to be as ideological.
  • aaomidi 7y ago
    Which in turn gives way to changing the system which allows more people to be ideological.
  • shadowgovt 7y ago
    And there's no shame in that. But a person can find shame if they do have the resources and choose to stay in an unacceptable status quo.
• trhway 7y ago
  > if you can strip a reform-oriented pastor of their PCUSA ordination, you also strip them of their employment and their health insurance, because you can’t serve as a Presbyterian pastor if you’ve been stripped of your ordination as the result of a church judicial action. ... >With the recent spate of Google firings of LGBTQ employees for their activism, including Laurence Berland, Rebecca Rivers, Sophie Waldman, and Kathryn Spiers, I see far too many similarities to what we experienced in the PCUSA twenty years ago. not advocating any specific position, just noting a pure logical difference - being fired from Google doesn't stop you from being software engineer at another tech company.
• gnicholas 7y ago
  > Well, it didn’t work in the PCUSA, where activists eventually won the fight to remove homophobia from the church constitution, and won the fight for marriage equality; and it’s unlikely to work at Google. I go to a PCUSA church and have a different view of this. Churches that did not agree with the changes to PCUSA's position split from the denomination and created the ECO denomination, which retains the prior position on same-sex relationships. So it's not so much that PCUSA "won" as that there is effectively a schism happening, with some of the largest churches from PCUSA departing.
  • ordinaryradical 7y ago
    It's honestly just a bad analogy on his part. Bruce may agree with homosexuality-affirming theology and argue strongly (or even rightly!) that it should be adopted by his denomination, but denominations exist precisely so that they may create standards of unity in hermeneutics and interpretations. That's the whole purpose of belonging to one. If you openly defy their positions or teach in opposition to them, you shouldn't expect to remain a part of that denomination—whether you know it or not, you're advocating for a new sect. I think painting what happened as the work of some wilely, ill-minded lawyer is either extremely naïve or disingenuous.
  • g42gregory 7y ago
    I think that's right. Our ECO church, which split from PCUSA, is a very large one, with 6 locations. The services are always full. The reason for departure, though, was the building/land ownership, not the same-sex issues. I don't think there was much (or any?) discussions of same-sex issues during the split process.
    • gnicholas 7y ago
      On the off-chance you're talking about Menlo Church, my impression is that it was both. The real estate issues were less divisive, and therefore easier to focus on. Many churches struggle with the SSM issue because they don't want to alienate members on either side.
• shaan1 7y ago
  He has made enough money to retire. For engineers still looking for work, GOOGLE is the best place to work. If you don't want to work at google, don't work there. Why do people keep blaming the company. This is not a dictatorship.
  • shadowgovt 7y ago
    That depends on what one wants to do with one's labor. They'll certainly compensate you well, and they have flexible hours and treat software engineers and SREs like royalty. But Googlers who joined up 10 years ago really didn't have to also ask the question of whether their work was directly benefiting military AI projects (or merely providing an agnostic service that everyone was using; search is certainly something that benefited good and bad use alike, but partnering with the military and submitting contract proposals for drone targeting operations is a moderately different can of worms).
    • philwelch 7y ago
      It's also a moderately different can of worms to work on projects like breaking enemy encryption during a war (Turing), building and programming more and more powerful computers to help design nuclear weapons (von Neumann), developing a network protocol for DARPA's national computer network (Cerf and Kahn), building microchips for bombers and missiles (Fairchild Semiconductor), and it goes on from there. Clearly, optimizing targeted advertising on the internet is a higher moral calling.
      • shadowgovt 7y ago
        I agree. Especially when the nation that would use the drone technology has demonstrated a willingness to use said technology for reckless assassination of other country's citizens without declaration of war.
        • philwelch 7y ago
          Well you are free to go live your life under the rule of the Taliban or the Iranian mullahs if you really think they're the good guys in all of this. Edit: There's a flagged-dead reply that says, "I don't, but I also don't think the Haska Meyna wedding party were the bad guys in all of this." Well, I don't think so either, which is why I think it's good to develop technology that improves the ability to accurately recognize drone targets!
