7 ms·
Why I'm Forced to Say Farewell: Google Management Has Lost Its Moral Compass
- cheekygeeky 4mo agoGoogle will want him terminated immediately and will probably make him some settlement (combined with a threat) to keep his mouth shut, going forward. Meanwhile, the media will be clamoring for interviews and more sound bites.
- saltyoldman 4mo ago. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people. So if our enemies had no qualms at all about doing this, wouldn't it make sense that we have weapons that can at least counter, and potentially fight back? Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland? > "Don't be evil" Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?
- izacus 4mo agoIf you actually read the article you'd know that the Googles government isn't friendly with the author's government, which makes your nitpicking nonsensical.
- lokar 4mo agoYour argument is not really responding to his. He has, and has had, a specific moral philosophy he follows. When he took the job the public (and once he started, internal) words and actions of the company fit within that philosophy (or closely enough). Now the company has changed and they don’t fit. Further, the obvious changes happened without any real notice or explanation. It seems reasonable in that situation to leave. FWIW; I was in the same situation, and left. Do you fault him for his personal moral code? He is not telling you how you should act.
- leptons 4mo ago>Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you? When they rename "Department of Defense" to "Department of War", there can be no mistake about the intention of the government. They aren't "protecting" us, they are actively starting unnecessary wars, because cruelty has always been the point for them.
- rayiner 4mo agoDid you just realize this now? The name "Department of Defense" has always been a euphemism. The last time we were in a defensive war was World War II--ironically, when the DoD was still called the "Department of War."
- leptons 4mo agoNice whataboutism. This pointless internet interaction is over.
- rayiner 4mo agoIt’s not “whataboutism” because it’s relating to the same event, not a different event. In context of the facts, it seems like your complaint is that the name is being changed to accurately reflect what the DOD was already doing.
- leptons 4mo agoNice whataboutism. This pointless internet interaction is over.
- saltyoldman 4mo agoIs it over because making real arguments backed by facts are hard?
- leptons 4mo ago
- mieses 4mo agohe is a self described pacifist. how nice to be him.
- nathan_compton 4mo agoI don't know, it seems like being a pacifist is harder, since it exposes you to violence to which you cannot retaliate while alienating you from your peers with less stringent moral opinions. Doesn't seem like it really makes anything easier. You don't have to look hard to find that history is replete with pacifists who paid social and legal penalties for their moral stance.
- Chu4eeno 4mo agoHe also said that "defense" was "different", so he's not that principled. I assume if he actually felt threatened personally he wouldn't have any issues with developing weapons (through full-disk encryption or unbreakable DRM or locking people out of their devices or whatever).
- jubilanti 4mo agoYou seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of https://enwp.org/Pacifism https://enwp.org/Pacifism
- daedrdev 4mo agoI have met pacifists who say all war is bad* and thus the Russia Ukraine war should immediately end, without any ideas on how to get that to happen except a few who imply Ukraine should roll over and be consumed. *or this is an inter-capitalist war
- asadotzler 4mo agoI once met a horse that could count. That hardly makes horses a good representation of math professors. Our experiences with a few instances of something is rarely sufficient for us to suggest or imply some kind of universality.
- saltyoldman 4mo agoOr, you don't understand the main criticism of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism#Criticism
- themafia 4mo ago> if the AI is used to stop an ISIS Describe that scenario to me. What precisely is the language model going to do? To defeat a _terrorist_ organization? I feel like this is way to asymmetric of a philosophy to actually work, but, I'm curious to know what your imagination holds on this one. > Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you? The government _is_ impotent in protecting you. If they weren't we wouldn't need courts. Or a constitution. Or the revolution which started it. Finally, there is an argument to be made, that our government, and it's imperious ways, were the primary force which led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. Perhaps if we weren't telling lies about yellow cake and mobile chemical labs while indiscriminately bombing innocent civilians we wouldn't be facing such a ridiculous world security posture.
- saltyoldman 4mo agoYou must be one of those people asking to free Karmelo? Some things are just simple. ISIS is a terrorist organization you're carrying water for. Most of the mission of ISIS is simply spread Islam and kill infidels. Islam had that charter prior to the creation of America by the way.
