4 ms·

Another Googler here, thanks for saving me the typingm Yes, Google does unethical things. This sucks and I feel uncomfortable supporting it. Quitting is just t

Another Googler here, thanks for saving me the typingm Yes, Google does unethical things. This sucks and I feel uncomfortable supporting it. Quitting is just too costly in terms of personal cost and would not have much effect.

mav3rick 6y ago
By in large Google tries to go good. No company is perfect.
- igetspam 6y ago
  Cite your sources. I spent years at Google. The trajectory was obvious even a decade ago. There were many reasons to leave and many of us did. I didn't have to wait for a line in the sand because we knew what was on the horizon and leaving was easy. (I did not have a family then, which is a consideration and why I left one of my last startups. Baby on the way, acquired by a big corp and knew it would be easy to become chained to that desk.)
dangus 6y ago
To you and your parent comment, coming from outside of Google: Anytime you get a large enough group of people, minimum size of one, evil will exist. That’s something we have to learn how to cope with, and sometimes we have to accept that we aren’t in control. There’s sort of a rebel spirit in the USA where people see themselves as perpetuating evil if they’re not actively fighting it, boycotting this and that, throwing the tea in the Boston harbor. On the flip side, I’d make the argument that one’s personal self-preservation is more important than “making a difference,” and that people have way less of a chance to make a difference than they give themselves credit for. As you said, quitting Google would not have much effect. All of that said, I don’t see anything uniquely evil about Google compared to any other Fortune 500 or even much smaller mid-sized business. I think I could even make the argument that they are decidedly less evil than many much smaller businesses with approximately 200 employees. And the upside of Google is tremendous. A lot of commercial products have an incredibly positive impact. I just don’t think anyone has to feel bad for holding down a steady job, especially since we shouldn’t judge people on their employment prestige in the first place. Having the ability to choose employer based on moral compass is itself an indicator of privilege, so I wouldn’t want to look down on a cigarette company employee (especially individual contributors) for holding down that job, never mind a software company that makes a bunch of stuff that people largely like and benefit from.
- fdeage 6y ago
  I agree, I doubt there can be much difference between Fortune 500's company A and Fortune 500's company B, in the long run. I thought, though, that "being evil" (whatever that means) came from some kind of instinct of survival experienced when facing the threat of bankruptcy, or at least very strong market pressures. And and it didn't seem to me that Google had been facing these yet.
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    I thought, though, that "being evil" (whatever that means) came from some kind of instinct of survival experienced when facing the threat of bankruptcy, or at least very strong market pressures. And and it didn't seem to me that Google had been facing these yet. It's even more difficult than fighting for survival. A publicly-traded company can't just survive, turning a tidy profit every year. It needs to grow at a rapid pace or else those stocks (and therefore the executives' stock options) are useless. Google didn't need to fight to survive, but they also didn't have the option of remaining "Google, circa 2004" or whatever we think their last year as a mostly-good company was.
- kryptokommunist 6y ago
  I feel that when everyone would apply this world view there would be no point in ethics at all and we would live in a more grim world than we already are. I find it very discouraging since this assumes that we have no choice. But we do. I met a guy studying CS in Cuba (he grew up there) on a Congress and visited him there. The living conditions there are not nice, wealth is something most people there don’t have access to. But this guy was asked by FB/Google to interview for a position and he proudly told me how he declined and wrote them exactly why he morally thought he will never work there. Regardless of the correctness of his view it impressed me that he held principles higher than his potential income. If you just follow financial incentives in your decisions plus a minimal ethical code that will keep you out of prison you are contributing to humanities demise. Long term if too many people just follow their incentives without reflecting on their net contribution to society as a whole this will destroy our society. Also it’s not like you will be out on the streets if you don’t work for Google/FB. You’ll most likely still be considered rich with whatever you make at other companies in this sector.
fdeage 6y ago
I see. I have to say I'm slightly surprised, because I thought that top SWE like the ones working at "elite" companies such as Google were enjoying more freedom when choosing their employer. Seems like it's hard for everyone then... (again, no judgement)
- jfalcon 6y ago
  It's only partially true. While many could walk across the street and work for another Fortune 1000 company tomorrow or a well-funded startup in particular areas. But, I think the point he was trying to make is that because of these mega-companies coalescing their people in certain cities, the economics of that takes a toll on everyone but the top executives who are already getting paid big cheddar + their enticements for being at the company: their stock awards which if there for even 5-10 years can amount to a huge amount. Enough for said ~managers~ [executives] to do the same sorts of hops globally as ~managers~ [executives] are interchangeable regardless of the product they produce.