• scardycat 7y ago
  I currently work at Google, but I am a newbie, i.e less than 5 years at Google. I frequently run in to people who are: 1) always been at Google and enjoyed the fruits of its rise or at another similar environment 2) never had to deal with frugality or lack of funding for anything 3) see themselves are superior to everyone else - in terms of how enlightened they are, how they know whats best for everyone 4) feel that they have an absolute say in anything Google does These people do not know the realities of the world. Plain and simple. They had a good life and think that is it. One thing they dont seem to realize is that almost everyone else has had to deal with growth challenges, lack of capital and access to resources. No one exists to only make the world better. Contrary to their disbelief, most people and organizations, including themselves and Google, have the first priority to survive, to grow, to flourish and to abide by all applicable laws. Once this is satisfied, they move on to grander things like charity, investing in the well being of others etc. The very reason these people have the capability to leave their jobs for whatever reason is that they already took care of the first priority - to survive and thrive, courtesy Google. Google is a business, and as a business it has the fiduciary duty to serve itself and its interests first. If these people have any conscience that they claim to have, they need to stop pointing at Google, stop riding in their luxury SUVs, stop eating in insanely expensive restaurants, stop vacationing in luxury resorts, stop purchasing multi million dollar homes, and first go try to serve in the government to change the laws and society in which we all live and abide by. Stop trying to tell a large corporation to stop doing business and make profits, go change the society in which it operates. Then we will talk. Enough of the BS. You dont like working here, move on. Let us have the opportunity to contribute and grow and be successful.
  • aaomidi 7y ago
    Hiding behind "it's a business" isn't an argument acceptable to most people. Sure "it's a business" but does that give it a green card to act how it pleases? We're getting into the philosophy of what we want businesses to be in our society. More and more people are realizing that the inhumane structure a business operates in isn't acceptable to them, and would like to have a say in what they're doing. This person left Google because Google was getting into the business of killing people - sure you might be comfortable with that. But your opinion isn't any more valid than someone who doesn't work in Google. So please, stop telling people how to behave and act and protest. We're not putting in 100 hour weeks because someone before you had the audacity to go say the current system is inhumane. You don't have to be that person, but you also don't have to be the person who stands in their way.
• veeralpatel979 7y ago
  The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business. The way these companies became so successful was by providing something of value at a low cost. Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? Instead, the Tesla model is the way to go. Build products that are 10x better than their fossil fuel reliant competitors. This way, consumers benefit as well. The government can impose a cost on carbon somehow, so the market is forced to consider the societal cost of carbon. Also, it can incentivize clean energy by providing loans, lower taxes, etc to companies. It can increase R&D spending on clean energy.
  • larkeith 7y ago
    > Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? Until carbon taxes become ubiquitous, this seems like the only viable option to combat climate change. The current model is functionally subsidizing goods and energy at the cost of future and current environmental damage. While I certainly agree that government solutions (carbon taxes, subsidies for clean energy) are optimal, they are not currently in place - that they may someday does not excuse inaction (or actively damaging action) in the present day. Improving alternatives and choosing not to support fossil fuel companies are not mutually exclusive.
    • veeralpatel979 7y ago
      The solution isn't bankrupting fossil fuel companies. The solution is finding viable replacements for these companies, whether it's solar, wind, nuclear, or something else, and then scaling them so they can serve everyone. Finding viable replacements that people _want_ to use, along with carbon taxes, subsidies, etc should be sufficient to force some oil and gas companies to pivot to clean energy and make the rest die out or become substantially smaller. And, this way, we would avoid a massive decrease in our quality of life, it would actually be practical, and consumers would benefit.