- int_19h 4mo agoI'm not a pacifist, but I wouldn't work in any place related to the US military for the simple reason that it is mostly used to wage wars of aggression these days, or provide materiel to other countries that do. Stop doing that and then we can seriously talk about defensive military tech. I left NVIDIA in part because it is too heavily involved in these things (and Palantir and Anduril specifically). Regarding this specifically: > Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland? it again depends on what exactly said AI does. If it's used to surveil most people most of the time, for example, then that probably does reduce the odds of an ISIS-linked attack on US, but the surveillance itself would be a greater injury at that scale.
- taid9iK- 4mo agoGood for you. Us. I always wondered what being pacifist means specifically in this space. Thank you!
- moomoo11 4mo agowell at least the TC and stock appreciation was worth it right? sorry not being a jerk but many of these kinds of posts just come off as performative and attention seeking. you could have just quit, literally everyone knows how FAANG operates. These are the most successful companies in the history of the world. What do you expect? DO you need a PhD to figure this out?
- aucisson_masque 4mo agoIt's great to follow your own moral compass, whatever the cost. Much harder than taking the money and blindly following management decisions.
- andriy_koval 4mo agoIts easier once he vested his director level stock compensation since 2017.
- spiralcoaster 4mo agoRight, because I'm sure that's not what he's been doing this entire time. Everyone knows Google has been a shining beacon of goodwill since 2017.
- JuniperMesos 4mo ago[flagged]
- ashleyn 4mo agoConsidering they rolled back DEI along with everyone else after Trump's second victory, it's difficult to view those previous "values" as anything other than cynical kissing-up to the previous holders of power.
- toomuchtodo 4mo agoIt’s the cost of buying goodwill and lower regulatory burden from the administration in power at the time of implementation. DEI? Non DEI? Like an umbrella, just depends on the weather, its business as usual regardless.
- jordanb 4mo agoAnd it didn't even stop the antitrust suite so they threw in with Trump and then started sucking up to him. He's giving big tech everything they want so there is pretty much nothing he can do that will upset them.
- mystraline 4mo agoIve directly complained against the latte liberals screaming DEI. Ive had them demand my pronouns. I really dont care, but saying that is absolutely not acceptable. Ill use your pronouns. I really do not care. Ive been in meetings with 'land acknowledgements' with whatever former indians/native americans who were there. Its not like we're giving them the land back. DEI and what it turned into was a big for-public-show that you knew the buzzwords and the antiwords. And if you didnt, or woukdnt play along, theyd ruin you. The current MAGA MAHA meritocracy crap is also just the opposite, but the same games as DEI folks. They have their buzzwords and antiwords. Although, theyre a whole lot stupider and easier to manipulate and deal with.
- rayiner 4mo agoI agree with your broader point, but DEI versus no DEI is a bad example. That's not an example of companies sucking up to the preferred policies of whatever administration is in power. Instead, they are responding to decisive legal decisions. There is a clear legal principle at issue: the civil rights laws are symmetric as to race. The Supreme Court held that in SFFA in 2023, and again in Ames in 2025 (which was a 9-0 decision). Most "DEI" programs create unacceptable legal exposure because they involve literature or practices as to white people that would be held up as evidence of racial discrimination in a Title VII lawsuit if the races were switched.
- ams92 4mo ago“I got the bag and now have developed a conscience"
- readthenotes1 4mo ago" Don't be evil" The slogans are on the walls because they are not in our hearts. Google has not changed its moral compass in 20 years. You just didn't want to admit it
- mv4 4mo agoTranslation: now I can FIRE.
- spiralcoaster 4mo ago[flagged]
- raffael_de 4mo agothere are plenty of people who are financially independent but who don't choose to follow their moral compass.
- trhway 4mo agoBeing financially independent is the moral compass of the financially independent.
- raffael_de 4mo ago"being financially independent" is a state and a "moral compass" is a function or tool. Two different concepts like red and tomato or yesterday and cold.
- classified 4mo agoA compass needs to point somewhere and financial independence is where it points for those people.