mav3rick 6y ago

By in large Google tries to go good. No company is perfect.

igetspam 6y ago
Cite your sources. I spent years at Google. The trajectory was obvious even a decade ago. There were many reasons to leave and many of us did. I didn't have to wait for a line in the sand because we knew what was on the horizon and leaving was easy. (I did not have a family then, which is a consideration and why I left one of my last startups. Baby on the way, acquired by a big corp and knew it would be easy to become chained to that desk.)

dangus 6y ago

To you and your parent comment, coming from outside of Google: Anytime you get a large enough group of people, minimum size of one, evil will exist. That’s something we have to learn how to cope with, and sometimes we have to accept that we aren’t in control. There’s sort of a rebel spirit in the USA where people see themselves as perpetuating evil if they’re not actively fighting it, boycotting this and that, throwing the tea in the Boston harbor. On the flip side, I’d make the argument that one’s personal self-preservation is more important than “making a difference,” and that people have way less of a chance to make a difference than they give themselves credit for. As you said, quitting Google would not have much effect. All of that said, I don’t see anything uniquely evil about Google compared to any other Fortune 500 or even much smaller mid-sized business. I think I could even make the argument that they are decidedly less evil than many much smaller businesses with approximately 200 employees. And the upside of Google is tremendous. A lot of commercial products have an incredibly positive impact. I just don’t think anyone has to feel bad for holding down a steady job, especially since we shouldn’t judge people on their employment prestige in the first place. Having the ability to choose employer based on moral compass is itself an indicator of privilege, so I wouldn’t want to look down on a cigarette company employee (especially individual contributors) for holding down that job, never mind a software company that makes a bunch of stuff that people largely like and benefit from.

fdeage 6y ago
I agree, I doubt there can be much difference between Fortune 500's company A and Fortune 500's company B, in the long run. I thought, though, that "being evil" (whatever that means) came from some kind of instinct of survival experienced when facing the threat of bankruptcy, or at least very strong market pressures. And and it didn't seem to me that Google had been facing these yet.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  I thought, though, that "being evil" (whatever that means) came from some kind of instinct of survival experienced when facing the threat of bankruptcy, or at least very strong market pressures. And and it didn't seem to me that Google had been facing these yet. It's even more difficult than fighting for survival. A publicly-traded company can't just survive, turning a tidy profit every year. It needs to grow at a rapid pace or else those stocks (and therefore the executives' stock options) are useless. Google didn't need to fight to survive, but they also didn't have the option of remaining "Google, circa 2004" or whatever we think their last year as a mostly-good company was.
kryptokommunist 6y ago
I feel that when everyone would apply this world view there would be no point in ethics at all and we would live in a more grim world than we already are. I find it very discouraging since this assumes that we have no choice. But we do. I met a guy studying CS in Cuba (he grew up there) on a Congress and visited him there. The living conditions there are not nice, wealth is something most people there don’t have access to. But this guy was asked by FB/Google to interview for a position and he proudly told me how he declined and wrote them exactly why he morally thought he will never work there. Regardless of the correctness of his view it impressed me that he held principles higher than his potential income. If you just follow financial incentives in your decisions plus a minimal ethical code that will keep you out of prison you are contributing to humanities demise. Long term if too many people just follow their incentives without reflecting on their net contribution to society as a whole this will destroy our society. Also it’s not like you will be out on the streets if you don’t work for Google/FB. You’ll most likely still be considered rich with whatever you make at other companies in this sector.

fdeage 6y ago

I see. I have to say I'm slightly surprised, because I thought that top SWE like the ones working at "elite" companies such as Google were enjoying more freedom when choosing their employer. Seems like it's hard for everyone then... (again, no judgement)

jfalcon 6y ago
It's only partially true. While many could walk across the street and work for another Fortune 1000 company tomorrow or a well-funded startup in particular areas. But, I think the point he was trying to make is that because of these mega-companies coalescing their people in certain cities, the economics of that takes a toll on everyone but the top executives who are already getting paid big cheddar + their enticements for being at the company: their stock awards which if there for even 5-10 years can amount to a huge amount. Enough for said ~managers~ [executives] to do the same sorts of hops globally as ~managers~ [executives] are interchangeable regardless of the product they produce.