  • einpoklum 7y ago
    > The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business. They're going to go out of business in several decades because there won't be any more oil and gas to extract (or rather, there will be a lot less and it'll be difficult and expensive to extract). > The way these companies became so successful was by providing something of value at a low cost. The cost is not low if you consider the decades of suffering by people in the middle east and other oil-producing countries due to oppressive regimes put in place so that oil and gas could be extracted at "low cost". But even regardless of that - so what? > Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good? 1. If the alternative is even worse climate change, meters of sea level rise, destruction of huge natural habitats etc. then - yes. 2. If you account for the costs of climate change, it's not more expensive to use renewable energy. And there's the cost and detrimental effects of immediate environmental pollution... 3. Renewable energy is no longer that expensive, and it's getting cheaper. In fact, it's become quite competitive: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/22/solar-costs-wind-costs-now-so-low-theyre-competitive-with-existing-coal-nuclear-lazard-lcoe-report/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/22/solar-costs-wind-costs-... > The government can impose a cost ... it can incentivize... Yeah, well, maybe those were relevant solutions 40 or 30 years ago. The time is up for that kind of stuff. Far-reaching action is required immediately, since we are on overtime w.r.t. climate effects, and markets be damned.
• aaomidi 7y ago
  What's interesting is that this thread is getting a ton of new accounts defending Google. Suspicious.
  • eachro 7y ago
    It's also pretty common for people to create new accounts to post things they wouldn't otherwise post on their mains, isn't it?
    • aaomidi 7y ago
      Probably, that's why I said suspicious but didn't do finger pointing.
  • sergiotapia 7y ago
    Wrongthink gets you doxxed, don't pretend to be surprised please.
  • dang 7y ago
    This comment breaks the site guideline against insinuations of astroturfing on HN. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here. Please also note the bit about not using this site for ideological battle.
    • aaomidi 7y ago
      Good to know. Weird rule to have though.
      • dang 7y ago
        The rule exists to try to dampen what is probably the worst kind of toxicity we see here. I've written about this extensively; if you page back through https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... you'll find plenty of explanation.
• scardycat 7y ago
  Wait till they get a cease and desist letter for using 'alphabet' in the domain name.
• wangii 7y ago
  moral high grounds are luxury decorations even google couldn't afford any more.
  • c930 7y ago
    ^this
• CzarnyZiutek 7y ago
  cry baby cry
• vondur 7y ago
  I’m guessing they made enough money from google to retire. I’d imagine any company that may hire him would look at this website and probably pass on them.
  • jps359 7y ago
    Ha, right? Easy to talk about morality and such after they’ve already cashed out.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• neplus 7y ago
  This reads like a moral screed. That's fine. They're entitled to their own views, to voice those views internally, and if they aren't adopted to leave the company and write a polemic. Ultimately, two thirds of their complaints involve taking a position counter to the stated national interest of the United States. Sure, maybe they believe that national interest is wrong, morally objectionable, or whatever, but the inference you draw from the writing is that it clearly is. That everyone at Google knows this is wrong, should be stopped, but isn't because of the monetary gains of doing these things. > 2. Google Cloud sales to the oil and gas industry I mean, if Google Cloud makes the extraction of natural gas more efficient then that strikes me as a net good for the planet. A large part of the emissions decrease in the U.S. over the past decade is from the economic viability of natural gas relative to coal. Dream of a bucolic lifestyle all you want, but reality should be confronted in these matters. 3. Expansion into the weapons industry and the business of killing The business of killing terrorists - with increasing levels of precision - strikes me (and every administration in memory) as clearly being in the national best interest. The better targeting capacity available, the less collateral damage and need for U.S. boots on the ground abroad there will be. You can, of course, find drone strikes morally objectionable. You can find killing what are deemed threats to the homeland as objectionable. That's fine. But to state this as an objective truth is to find yourself holding a position at odds with nearly all elected law makers. If you, as a company, agree or disagree with U.S. domestic and national security policy, fill your boots. But Google working in concert with the U.S. domestic and national security policies isn't choosing money over morality per se. People have different perspectives and these people clearly have perspectives unaligned with their former employers. Good on them for leaving. However, I have to say reading this screed makes it seem like the adults in the room are the executives they lambast.