- alsetmusic 4mo ago> Being financially independent is the moral compass of the financially independent. I mean, I think you meant it somewhat derisively (if not, apologies), but it's absolutely true. I work for two reasons: it gives me a higher quality of living and it anchors my life by creating structure. I could choose to not work and be very frugal and probably be ok. But I might have to re-enter the job market later in life due to rising costs after my skills have atrophied (been there, it's horrible; no one will consider you). Or I can make certain that when the day comes that I'm ready to be done, it's at a time when making it to death without financial hardship has a much higher probability. I can also afford to enjoy nice things rather than pinching pennies. I also know that I have a tendency to spin out if I have too much free time and not enough going with routine and a sense of contributing. Combined with the above, this means I am free to work where I want to work, doing the absolute easiest thing I can find that I still consider rewarding. I don't have to chase money or promotions (I want as little responsibility as possible). I can walk away tomorrow if my org does something I consider unethical. I can hold out for a position that meets the above criteria rather than taking the first job I see because of desperation. When my previous employer had layoffs, I was able to remain comfortable for six months while only applying to jobs I genuinely wanted. There's no amount of money that a Meta, Google, OpenAI, etc could offer me because even though it'd be nice to own a house in the Bay Area, I'm satisfied renting until death and don't need more than the very nice spacious home I've already got. I hit the jackpot and I'm grateful every day.
- lbrito 4mo ago>“Don’t Be Evil” wasn’t just a slogan (...) —it was a north star for teams making hard calls I've developed an involuntary, muscle-level reflex that forces me to close the tab immediately when I read these "not just X -- it was Y" LLMisms. I realize the author might be human and am sorry if that's the case, but I can't help it.
- morganf 4mo agoSame for me. It is the spectral signal of LLM writing. I'm a writer and last week I re-read one of my own books, that was written a few years before LLMs appeared. And I saw I used the "It's not X; it's Y" construction and I cringed, and now I have a moral dilemma: it feels so painful LLM robot speak that I want to rewrite that sentence for the next edition. But on the other hand, I want to keep it in because it is what I wrote and it was me talking not an LLM. Oh the moral dilemmas one must face!!!
- wrs 4mo agoWhat’s painful is that you’re thinking of letting robots suppress your authentic voice. Also, they got that way by copying humans, and if you continue to cede to them everything they copy, you’ll have no place left to be.
- archagon 4mo agoThere used to be (is...?) an xkcd IRC chatroom where you were only allowed to post things that had never been said before. Violations resulted in an n-minute ban, increasing with each violation. Maybe this is the future of all (interesting/worthwhile) human writing. Perpetually stay one step ahead of the machines.
- FloorEgg 4mo agoSurely there are times when using that pattern is a great way to communicate the point to be made. The problem is LLMs over-use it and apply it in lots of cases when it's not appropriate. My low-confidence theory is that it's an artifact of making the LLMs better at coding. My two cents: think carefully if that pattern is a really great way to say what you want to say in your book. If it is, leave it, if you could say it better, change it. How LLMs write and how people feel about them is evolving and the current dynamic will pass...
- sunshine-o 4mo ago> Sundar Pichai in 2018 stated very clearly that “AI applications we will not pursue: … > 3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms. Really? Algorithms for ads and mass surveillance were always at the core of Google model. And there is not really such thing as "internationally accepted norms", Google, as a pioneer, literally defined them at the time.
- asadotzler 4mo ago>Algorithms for ads and mass surveillance were always at the core of Google model. You may not have been around back then, but we had half a decade of Google before that model, and it was quite nice, nice enough to get us to leave our other search providers--and to hand them the keys to our inboxes.
- BiteCode_dev 4mo agoI refused an interview from google in 2010ish, because it was already dubious with all the tracking and advertising they were doing, as well as the rising censorship. So if you decided to go in 2017 with all that happened since, your moral compass was already broken with google's. Snowden already revealed what all that data was used for with program like PRISM. You already seen the total lack of interest in preventing scams in their ads as long as it brings money. You've seen the antitrust fines. The tax avoidance schemes. The election influence concerns over youtube content. What I read is "I know have made enough money from Google immorality, I can virtue signal by taking an early retirement and pretend I'm a great person".
- asadotzler 4mo agoThis take I can get behind. Google's leadership has been total garbage for at least 15 years. My experience as an employee of one of Google's closest business partners was that it started going south in 2008-ish and was certifiable by 2010. These people who act like it's all suddenly gone down hill weren't there or weren't paying attention. If someone believes Goog's only turned to shit since about 2017, they were mislead, probably by the paychecks that kept them from looking too closely.
- pryce 4mo agowould you allow that it was bad enough to be fairly labeled garbage in 2011, yet could you still concede it has degraded significantly further since then? Or are you arguing that not only was it bad in 2011, but you are contending it hasn't (also) become worse?
