We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

Nope.

Now if you give the impression that you are all bout money but don't act like it then shareholders can be rightfully upset. But if you clearly state your values and ambitions and shareholders don't like it? Then, sucks to be them! There is nothing more to it than that.

Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder value," for one thing, is a vague objective: No single “shareholder value” can exist, because different shareholders have different values. Some are long-term investors planning to hold stock for years or decades; others are short-term speculators.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

Thank you, brave Google employees, for speaking out.

The painpoint is, they will do it anyways. Maybe not Google leadershipt but someone elses management. Google and Facebook have shown that we can execute power over datasizes that are too big for any group of humans to understand themselves, and they have shown that by manipulating these datasets they can manipulate human behaviour. This is too big a power to not fight over. That's bigger than the nuclear bomb. So the question is not whether or not it will happen, but who will be the first. The first might very well be the one deciding the new world order.

That's an uncharitably reductionist take. Please refer to the original comment that started this thread.

> Certain words & phrases I know would produce legitimate useful search results in 2008 will now just pull pages of unrelated ads.

A person asked for examples. I delivered examples. I'm not contesting that the search is illegal in some jurisdictions. Merely pointing out that there are searches for which google used to return results with utility, and now intentionally do not return such results, and fall back to irrelevant suggestions.

Although the comment I made said more than what you implied it to, I will explicitly make the complaint you're mocking: Yes, I am unhappy that such results are censored. But it's not merely "I want free albums". I want to be able to search the internet. Not someone else's ideas of what the internet ought to be. It's a legally and ethically difficult problem, to be sure, but I think mocking the idea of supporting searches that the government dislikes is a step too far.

The Chinese and US governments' censorship regimes are not equivalent in magnitude, so it's not fair to compare them simply, but just as we can entertain the idea that the chinese are unfree in their searches for information, and as a result the breadth of what they can think about and experience, let's recognize that so too are we in the western world.

The employees willfully obstructing potential revenues and profits, and hence styming Google's market cap should put their money where their mouth is.

These employees should be willing to accept a 50% reduction in compensation ( salary, bonus, stocks, etc). That would at least reduce costs for Google that's being actively blocked from revenue streams other American & European companies (Bing, Amazon, etc) are already participating in.