  • ditonal 7y ago
    First of all Google affects a lot more than just the USA and while HQed in the USA is in many ways an international company. Secondly, even if you take a US centric view of things, just because someone at the Pentagon claims something is the US best interests doesn't mean it is. People say, "oh we need these dangerous AI based weapons or other countries will win an arms race". Arms races benefit military contractors but few other people. The 20th century taught us lessons about arms races and we should learn from them. The USA does not build nuclear weapons anymore, instead it invests heavily in diplomacy to prevent other countries from building nuclear weapons. For some reason, few people seem to consider that we could take the same approach to AI weaponry. People simply underestimate the dangers of AI weaponry. Suppose you are an evil dictator who wants to oppress and enslave a group of people, and you can choose between a nuclear bomb, or a drone that has enough intelligence to hunt down journalists, political opponents, and any other dissidents that dare defy you. Which weapon would this hypothetical tyrant pick? Yes, wealthy, powerful people at the top ranks of politics and business in this country, who stand to gain more wealth and power via the development of these weapons, support Google developing them. However, your position that since they're the authority figures, anybody who questions them is not an "adult", strikes me as extremely asinine and highly dangerous.
• 75dvtwin 7y ago
  What is the line between 'voicing your concerns' and sabouteuring the business you receive paycheck from ? Why do the think inflating their own believes over the beliefs of others needs to be encouraged, funded and praised by the company they work for? Did this person object when google fired James Damore Or is 'selective outrage', is the norm? May be it is the norm for Burce Hahne, but then, how this can be this be universally just?
• cdoxsey 7y ago
  The oil and gas industry is essential to the well being of billions of people. It's literally the fuel for the world’s economy. Without it we would have substantially less food, travel would be all but impossible, and the technology sector would grind to a halt. Eliminating the industry would cause harm on a scale the world has never seen. An entirely predictable and preventable catastrophe done in the name of a naive environmental absolutism. Maybe let’s come up with solutions that don’t require pushing millions of people into poverty because they can no longer heat their homes or grow their food. Also FWIW, the moral accountability argument here is pretty shaky reasoning. A great many people use Google products for evil. That doesn’t make Google morally responsible for it.
  • viklove 7y ago
    Your analysis isn't entirely incorrect, but you're kind of missing the point. Oil and gas companies one day were necessary and provided more value than destruction (as far as we knew). At this point though, it's clear that oil and gas will one day be a thing of the past, and these massive industries are desperately trying to cling on in the face of this. Evidence of this is present in the lobbying efforts funded to the tune of billions of dollars a year (by these industries) to ensure regulations don't get passed, subsidies don't reach green technology, and information is suppressed. This is evil. No one is contesting the fact that we needed oil and gas to reach where we are today. We're just contesting the fact that we still need to be expanding these industries, which lobbyists are trying to do every single day. > Maybe let’s come up with solutions that don’t require pushing millions of people into poverty because they can no longer heat their homes or grow their food. Maybe let's come up with a solution that prevents inevitable mass migrations, famine, and wars. (This statement is just as fallacious as yours -- see, I can do it too.)
    • nec4b 7y ago
      Do you know of an energy source that can completely replace oil an gas today? It is very much not only a thing of past, but necessary for our survival today.
      • 7y ago
• dev12341 7y ago
  What is this, Don Draper's "Why I'm quitting tobacco" letter?
• pcj-github 7y ago
  My anecdotal observation is that Google is currently experiencing a (slight) brain drain... Many highly qualified and experienced engineers have recently left. I wonder how many 1x engineers it is going to take to maintain all that software when the 100x and 10x engineers are gone. Not a simple math problem.
  • rmah 7y ago
    Maybe it's just me, but I have doubts that 10x or 100x engineers are leaving google because of the reasons outlined in the post.
