Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 888 posts

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#621

Post by gurkendoktor »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #265
komali2 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sympathize with your position, especially regarding Taiwan, but I wonder if your early rejection was as effective as employees rebelling? One need not take the most effective route, but given the size of Google, when I was in a similar position to yours I justified it by saying if I got an offer, I'd make it very clear I'd want nothing to do with the censorship work for the exact reason you listed.

Both are good. I'm sure Google carefully tracks why candidates decline jobs at Google, and if enough of them say "I can't work with you because you're doing specific evil thing X," then it becomes more and more worth it not to do X. Similarly, if internal morale is in decline and reports come back saying that it's because of X, that also has a real (and quite possibly quantifiable) cost.

Do you think that recruiters spend time forwarding your response to someone at Google who actually cares? I usually decline jobs/projects outright, but I wonder if I shouldn't waste some time on interviews before telling the company why I won't work for them. It's not like there's a shortage of projects, and I'd like to maximize my political "leverage".

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#622

Post by walshemj »

driverdan wrote: post #540
tomschlick wrote: post #443

> MRAP's are for combat, not police work While they were designed for combat, they are effectively the same thing that Brinks uses to transport money. They are meant to stop bad things from killing the people inside. They have 0 offensive weapons. They are entirely defensive vehicles that have been used to rescue downed officers, civilians in harms way (gunfire), and multiple times in natural disasters where other ve…

They are not the same thing as a standard armored truck. The name itself gives that away (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected). Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles. MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs. The simple fact that they are former military vehicles contributes to the military mindset of many police depts, something that should be avoided. Militarization of police forces is bad for citizens.

Well having much much ie approaching UK level of mandatory training for firearms officers would actually be better looking at it externally.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#623

Post by Benjammer »

refurb wrote: post #596
Benjammer wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a problem that my employer faces. We have a strong concept of corporate responsibility, and plenty of opportunity for employee pushback, but we repeatedly see our decisions simply subverted by competitors who don't have any sense of morals and just go where the money is. It becomes a nasty tradeoff where you think about building/doing things that don't feel good, just to maintain a position to have a positive…

Wait, because your competitors will maintain MRAPs “they have no sense of morals”? Your morals are your own? Why do you insist on imposing them on others?

I mean, all I'm trying to say is that most companies are subject to the competition pressure in their market regardless of internal employees' morals, and it becomes hard to justify "standing up for your beliefs" in a business sense that isn't just "shut down the business or change industries," if there are inherent moral issues in the current industry.

When I say "have no sense of morals," I'm talking about competitors who were acquired by large PE firms a decade or more ago and do not have any internal discussions about the morals of what their employees are building/maintaining. They operate entirely by asking what clients want and then trying to build what they can of those requests.

I'm mostly talking about incentives and market pressures, not "imposing morals on others" or other such emotional nonsense that you are reading into here.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#624

Post by scarface74 »

dymk wrote: post #511
scarface74 wrote: post #341

And if the employees placed thier values over profits, why are they still there? I wonder if they are going to refuse their stock based compensation?

Interesting, so do you suggest that the company's morally correct employees leave, and cause a moral evaporative cooling at the company? If anything, you should be urging your moral friends and coworkers to go to Google.

I’m not saying they should leave or stay. But, protestors in the 60s were willing to get kicked, beaten, arrested, etc for their moral beliefs. They were willing to make real sacrifices. On the other hand, Google employees had the “courage” to sign a letter.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#625

Post by walshemj »

briandear wrote: post #573
yarrel wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. They are civilian vehicles and all of the tasks you list are civilian tasks. Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea.

However, the French Gendarmes are a paramilitary police force. It’s part of the French military and under interior ministry control. Does France have concerns about this military-style police force? Just saying militarization is a “bad idea,” seems to be an opinion based on emotion rather than facts. It seems like any police force can be bad or good; the militarization doesn’t seem to have much to do with that. Frenc…

Yes I think the fragmented nature of having hundreds if not thousands of "police" forces of various levels of training and background checks.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#626

Post by markdown »

tomschlick wrote: post #592
markdown wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I get that they "look scary" to some people . That's more than enough reason not to deploy them. It changes "we're here to serve and protect" to "we will crush you if you step out of line".

> That's more than enough reason not to deploy them. No it's not. These vehicles can, and have saved lives. I have yet to hear of an MRAP killing someone in the US. > "we will crush you if you step out of line" Better wording would be "if you throw rocks or shoot at us we are still going to arrest you".

> These vehicles can, and have saved lives.

Citation needed. Police all over the world do their jobs without these tanks. Is there any data proving crime goes down in cities where they are deployed? Is there any data proving that less lives are lost when these tanks are deployed in US cities?

> Better wording would be "if you throw rocks or shoot at us we are still going to arrest you".

People have been throwing rocks at and shooting at US police for two centuries. How does having a tank help in arrests? Officers can't arrest from inside the tank. They have to get out of it and approach on foot. How is this different from stepping out from behind a building or any other vehicle and approaching on foot?

They could drive to the scene in a yellow school bus and the result would be the same. They have to exit the bus and approach on foot.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#627

Post by chii »

galvarez800 wrote: post #615
scarface74 wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not saying anyone should walk away from money. But the same people who want Google to walk away from the world’s largest country aren’t willing to walk away from thier stock but expect Google executives to make financial choices for moral reason.

I don't think walking away from all your stock vs. a company walking away from a deal that would account for a small fraction of its profits is a fair comparison. A more fair comparison would be asking if employees would be willing to have their stock decrease in value 10% in exchange for their company being more moral. I expect many employees would take such an exchange, although not all.

But those employees who _did not_ care about morality also would have their stock decrease by 10% in value due to no fault of their own. Therefore, it's only ethically correct for those who want to take the stance to also accept a decrease in stock compared to those who didnt.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#628

Post by kirvyteo »

Has anyone thought about the effects of NOT having google search product and services in China? I read a lot of negativity about how it is ruining the culture and personal beliefs about freedom. Has anyone balanced it with what is the upside to users (not money for Google)?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#630

Post by ABCLAW »

refurb wrote: post #596
Benjammer wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a problem that my employer faces. We have a strong concept of corporate responsibility, and plenty of opportunity for employee pushback, but we repeatedly see our decisions simply subverted by competitors who don't have any sense of morals and just go where the money is. It becomes a nasty tradeoff where you think about building/doing things that don't feel good, just to maintain a position to have a positive…

Wait, because your competitors will maintain MRAPs “they have no sense of morals”? Your morals are your own? Why do you insist on imposing them on others?

Because that's the only way to solve moral co-ordination problems?

If you leave a morally odious contract on the table (lets say it's cutting up human babies for baby veal) knowing your competitors will take the project, enrich themselves, expand, and develop the capacity to engage in larger, even more odious business, then what's the proper course of action?

Do you cut up babies because fuck morals? Or do you try to get no one to cut up babies? What if you have imperfect information and aren't certain if your competition would do it? What if they have imperfect information about your intentions and decide to take the deal purely on that basis?

Should be straightforward to recognize how corrosive this cycle gets.

EDIT: some people seem to be upset with the baby example. Just exchange that with anything you find clearly morally unacceptable. Like selling reverse mortgages to elderly people with limited capacity, or signing people up for ponzi schemes or adding intentionally addictive additives to a harmful consumable product, etc.

Post reply on HN