- lokar 4mo agoThe PRISM stuff about google was mostly BS. The only thing was the non-encrypted traffic on “dark” fiber between data centers. And some may have been a reference to systems to comply with court orders via the DOJ which everyone of any scale does (eg a “wiretap” on a Gmail account). The military work came out in 2018
- 4mo ago
- localhoster 4mo agoNot that I care in particular But claiming that google lost it's "moral compass" just now is a claim only rich people can make because they retire, not quit. Google is literally the largest, most organized, tracking and profiling company in the world. Which they tend to grow even larger with the rise of LLMs. Turning a blind eye of that for the opportunity or whatever, and than claim that _just now_ they lost their moral compass, is being a hypocrite.
- madrox 4mo agoI tend to agree. My first reaction to this post was to check the date, because I would have assumed this had been published around 2014. Google's moral compass was gone long before this man even joined. That doesn't make them particularly evil, but they have joined the ranks of ordinary, publicly traded corporations.
- zerobees 4mo agoRight. I have respect for Rene, but going by the "HN quitting manifestos" like this, Google has lost its moral compass at least 50 times at various points in the last 20 years. The company is constantly changing, but also hasn't changed all that much. It always talked the talk and was eager to tell others how to behave, but was almost never willing to give up any real revenue to do the right thing. The usual justification was that if Google doesn't do it, someone else will (and that someone else is obviously not as moral as Googlers are). If you're old enough, you might remember that they vocally opposed privacy-violating, disruptive display ads. That was their whole schtick. But that was before they realized there's a lot of money to be made by acquiring Doubleclick.
- mempko 4mo agoWhy do you have respect for Rene?
- GlacierFox 4mo agoHe doesn't. People start off with that when they're scared of voicing their actual opinion and it softens whatever they have to say a touch.
- grebc 4mo agoDo people forget Eric Schmidt ran this company for how long?
- cryo32 4mo agoGoogle management never had a moral compass. They just pretended they did until it was no longer convenient.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo agoIf the founders had no moral compass it is rather naive to believe that management or the company as a whole would have one
- cryo32 4mo agoI’ve known enough googlers to know there’s problems in that department. The worst being a friend was married to an SRE and he was fucking nuts. As in disturbingly Ayn Rand and eugenics.
- tim333 4mo ago"Perfect is the enemy of good" They are probably more moral than the average large US corporation.
- OrvalWintermute 4mo ago[flagged]
- mrkiouak 4mo agoAs someone who worked at Google, it is absolutely ridiculous to claim Google only lost its moral compass in this decade, let alone suggest it HAD its moral compass in 2017 when the guy was wired. Complete joke, do some introspection.
- pbgcp2026 4mo ago[flagged]
- tbojanin 4mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- storus 4mo agoIs he a canary in the coal mine, announcing things that are coming?
- Hugsbox 4mo agoNot at all. He made his money, so now he can act all morally superior even though we've all known Google to be a menace since long before he started there in 2017. This article is downright ridiculous.
- storus 4mo agoThings can always get worse; everyone has a threshold in what level of dirtiness is still okay. As Android security director he might have seen some incoming things he can't ignore any longer.
- bflesch 4mo agoSo the guy was Google's planted ~expert~ lobbyist for the European Commission and now he's rich enough to quit, and makes a blogpost about it because people are rightfully skeptical about his motives?
- mhitza 4mo ago> Director of Android Platform Security Is this the person I have to complain about for the removal of fulldisk encryption in Android 13?
- RemainsOfTheDay 4mo ago[dead]
- harry8 4mo agoGoogle's entire "do no evil" bring your own identity to the job and all of that was pure marketing to hire better engineering talent. Instead of monetising software sales, they monetised access to Free software performing an end run around the GPL by distributing access to it over the internet allowing them to make the public good proprietary google property. They threw out some crumbs at best. Remember the un-publicised puzzles to paradoxically get media attention, hiring highschool kids with a demo that made the news because it made the news and all the rest of the BS. I guess it worked. Now they're big and bad and the Free software optimism is largely dead so they don't have to bother and now make killbots for the Pentagon. Where else you gonna work? Go test the market, nerd.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 4mo agoI do find it amusing when I see these LinkedIn fodder posts saying “I left [Meta/Google/OtherGiantCorp] because the company I joined 10 years ago doesn’t hold the same values anymore” as if these companies weren’t already fucked up evil pieces of shit many years before you joined. People are always trying to justify that they aren’t working for something purely evil. I guess you have to try to feel like that giant pile of cash on offer isn’t dirty money and you need validation from others to sleep at night
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- Yhippa 4mo ago> Makes bank for 9 years > Quits > Takes the moral high ground on the way out despite highly profiting from all the things he's decrying Pretty nice life if you ask me.