  • downerending 7y ago
    It's a knife that cuts many ways. Personally I wouldn't take a position there in 2020. Not because of what they're working on--I'd be fine working for a defense contractor--but rather because I don't want to deal with ideological drama on a regular basis. Work is work. If I decide to save the world, I'll do it on my own time with my own earnings, and my employer will be none the wiser.
    • Apocryphon 7y ago
      Google positioned themselves to be in the business of saving the world from the get-go: https://www.google.org https://www.google.org Founded in October 2005.
• sremani 7y ago
  Respect where it is due. I may not agree or know the veracity of the allegations but I will always support people who "live their beliefs".
• rainyMammoth 7y ago
  Yet another post of someone that feels the need to explain why they had to quit Google. To me it looks like another level of narcissism.
• jeffrogers 7y ago
  It's hard to hear people object to Google on moral or ethical grounds when they don't mention the fallout from programmatic advertising. Google pioneered this technology, which has had an impact on both our security and privacy, and the company has been caught exceeding the public's data collection expectations repeatedly. Now, after looking at the company's most recent financials and noting the CPC declines, I wonder less about the fallout of programmatic advertising and whether it was all worth it. I'm now left thinking more about whether we've got the right measure of human smarts or intelligence. I mean, these were the smart people, right?
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• wrs 7y ago
  “Oil and gas companies use cloud computing so I’m not going to work on cloud computing” doesn’t seem much more valid to me than “child pornographers use encryption so I’m not going to work on encryption”. It’s a technology that exists, and people will use it to further their goals no matter what you personally do. There is a simple, well-established way for society to discourage certain activities without damaging the shared infrastructure for other activities. It’s called a tax. If the externalities you (we) are concerned about were reflected in a carbon tax, it would not be up to individual employees to disproportionately risk their livelihoods and families like this. The project spreadsheet would come out differently for a reason that directly corresponds to the societal problem. So to me the moral imperative is to make sure that tax comes into existence, rather than making a not-very-impactful personal sacrifice that you may or not be able to afford.
  • xtacy 7y ago
    The analogy is a bit extreme, don't you think so? Isn't there a difference between developing a technology and actively taking part in selling it for a use-case that you disagree with?
    • telotortium 7y ago
      IMO it's not. First of all, I doubt many of the engineers here are actively selling the technology to the oil and gas companies directly, or even working on features that are especially designed for oil and gas companies - if they are, I think they have a little more of a case. Second of all, the relevant point here is that cloud computing capabilities are by default available to any purchaser, just as encryption is available to any user of products that contain it. From a utilitarian standpoint, I think most would agree that encryption and cloud computing are of overall benefit to the world. One might believe that, from a utilitarian standpoint, it would be better to not provide material assistance to oil and gas companies, since they do result in a lot of damage to the planet (although I personally believe the more effective route is to instead actively favor the development and deployment of renewable energy). But that argument is the same in principle as one favoring restrictions on the use of encryption by child pornographers for utilitarian purposes, to say nothing about restrictions on the use of encryption by enemies of your nation (which was the basic argument by the US government in the 1990s about restricting the use of encryption by non-Americans).
• throawayguy 7y ago
  These people are delusional. Good riddance and good luck finding employment elsewhere.
• smkellat 7y ago
  Alphabet is 70% held by institutional investors so those investors might ignore something like this. Insiders are reported to hold just under 6% of the shares and the remainders are out on the market. The holders of the 30% of shares not held by institutional investors may have a good question as to who exactly owns Alphabet and who gets to set its direction. There are employee-owned companies and worker cooperatives out there. Alphabet isn't one of them. The cost of buying up all the shares to turn it into such a thing looks fairly large at the current market rate.
• sergiotapia 7y ago
  The "LGBTQ" angle makes this guy a clown and discredits his entire blog post. Puh-lease!
