21–30 of 516 posts
One thing I find strange about this is why Google is so keen to get this government business in the first place. They’re amazingly profitable already, one of the most successful companies of all time; is defense work really something that could become another major revenue stream? Given the obvious conflicts with their company culture (obvious to rank and file employees, anyway) it doesn’t seem like a very appealing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want them to have these contracts because I want the smartest people on the planet working to defend our country. This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.
It's a little sad when you have to divert your best and brightest away from advancing the state of civilization, to merely defending what you already have . Obviously that will still advance the state of the art in some areas.
Every company I apply to is told during the interview process that I will not work on military projects, and that I would probably leave the company if they chose to take on a military contract. If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them then no-one is the worse off; I’ve yet to be turned down for a job over it and, somewhat the opposite, companies seem to appreciate frankness.
If you contribute to open source software then you’re contributing to military projects.
Every company I apply to is told during the interview process that I will not work on military projects, and that I would probably leave the company if they chose to take on a military contract. If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them then no-one is the worse off; I’ve yet to be turned down for a job over it and, somewhat the opposite, companies seem to appreciate frankness.
If you contribute to open source software then you’re contributing to military projects.
Every company I apply to is told during the interview process that I will not work on military projects, and that I would probably leave the company if they chose to take on a military contract. If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them then no-one is the worse off; I’ve yet to be turned down for a job over it and, somewhat the opposite, companies seem to appreciate frankness.
If you contribute to open source software then you’re contributing to military projects.
One thing I find strange about this is why Google is so keen to get this government business in the first place. They’re amazingly profitable already, one of the most successful companies of all time; is defense work really something that could become another major revenue stream? Given the obvious conflicts with their company culture (obvious to rank and file employees, anyway) it doesn’t seem like a very appealing…
It may be the case these people are all friends or acquaintances and enjoy the opportunity to work with each other.
One thing I find strange about this is why Google is so keen to get this government business in the first place. They’re amazingly profitable already, one of the most successful companies of all time; is defense work really something that could become another major revenue stream? Given the obvious conflicts with their company culture (obvious to rank and file employees, anyway) it doesn’t seem like a very appealing…
That isn't enough. Due to the frankly idiotic way corporate investors think 'any company that isn't growing must be dying'. Google will need to continue to demonstrate growth forever despite that being impossible. Growing in the ad market is hard because they're already the biggest player, so Google are looking at new things to do. This is just one of them.
One thing I find strange about this is why Google is so keen to get this government business in the first place. They’re amazingly profitable already, one of the most successful companies of all time; is defense work really something that could become another major revenue stream? Given the obvious conflicts with their company culture (obvious to rank and file employees, anyway) it doesn’t seem like a very appealing…
I want them to have these contracts because I want the smartest people on the planet working to defend our country. This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.
One thing I find strange about this is why Google is so keen to get this government business in the first place. They’re amazingly profitable already, one of the most successful companies of all time; is defense work really something that could become another major revenue stream? Given the obvious conflicts with their company culture (obvious to rank and file employees, anyway) it doesn’t seem like a very appealing…
I want them to have these contracts because I want the smartest people on the planet working to defend our country. This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.
Google already does a fantastic job protecting their users from hackers, including those from nation states like China and Russia. Rather than cosying up to the US government, they should keep a wary eye on whether to protect their users from US government hackers too.
Also, I’m pretty sure there are already plenty of exceptionally smart people working at the NSA.
I’ll freely admit I’m not totally consistent on this, as I strongly support some big government-run organizations like the NHS (I’m from the UK).
Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied?
Granted, as stated in the first sentence, I'm not in favor of compelling anyone to work for any purpose, let alone military ones. But to pretend such a lien doesn't exist strikes me as somewhat selfish/narrow-minded in its own right. For that reason, I think the ostensible certainty that these employees (and their abundant proponents here) have in their convictions seems a little naive to me.
There's also a real chance (though perhaps small) that an industry-wide refusal to cooperate with the US military could have disastrous consequences for the world, and that alone should give one pause before being so self-assured about such a decision. I agree that there is also a real chance (also perhaps small) that the US military could use the technology with disastrous consequences for the world, but--again--that makes this a difficult ethical conundrum, not the clear right/wrong moral issue as I often see it portrayed as in the industry.