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

I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

write.as

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 188 posts

Re: I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

#41

Post by mkolodny »

nickv wrote: post #5

Google, in my mind, is the quintessential "You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain" story. (To be fair, since this all is subjective, I do believe Google 2009 would consider this behavior counter to it's values and the values of the people it attracted.) The question I have is are there ways to stay true to values (which in some cases might be in direct opposition to growth a…

The only way I've thought of so far is to create a not-for-profit. Your not-for-profit can still make money. But since no one owns equity, no one has incentive to optimize for profit over values.

Re: I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

#42

Post by amylene »

throwlaplace wrote: post #35
hpoe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of them have been open about the fact they are ruthless profit making centers focused only on money and you shut up and stay in line or else you're toast. Google's model was "don't be evil" and for years went on the image that they are fighting for the public good and that they were an example of the ability to be principle centered, do good for the world, and get stinking rich at the same time. Now that the…

>They were able to cash in on this image of moral superiority and principle first for years and it gave them a leg up okay but honestly how silly is it to take a company's branding to heart? like are we all children that believe in santa claus too? >do good for the world, and get stinking rich at the same time i'm old enough now to understand that these two things are mutually exclusive because the latter necessarily…

does any amount of exploitation poison the well, and swing the pendulum towards net evil?

Re: I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

#43

Post by Aperocky »

virtuous_signal wrote: post #10

I don't have firsthand knowledge, but my conjecture is that the old Google probably had a significant % of employees who held the belief "We shouldn't censor for China, even if that makes us lose money". But over a period of years, whatever they selected for in hiring led to enough people joining, who don't give a damn about human rights in China, so the censorship went ahead. The only thing that stopped it was bad p…

> ethical sense

Define that. For regular people in China, does the addition of Google with some censorship make their life better? Does it improve information flow over existing domestic search engines? I think the answer is obvious.

People subscribe to overly simplistic thinking - if something is not perfect, it must be the worst. I see a lot of people promoting sanctions on a country because of government. Who gets hurt in this case? Ordinary people living their life.

Re: I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

#44

Post by throwlaplace »

amylene wrote: post #42
throwlaplace wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They were able to cash in on this image of moral superiority and principle first for years and it gave them a leg up okay but honestly how silly is it to take a company's branding to heart? like are we all children that believe in santa claus too? >do good for the world, and get stinking rich at the same time i'm old enough now to understand that these two things are mutually exclusive because the latter necessarily…

does any amount of exploitation poison the well, and swing the pendulum towards net evil?

Doesn't it? Do the ends ever justify the means? Besides here we're talking about getting rich rather than averting war or curing disease or something.

Re: I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

#45

Post by shadowgovt »

virtuous_signal wrote: post #10

I don't have firsthand knowledge, but my conjecture is that the old Google probably had a significant % of employees who held the belief "We shouldn't censor for China, even if that makes us lose money". But over a period of years, whatever they selected for in hiring led to enough people joining, who don't give a damn about human rights in China, so the censorship went ahead. The only thing that stopped it was bad p…

Google hired a significant number of Chinese citizens and migrants who didn't leave China for political reasons. Not surprisingly, they tend not to see China's government policy as evil.

Re: I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

#46

Post by bg4 »

throwlaplace wrote: post #35
hpoe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of them have been open about the fact they are ruthless profit making centers focused only on money and you shut up and stay in line or else you're toast. Google's model was "don't be evil" and for years went on the image that they are fighting for the public good and that they were an example of the ability to be principle centered, do good for the world, and get stinking rich at the same time. Now that the…

>They were able to cash in on this image of moral superiority and principle first for years and it gave them a leg up okay but honestly how silly is it to take a company's branding to heart? like are we all children that believe in santa claus too? >do good for the world, and get stinking rich at the same time i'm old enough now to understand that these two things are mutually exclusive because the latter necessarily…

In hindsight, it was naive, but it wasn't just branding. It really was a strong sentiment at the time long before the Internet consolidated around a few extremely powerful companies.

Re: I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

#47

Post by akhilcacharya »

sounds wrote: post #33
sk55 wrote: post #19

The timing of his change of heart seems politically motivated so I’d take a lot of what’s he saying with a grain of salt. He doesn’t disclose that he’s running for Congress in the article and it seems very convenient to share these opinions as soon as he’s running for office.

I disagree. Running for Congress is consistent with his stated goal at the end of the article: "No longer can massive tech companies like Google be permitted to operate relatively free from government oversight. As soon as Google executives were asked by Congress about Project Dragonfly and Google’s commitment to free expression and human rights, they assured Congress that the project was exploratory and it was subse…

He's running for Senate specifically.

At this point Sara Gideon is going to win the nomination easily.

Re: I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

#48

Post by kortilla »

virtuous_signal wrote: post #10

I don't have firsthand knowledge, but my conjecture is that the old Google probably had a significant % of employees who held the belief "We shouldn't censor for China, even if that makes us lose money". But over a period of years, whatever they selected for in hiring led to enough people joining, who don't give a damn about human rights in China, so the censorship went ahead. The only thing that stopped it was bad p…

I’m not sure the hiring really changed so much as a the supply of people.

Google hires heavily from universities and the popularity of free speech amongst university students has been down over the last decade. The title 9 inquisitions and general climate has completely changed the tone to the point that many adults exiting college don’t really have any problem with suppression of “harmful speech”.

The same applies to their employees abroad, most of which also view “freedom of speech” as a strange American obsession rather than a right worth trying to impose on the Chinese.

Re: I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

#49

Post by [deleted] »

sriram_sun wrote: post #20

It was no different in the workplace culture. Senior colleagues bullied and screamed at young women, causing them to cry at their desks. At an all-hands meeting, my boss said, “Now you Asians come to the microphone too. I know you don’t like to ask questions.” At a different all-hands meeting, the entire policy team was separated into various rooms and told to participate in a “diversity exercise” that placed me in a…

[deleted]

Re: I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

#50

Post by kortilla »

Aperocky wrote: post #43
virtuous_signal wrote: post #10

I don't have firsthand knowledge, but my conjecture is that the old Google probably had a significant % of employees who held the belief "We shouldn't censor for China, even if that makes us lose money". But over a period of years, whatever they selected for in hiring led to enough people joining, who don't give a damn about human rights in China, so the censorship went ahead. The only thing that stopped it was bad p…

> ethical sense Define that. For regular people in China, does the addition of Google with some censorship make their life better? Does it improve information flow over existing domestic search engines? I think the answer is obvious. People subscribe to overly simplistic thinking - if something is not perfect, it must be the worst. I see a lot of people promoting sanctions on a country because of government. Who gets…

Even if something offers convenience, that doesn’t make it ethical.
Post reply on HN