  • GrayTextIsTruth 7y ago
    Yeah, its just small drama compared to the real damage Google has caused. Its sort of tone deaf to include that in why Google is unethical. The SV bubble.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• c930 7y ago
  where are you going? lol
• einpoklum 7y ago
  The author supports most of the outrageous conduct of Alphabet/Google in general, and is only disapproving of secondary (though not insignificant) issues. The main concerns of the author are: > 1. Persecution and firing of transgender and gay employees for their efforts to reform the firm > > 2. Google Cloud sales to the oil and gas industry > > 3. Expansion into the weapons industry and the business of killing But Alphabet is much more problematic to begin with: * It is a vast spying operation in favor of the US government and corporate and state allies around the world - going through your searches, your mail messages (even if you just send mail _to_ people with GMail), your geo-location. * It is a significant gate-keeper of visibility of Internet content: It passively and actively promotes and demotes search results (not talking about the ads here) through its ranking algorithms, but also in direct near-censorship of undesirable information sources. This is true not just on platforms such as YouTube but also on Search, and in the US, not just China, and involves Google operatives actively screening search results. If you are not aware of this, see: https://www.blog.google/products/search/our-latest-quality-improvements-search/ https://www.blog.google/products/search/our-latest-quality-i... and https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/19/goog-s19.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/19/goog-s19.html * I would also make the argument that, as a huge US corporation, it has significant responsibility for the maintenance of the current social order, with the ills of exploitation, huge disparity of wealth, high level of violence and violent homicides, poor health and other social services etc., degradation of the natural environment etc. in the US - and of the global order of dominance of the US over a lot of the world. Whether it goes into military products and services itself or just has the US government maintain its property rights and the financial systems on which it relies - is a matter of extent of culpability. And while the author seems to touch on some of these points through a brief description of Google's nature as a corporation, it's strange that he stayed there for so long, and why those issues are the ones that broke the camel's back, so to speak. I guess there is some sort of a reality-warping bubble around Google somehow.
• supernova87a 7y ago
  I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used once it's created. You have to let certain control go after a point. Or if your product is open to everyone, you'll have to live with the fact that people may use it in ways you disagree with. Xerox or Canon (or whoever) probably makes copiers that these "bad" companies use to make copies. Lenovo or Apple probably makes hardware that they use also to further their functions. Ford/GM probably supply them with vehicles. Farmers grow crops that get into the the meals that their personnel eat. Pilots and flight attendants probably have knowingly transported their employees. Why don't the employees at all these other companies object like Google employees? Why do Google employees get a special right to withhold consent for their product to be used in a setting they might object to? Why is oil/gas the sector that they object to? Why do some causes get their favor and not others? I get tired of people picking and choosing their annual causes to be outraged about. And the LGBT part of the manifesto is ridiculous.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• joeldg 7y ago
  This guy has been in a bubble since 2005, it's kind of amazing how out of touch he is about how the world at large works, how capitalism works, and ultimately how little most people 'care' about any of that in the 'real world' ... Good on him for taking a moral stand, but it feels pretty shallow to me.
• chrshawkes 7y ago
  Why did it take 15 years for him to have this stance? Could salary, bonuses, 401K, home ownership, vesting, millions made have anything to do with it? I don't counter the arguments being made but the message is disingenuous to me. I ask why 15 years, because I knew Google was evil to a lot of markets, people and businesses well over 10 years ago and I don't even work for them. They have ruined people's livelihoods by simple business as usual decisions and it's nothing new. I wonder how these worker revolutions would hold up in other countries like China? Privileged people on their soapbox don't send the messages they think they do, regardless of the position. The common folk are just trying to survive and feed their kids and aren't exactly fond of the idea of doubling of their gas tax. They don't have millions of Google dollars in the bank.
• pelasaco 7y ago
  Why probably a milestone in the tech labor movement end-up as a pure Virtue Signaling like that?
