3 ms·

Except... the problem is: this is not a problem that needs fixing. If Google was doing something illegal, then the employees would have every moral (and legal)

Except... the problem is: this is not a problem that needs fixing. If Google was doing something illegal, then the employees would have every moral (and legal) right to protest and demand a change of policy. Google has protocols for appeals and complaints that employees can use. Even if those are just for show, the right course of action would be to use the advertised protocols, then, if they don't work, the employees would have a legitimate claim against the company. It's labor-intensive, time-consuming and expensive to follow such protocols. And, I can "understand" the protesters in the sense that I would, too, be discouraged by the prospects of doing things the right way... But, realistically... all these protests are going to accomplish is the workplace ethics violation on the part of the protesters, and, probably a boot. ---- As an aside: for someone living the events it feels surreal that people who are completely out of touch with the reality of the events become so enthused about the subject. Often times it's actually nice / conscientious people who get trapped by the most brazen lies about political / humanitarian issues far, far away...

close04 3y ago
> Except... the problem is: this is not a problem that needs fixing. If Google was doing something illegal Every law changes something, making it legal or illegal. If changes weren't allowed we'd be stuck in one situation forever. Things become legal or illegal all the time so they don't and shouldn't change just when they're illegal. Usage of encryption could be illegal, and consuming drugs could be legal. And at some point it was legal/normal to decide people's rights based on gender, color, or sexual orientation. "Fixing" these problems is down to the morality of the observer. In a free society the law usually follows the morality of society or majority but with some significant inertia.
- crabbone 3y ago
  Picketing Google's CEO is not the way to change the law. If you don't like the law, there's a category of people generally known as "lawmakers" -- typically elected representatives of wider groups of people who are then endowed with the power to change the laws. You should either try to influence the lawmakers directly, or indirectly through electing other lawmakers. In other words, there's nothing really new to what I wrote: if you don't like what Google is doing, there's a way to appeal, contest, you name it. The legal ways to do this are designed the way they are in order to take into account the freedoms and convenience of people involved in the process. > "Fixing" these problems is down to the morality of the observer. No, it's not. Laws are designed to regulate relationships between many people for the benefit of many people in most cases. And in the case in point, that's exactly what they are meant to do. The morality of individual observer is not and should not be the authority to fix these laws. Pretty much the same reason why individuals in most but the very trivial cases are not allowed to prosecute the law: this creates anarchy, and, in practice, leads to something like what's happening in Haiti today -- gang violence, failed economy, failed medical system etc.

close04 3y ago

> Except... the problem is: this is not a problem that needs fixing. If Google was doing something illegal Every law changes something, making it legal or illegal. If changes weren't allowed we'd be stuck in one situation forever. Things become legal or illegal all the time so they don't and shouldn't change just when they're illegal. Usage of encryption could be illegal, and consuming drugs could be legal. And at some point it was legal/normal to decide people's rights based on gender, color, or sexual orientation. "Fixing" these problems is down to the morality of the observer. In a free society the law usually follows the morality of society or majority but with some significant inertia.

crabbone 3y ago
Picketing Google's CEO is not the way to change the law. If you don't like the law, there's a category of people generally known as "lawmakers" -- typically elected representatives of wider groups of people who are then endowed with the power to change the laws. You should either try to influence the lawmakers directly, or indirectly through electing other lawmakers. In other words, there's nothing really new to what I wrote: if you don't like what Google is doing, there's a way to appeal, contest, you name it. The legal ways to do this are designed the way they are in order to take into account the freedoms and convenience of people involved in the process. > "Fixing" these problems is down to the morality of the observer. No, it's not. Laws are designed to regulate relationships between many people for the benefit of many people in most cases. And in the case in point, that's exactly what they are meant to do. The morality of individual observer is not and should not be the authority to fix these laws. Pretty much the same reason why individuals in most but the very trivial cases are not allowed to prosecute the law: this creates anarchy, and, in practice, leads to something like what's happening in Haiti today -- gang violence, failed economy, failed medical system etc.