- mrcwinn 4mo agoThis is exhausting.
- saintfire 4mo agoI see everyone coming up with an arbitrary date of when Google lost their moral compass that aligns with their own moral compass. In that vein, I feel like when Brin and Page released a paper stating how PageRank could never be beneficial to a consumer with ads and then launched an ad company powered by page rank is when Google became evil.
- tehjoker 4mo agoI think what is being lost is that despite Google having lost its morals at various points, and Don't Be Evil being burried, this man's resignation does signal yet another dark turning point in the future of the Google organization. They are now openly partnering with war industries and the government to assist them in doing things like bombing a school full of girls, killing hundreds in an entirely indefensible war of aggression.* This is a very dark red line to cross and despite Googlers being wealthy and privilaged, it is nonetheless a significant protest that deserves to be heard on its own terms. Ideally, a protest would change policy at the company. Google management: Stop cooperating with the immoral and illegally operating War Department! * I don't have evidence Google directly participated in the Minab school bombing, but this is the side they are supporting.
- hintymad 4mo agoPersonally, I don't get why people blindly reject any collaboration with the military. I understand that they are pacifists, but I still don't get it. When I look at history, I see so many tragedies caused by being weak. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were able to invade Poland, for instance, and the Katyn massacre is a national scar. And who wouldn't want to defeat invaders like Genghis Khan? Have you ever heard of the Yangzhou massacre or the Three Massacres of Jiading? Why would we let civilization succumb to barbarism? Don't get me wrong. I hate war. And never-ending wars like the Iraq War anger me to no end (and for that matter, I think G.W. Bush and his cabinet were truly evil). Of course, the danger is real; a military built for defense can easily become an instrument of tyranny or empire if left unchecked. That is why we must maintain rigorous civilian oversight and strict checks and balances over its power. But that does not mean the military, by default, is always evil, right?
- rayiner 4mo agoIt's because Americans and many Europeans under the shield of the U.S. military and have never in their lives felt a moment of fear about external threats.[1] They never have to meaningfully confront the central fact of their existence: that they enjoy a vastly disproportionate share of the world's bounty in a way that would be impossible without overwhelming military power. I suspect people living in say Ukraine don't talk like this. [1] As I get older, I'm more sympathetic to Colonel Jessup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk.
- nixon_why69 4mo agoThe Colonel Jessup character was guarding a fence in Cuba. Seriously. Cuba. Imagine hearing that sanctimonious speech about "the manner in which I defend you" and then you find out it's a fence in Cuba. There hasn't been an existential threat to the United States since the Civil War, and that one was self-inflicted. Obviously we need to maintain a military but 99% of what the current military does is either for economic goals or hollow national pride.
- 4mo ago
- kermatt 4mo agoCompanies do not have moralities. They have revenue targets. Any statement to the idea of a moral compass is just a form of marketing when the politics of the day align with it. The best we can to is have independent moralities, while balancing that with the need to eat.
- stevenalowe 4mo agoVirtue signal noted
- groan 4mo agoI’m not in the minority anymore it seems. The general attitude in this thread, “negative” though it may be, represents a far more grounded and blunt truth of the matter. I’d just like to add, as always: this person should give back all the money Google paid them. Of course, that has not once happened in the history of these pious pieces, and so the meme endures.
- abhv 4mo agoI don't understand the negativity here. He is a top expert on a security topic. Running Android platform security gives him an opportunity to have incredible positive impact for many people---which he did for a decade. People weigh trade-offs. At the beginning, he may have had high ambitions to deploy interesting, research-forward ideas to Android; at this point, he has accomplished a lot of that. Maybe now, he is considering other factors. Guessing that people are only money-driven or have made some decision because of threshold personal wealth is awful, especially if you do not know them. Almost all academics I know (I am one also) are driven by personal curiosity, intellectual ambitions, a need to identify and solve problems, and a strong desire for positive contribution. I know Rene and believe this to be true of him.
- grebc 4mo agoThe conclusion is what people are having issue with. If the guy made some money for his work, good on him.