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• fzeroracer 7y ago
  I'm curious. If employees are not supposed to hold their employers accountable, then who is? The free market? Because as we've seen, the free market can easily be distorted through monopolies, lobbying, corruption etc. The government? Because that's how you get regulations and those seem to be especially hated among those that dislike employees attempting to influence corporate direction. Ultimately you have to accept someone has to provide a check against uninhibited corporate power and considering how they can rig market economics at scale, that power falls down to either the employees or the government.
• cmhnn 7y ago
  I admire people who follow their convictions. But, all the faith and all the good intentions in the world do not make for good policy and more importantly harmful policy if acted upon. I am consistently amazed by the sanctimonious incoherence many people in this candy ass industry feel comfortable espousing. This industry is where people with no work experience much less life experience are hired at 3-5 times the average American family's salary. This industry is where people who have the OP's 14 years of experience in that level of company can amass wealth that exceeds that of generations of families who didn't have people in the lineage that wrote buggy software for a living. The author worked 14 years in a company that provides the decadence of shit like free food and free dry cleaning. Free food is fucking mind blowing to some people. Not only that, but the company he's worked for has ALWAYS been about helping others manipulate people. It has always been about taking some of the smartest people the industry has and pointing them at human manipulation because well they are lowly consumer apes and that's OK. Yet, like many on hnn he considers himself worthy of wielding the categorical imperative as if he was a fluffy bunny Thanos because he has joined the club that hates the orange man and supports the approved protected classes while defending the rights of street defecation. I guess 14 years enabling mind fuck INC. has all been cool because he goes to church and is a moral tourist. The mind numbingly vast majority of techs especially at the major cloud provider level have never ever lived in an environment where physical harm or fatal consequences were the punishment for talking the wrong kind of shit to the wrong person or even being in the wrong area. Their pansy ass, horseshit view of the world is fueled by an existence where they have lived like kings in comparison to many. Yet in their proclamations they are comfortable blithely advocating policies that kill whole industries or leave young soldiers at a disadvantage because well they're good people and some hick who had to go into the military or works on a rig and feeds his family just isn't as noble as someone confused about their gender who would like others to be taxed so they could change it free of charge. Twice. You can pretty much hear them thinking "Those kinds of people on those rigs vote Republican anyways so fuck them. Pretty sure that's what they said at church right before I took off to get my 6 dollar coffee on the way to spend a couple of hours with the the homeless." Glad you quit your job. Also glad, you are just another deranged tech who thinks they are on the side of right and justice while being oblivious to their own shoddy and harmful positions instead of someone of consequence who does something like defend our country, farm or roof houses.
• tasuki 7y ago
  > In January of 2020, the U.S. President assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, risking the possibility of World War 3 I generally try to give the author the benefit of the doubt. The writer lost me here.
• GrayTextIsTruth 7y ago
  If this letter would have started with, "I stayed at Google for 15 years even though I knew it was unethical. I'm a piece of shit. BUT I'm going to try and redeem myself..." then it would have been much better. Some kind of redemption arc. The damage has already been done, man. You don't magically earn the moral high-ground for "quitting" after 15 years with an angry letter.
• christiansakai 7y ago
  Most people joining Google or FAANG is not for the brand. It is for the financial compensation. If <insert FAANG company here> doesn’t pay almost double the market salary then majority of people won’t work for that company. It is futile to ask people not to work for a FAANG company. The reality is, majority of people need (not just want) the money. People who already worked at FAANG long enough to enjoy the benefit of being financially good can afford to quit or don’t work for FAANG, or don’t work at all. Can non FAANG tech companies follow suit in increasing the salary? I mean, keep your interview DS&A hard and make it harder if you need to avoid bad hire, but increase the compensation too. Otherwise you will keep seeing major brain drain every year.
