4 ms·

The International Court of Justice found that the employer's client in this case is plausibly conducting acts of genocide (https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default

The International Court of Justice found that the employer's client in this case is plausibly conducting acts of genocide (https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...). Is there anything an employer could do or be involved in that, in your mind, justifies civil disobedience in the work place, or is there just no limiting principle here?

pyuser583 2y ago
I don’t see a point where “taking over an office” convinces me of anything. It’s not like they were sharing copies of the ICJ decision.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  We're all talking about it here, which was probably their goal. I wasn't previously aware of the fact that Google is helping the IDF target Palestinians.
bawolff 2y ago
You could wait for the final icj decision on the case. From what i understand a preliminary "plausible" ruling by the ICJ requires very little evidence. Its similar to the amount of evidence needed for a search warrant in a normal case - you need some, but much less then you need for an actual conviction. There is still a very good chance that Israel will win the case overall notwithstanding the "plausible" ruling.
- banana_feather 2y ago
  > You could wait for the final icj decision on the case. And Google could freeze all work for and collaboration with the party plausibly accused of acts of genocide until the decision comes in. But they won't, and their employees are only following their lead. It also doesn't seem reasonable to tell someone they need to wait until a potential genocide, and what might be their role in it, is done and over before they have the social okay to start engaging in political speech. > Its similar to the amount of evidence needed for a search warrant in a normal case - you need some, but much less then you need for an actual conviction. No, it isn't. The ICJ proceedings were adversarial, and the process of obtaining a search warrant is not.
- megous 2y ago
  Israel's government is directly and intentionally killing an maiming about 250 children daily for 190 or so days in a row 15-20 thousands of them dead right now, and 10s of thousands more wounded. And this is not even the first genocide Israel was involved in or helped carry out. They have quite a legacy in south america, where they were supporting now (self-)recognized genocide of Maya (https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/10/guatemala-un-experts-welcome-court-ruling-ixil-mayans-were-victims-genocide https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/10/guatemala-un...). Yes, Google could wait for "final" decision, like these companies always wait for final decisions when some of their employees rape or assualt someone (or is accused of such), or when their employees kill 10 children on camera, or take a buldozer and crush entire families in tents to death. They'd surely wait until final decision of the court to fire them, and stop doing business with them. Their all about fairness, and respecting the presumption of innocence. :D It's all about the money, who cares how many people they help kill. Just like with all the data abuse. It only was somewhat limited when there was threat to Google from some governments. Quiting some employees is < $ than quiting a billion dolar contract. That's all there's to it, quite likely. Pretty sure there are billions to be made between now and some 20-30 years later when the genocide may be recognized by some international court. I commend these people for deciding to get quited by Google in the manner they did. They made the point publicly, instead of just silently quiting.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  A plausible ruling requires a significant amount of evidence - enough to convince the court that the case could lead to a conviction and is worth spending several years on. At the very least, any country that is "plausibly" committing genocide is engaged in some truly heinous actions, even if they don't amount to the legal definition of genocide.

pyuser583 2y ago

I don’t see a point where “taking over an office” convinces me of anything. It’s not like they were sharing copies of the ICJ decision.

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
We're all talking about it here, which was probably their goal. I wasn't previously aware of the fact that Google is helping the IDF target Palestinians.

bawolff 2y ago

You could wait for the final icj decision on the case. From what i understand a preliminary "plausible" ruling by the ICJ requires very little evidence. Its similar to the amount of evidence needed for a search warrant in a normal case - you need some, but much less then you need for an actual conviction. There is still a very good chance that Israel will win the case overall notwithstanding the "plausible" ruling.

banana_feather 2y ago
> You could wait for the final icj decision on the case. And Google could freeze all work for and collaboration with the party plausibly accused of acts of genocide until the decision comes in. But they won't, and their employees are only following their lead. It also doesn't seem reasonable to tell someone they need to wait until a potential genocide, and what might be their role in it, is done and over before they have the social okay to start engaging in political speech. > Its similar to the amount of evidence needed for a search warrant in a normal case - you need some, but much less then you need for an actual conviction. No, it isn't. The ICJ proceedings were adversarial, and the process of obtaining a search warrant is not.
megous 2y ago
Israel's government is directly and intentionally killing an maiming about 250 children daily for 190 or so days in a row 15-20 thousands of them dead right now, and 10s of thousands more wounded. And this is not even the first genocide Israel was involved in or helped carry out. They have quite a legacy in south america, where they were supporting now (self-)recognized genocide of Maya (https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/10/guatemala-un-experts-welcome-court-ruling-ixil-mayans-were-victims-genocide https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/10/guatemala-un...). Yes, Google could wait for "final" decision, like these companies always wait for final decisions when some of their employees rape or assualt someone (or is accused of such), or when their employees kill 10 children on camera, or take a buldozer and crush entire families in tents to death. They'd surely wait until final decision of the court to fire them, and stop doing business with them. Their all about fairness, and respecting the presumption of innocence. :D It's all about the money, who cares how many people they help kill. Just like with all the data abuse. It only was somewhat limited when there was threat to Google from some governments. Quiting some employees is < $ than quiting a billion dolar contract. That's all there's to it, quite likely. Pretty sure there are billions to be made between now and some 20-30 years later when the genocide may be recognized by some international court. I commend these people for deciding to get quited by Google in the manner they did. They made the point publicly, instead of just silently quiting.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
A plausible ruling requires a significant amount of evidence - enough to convince the court that the case could lead to a conviction and is worth spending several years on. At the very least, any country that is "plausibly" committing genocide is engaged in some truly heinous actions, even if they don't amount to the legal definition of genocide.