- tzs 4mo ago> I don't understand the negativity here Most of the commenters are experienced programmers, and like many experienced programmers have largely lost the ability to think about things in non-binary terms. You see this on most threads that aren't about a mostly technical subject. I think I can still think in a non-binary way despite decades of programming but I attribute that to to getting burned out about 10 years into my career and taking a break to go to law school. Looking back at my writing before taking that break I can see that I was thinking in a very binary way. First year law school does a really good job of breaking that. I seriously think that some of the things from first year law school should be moved into the standard bachelor's degree program for CS, and maybe for several other STEM degrees, taught exactly the same way they are taught in law school. Maybe contracts and torts. Those are both good at building up your non-binary thinking. Heck, maybe do nearly the whole first year of law school, spread out over the 4 years of your bachelor's degree.
- s1artibartfast 4mo agoSo much bitterness in these comments, looking at the world in black and white. With 200,000 employees, google is a complex set of humans, where many will have different experiences. People doing really good work, and people doing the opposite.
- gordian-mind 4mo ago"I am also a European academic. That means the current US government has become hostile to me" Such a bizarre claim. EU academics seem under mass psychosis lately.
- watwut 4mo agoUS government is openly hostile to Europe. The Greenland crisis was only few months ago. Before and after that, it was just a stream of insults and attacks. To be fair, US government was OK with Orban and tried to help him stay in power. It is OK with authoritarian far right movements and is trying to help them too. But, if you are pro-democracy European, US is a hostile country trying to destroy your democracy.
- gordian-mind 4mo agoIt's weird that you don't mention academics. My words were precise though. This "open hostility" is not an official stance but a projection. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/12/17/trump-administration-love-europe-continent-demise/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/12/17/trump-adminis... Currently, the few "pro-democracy" (left-liberal, I presume?) European governments are cracking down hard on freedom of speech. Your worldview is lacking coherence.
- QuantumNoodle 4mo agoWhile EU is actively trying to erode encryption and privacy of all digital communications.
- phyzix5761 4mo agoThe majority of carbon offsetting efforts are called non-additional assets. A forest that was never going to be cut down or an unusable field in the middle of some rural area sells credits to companies to "offset" their carbon emissions. This doesn't actually create any net benefit to the environment. The industry also experiences fraud with double counting the same assets as some vendors will sell the same offset credits to multiple corporations.
- promano 4mo agoGoogle's whole business is built on top management abandoning its moral compass. Sergey Brin and Larry Page wrote that "advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers". Then they got into advertising anyway.
- QuantumNoodle 4mo agoLooks like he updated his "About me" section > At the moment, my main focus is [...] fighting against (governmental or corporate) mass surveillance While he always had "Ethics in Computer Science” as an interest, I wonder what blinds people into accepting offers at Google -- the advertising company. I want to take his words as sincere, but Google has been privacy violating for longer than his tenure with android. Money and prestige is a hell of a drug I suppose. He could very well work for grapheneos but no money or immediate persteige there (sadly).
- pyb 4mo agoTo me, Google switched the "Evil bit" around the time of the Dragonfly debacle (2018) If OP is only seeing the problems now, they must have been selectively blind.
- QuantumNoodle 4mo agoI mean, I get it. I have a family, financial obligations, etc. Certainly not shaming anyone for fulfilling those obligations working for a successful company. But don't put yourself up on a pedestal and cloak yourself in righteousness behind a veil of strong morals
- QuantumNoodle 4mo agoI want to see more of "I'm rejecting this offer to work for Google bc my moral compass" not from folks who are paid out and ready for the next thing already.
- tim-star 4mo agoits funny how long some people wait to decide the company they work for has lost their moral compass. "dont be evil" is already 8 years dead at this point.
- QuantumNoodle 4mo agoI mean, I get it. I have a family, financial obligations, etc. Certainly not shaming anyone for fulfilling those obligations working for a successful company. But don't put yourself up on a pedestal and cloak yourself in righteousness behind a veil of strong morals.
- josefritzishere 4mo agoGoogle is behaving like a company in decline, committing crimes, and vigorously enshittifying products trying to increase revenue.
- AbstractH24 4mo agoI heard someone say recently that writing such an essay is a rite of passage when leaving google. At first I thought they were exaggerating; now I think it truly is.
- leopoldj 4mo agoAh, a litany of left wing grievances. Got it.
- dsfasfasfadsf 4mo ago[flagged]
- ZeljkoS 4mo ago[dead]