• thanatos519 7y ago
  Deeply moving and most courageous. Kudos for a direct, thorough exploration of motivation and conviction. So glad I never went there.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• dchyrdvh 7y ago
  I like the tech labor movement idea, as long as it works on practical goals. It could be funded by membership fees and have lawyers on payroll to make some changes in the laws. Noncompetes should be outlawed, for example. Membership should be sufficiently anonymous because I don't trust you enough to disclose my name. The author seems be dispersing anger over a very broad set of issues. That won't work. The authors also pressing on existing employees that they should feel guilty and take some action. By this logic, when the US does some questionable things abroad, you should renounce citizenship and leave to Canada. When the Canada's gov makes a questionable move, you leave it immediately for Norway. Eventually you discover that humanity is still mostly driven by egoism and retreat to woods.
• 75dvtwin 7y ago
  There seems to be at least 2 undercurrents - (a) righteousness of the process to go about internal activism that's critical of company's business partners, company's internal policies, company's hiring and firing practices. And Company's response. - (b) the actual position of an individual(s) on the above topics. Would we have a problem with Google's actions if Bruce Hahne, (hypothetically) advocate bad things (eg polygamy, forced organ donations, child labor and so on) ?... We would not have problem with Google STFU message to him and his supporters, in that hypothetical case ( a ), right? Therefore, we should not really have problem with Google's action, if we accept that Bruce Hahne's positions ( b ) are not that good (and not shared by tens of millions of people that live in the country where Alphabet is headquartered), in the first place About ( b ). Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. This is not really presented in his writing. Eg. >"... I see far too many similarities to what we experienced in the PCUSA twenty years ago ..." Is not an extraordinary evidence.. Therefore, I find that this type of high-volume, low-evidence activism is overall bad. They should be told STFU while on company's time, and get out of the company if they do not like it.
• fargle 7y ago
  Good job you! I wish that many more principled folks were willing to actually stand up for what they believe in. I think it would make this entire democratic+capitalism system work much better. People who profess to have "strong beliefs", but are unwilling to back that up with, potentially scary economic, action are big giant hypocrites. And liars and other hypocrites aren't helping anyone. P.S. I'm pretty sure googles' response starts with "don't let the door", MEH! let them swing.
• aygthrwy 7y ago
  It's interesting that Google was painted as a villain when it planned to re-enter the China, while Microsoft and Yahoo have been operating censored search engines there continuously from the beginning. The difference? You don't hear of Microsoft or Yahoo employees complain about it. Similarly, Google was vilified by its employees for bidding on government and defense contracts, while Microsoft and Amazon (and nearly every other tech company) very publicly fight tooth and nail to land these contracts. Again, the difference is that you don't hear Amazon or Microsoft employees complain. They don't stage constant protests. They don't leak internal documents to the press. They don't quit in dramatic fashion and write blog posts about it. Google doesn't have a worse track record on any of these issues than other tech companies. It just has the loudest, most critical employees, who create a public shitstorm whenever the company steps out of line with their progressive politics. Over time, this has gradually seeped into the public conscious. Now even progressives outside the company rally against Google, while ignoring the tech companies that actively support censorship and the military-industrial war machine.
• fg6hr 7y ago
  I suppose the author promptly returned all the money earned during those 15 years to Google?
• scardycat 7y ago
  Conjecture: * Worked at Google / FB / blah startup for long enough to put some serious $$ away * Don't care about working becasue see above * Pick a fight / select a topic that is niche enough to wrote a blog post about * Quit (cough , retire,) young and afford to live luxuriously * Stop working becasue now you are too lazy to give a shit about anything * Bitch about how everyone attacks you * Get a shitty rating in perf review becasue you stopped giving a shit * Whine and whine * Get a shitty rating again * Quit and make scene about how they were victimized Here is a thought, * Quit * thank the gods and Google for making you rich * live life and relax
• nailer 7y ago
  I originally upvoted this, but "LGBTQ employees have been fired for their activism" implies the employees were fired for their activism around gay and lesbian or bisexual, or transgender, issues. The employees were fired over not supporting border control. It's fine to not support border control, but please don't imply this has anything to do with gay rights or gender identity when it clearly does not.