Wow, reading this article and some of the other linked Intercept articles, in my mind the culture at Google has finally hit a tipping point, having gone full-bore over to the "evil" side.
I know most folks on HN will think "Google has been this way for years", but I think the way The Intercept articles describe the erosion of the culture at Google is a perfect template for how virtually all large profit driven companies eventually turn "evil". It's the added secrecy that can be rationalized at first, the stretched gray areas (e.g. "we're just in an exploratory phase") that eventually cross over to full-fledged lies, but you're still able to convince yourself it's just a little "spin" for the greater good.
The really hard thing about "not being evil" is that in requires conscious, continuous effort to forgo profit (sometime huge profits) to adhere to that value. The lure of the Chinese market is simply too great, so people convince themselves it's possible to get at that potential market without compromising their values, and they do lots of mental gymnastics trying to get those opposing ideals into congruence.
I've seen this pattern many times before, honestly with much lower stakes than what Google is contending with, so I applaud Google for holding out as long as they did. This is one reason I hate talking about "company values": it's easy to adhere to those values when they're not in conflict with the company making money, but the second there is a quarter to hit or a metric at risk, those values always seem to go out the window (or at least get vastly watered down) in the pursuit of profit. I think it's pretty inevitable, and I wish companies would just admit to it.
do you remember a few years ago when CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) was all the rage? thank god it's disappeared for the most part. i made it a point to not pursue or do business with companies that put forward a CSR agenda. it's such hypocratic BS, to be dropped as soon as inconvenient. it's a sign that the company is itself a lie.
anyway, back on point, the turning point for google wasn't gradual, it was sharp. yes they danced around china before -- i'd say this was required of them, you can't properly say no if you don't assess -- but they stood up to their values. it's ok that there were other factors.
no, the turning point was when they hired ruth porat. ask any insider. that's when it became all about the benjamins.
I think “company values” only makes sense if there’s a solid rationale behind it for how it helps you make money.
For example, “don’t cut corners” by itself is easily lost. “Our reputation for high quality products creates loyal customers and allows us to set higher prices” will be more durable. It’s not perfect by any means, but it helps.
I don’t recall Google ever having a rationale for how “don't be evil” helped them make money, either explicitly or implicitly. It was just a fun little thing they had.
It's precisely this pattern that sours me on the recent "corporate social responsibility" trend. If all that's standing between our society and dystopia is the strenuous objections of a few employees, we're going to get a dystopia. Even if the individuals that comprise a corporation are decent human beings, the emergent behavior of the corporate egregore inexorably trends toward evil.
Now, I'm very far from saying we should ban corporations. They're quite useful, for all the reasons classical economics tells us. But we should stop expecting them to be moral. Instead, let's just accept that the object of a corporation is to maximally profit within the law, then use the law to constrain corporate behavior while retaining corporate benefits.
The state is the only entity powerful enough to go toe-to-toe against the profit motive and win. Activists, however well-intentioned, just don't have the firepower.
If I can proffer an opinion that's probably unpopular: I think prominent CSR activism is probably harmful on a net basis. It accrues attention to itself and deprives more serious efforts, ones that operate at the level of the law, of oxygen. If you want to change how corporations behave, change their incentives.
To my mind Google was able to "not evil" while they were the only big player in online ads. Then Facebook showed up and started threatening Googles revenue. They had to play catch up e.g Google Plus and a general race to the bottom ensued.
I'm curious why HN users don't seem to have a problem with Apple censoring the App Store on demand, blocking VPNs and other crypto tools which have real life consequences for some in China. Seems like they get a pass for operating in China (and earning huge yearly revenues from it, which would obviously be threatened if they didn't comply) Is this just a grandfathering in? If Google had never left China and merely obeyed censorship requests in 2010, would people be less upset because they've been acclimatized to it?
I don't support Dragonfly, and I do fear the allure of the Chinese market is influencing people to put aside ethical quandaries for revenue growth, but it seems to me that standards are different for different companies.
> I'm curious why HN users don't seem to have a problem [...]
I do and always have. I also have a problem with their silence concerning relinquishing control of iCloud DCs there too. I avoid Apple products due to their anti-developer, opaque, and money-above-all approaches.
> it seems to me that standards are different for different companies.
Exactly. And countries. So I try not to draw any reaction equivalence except in personal preference. People's outrage is more a product of who they like most at any given time, often driven by narratives in the press/community. All you can do is be consistent with yourself and don't get too whataboutist when these double standards rear their heads.
The censorship aspect is a red herring. Google is giving the government the infrastructure to identify candidates for "re-education" via their Google searches. Is Apple funneling dissidents to the government via their app store?
>"I'm curious why HN users don't seem to have a problem with Apple censoring the App Store on demand, blocking VPNs and other crypto tools which have real life consequences for some in China."
Pulling an App from the App store is nowhere near the same as building a tool to satisfy the CCP. I get it you're a Google employee and want to defend them but this is nothing more than a red herring and an equivalency fallacy. It sound like you've really drank the Mountain View Kool-aid.
If I were to rationalize this, it would be that the App Store is a platform that Apple hosts and curates. Google indexes content that Google does not host or curate outside of responding algorithmically to specific input.
I do think if Google hadn't left, it would probably have been more normalized by now.
I think I'd be a lot more critical of Apple if, for example, the Chinese government got a special ability to unlock iDevices, if they already have this, I'm not well informed, so feel free to let me know.
Apple has been openly evil for most of its existence.
When they keep on being evil (within the boundaries of the law), no one flinches, it's business as usual, and the Apple fanboys keep on submitting to being mistreated by their favorite toy-maker so they can keep on secretly caressing their shiny new Iphones in their bed at night.
But back in the days, Google set the moral bar for themselves very, very high.
Now that they are openly failing to meet their own standard, the world is sorely disappointed.
From my perspective, I don't recall Apple's motto ever being "Don't be evil". I expect Apple to make the call that will generate the most revenue for them as my baseline assumption.
Google working on project Dragonfly, a service that-according to the article: 'would blacklist phrases like “human rights,” “student protest,” and “Nobel Prize.”'
People are (rightly) bothered by this.
Facebook and Twitter tell Alex Jones to pound sand.
People argue "Private corporations don't have to give anyone a platform".
I'm not here to promote the idea that the members of the first group are automatically members of the second, some overlap could probably be found...probably.
Why does the first get so much coverage and ultimately ending up in The Intercept with an inferred tone of apoplectic disappointment-and in some cases-anger towards Google, but coverage of the latter seems to be glee, jubilation and almost schadenfreude?
Note that I'm not making any sort of value judgments about Alex Jones' politics or statements, suggesting that I agree with his views, or that even that he may be right about gay frogs (this really shouldn't have to be said, it should be painfully obvious but I'm covering my ass out of trained habit: unless one explicitly says "I am not supporting this person", someone will come out of the woodwork and make the association because it's easier to debate). I'm pointing to actions of corporations and our responses to them: between the two things here, I'm hard pressed to find a difference beyond a matter of scale between what Google is doing and what Facebook and Twitter have already done.
> Google working on project Dragonfly, a service that-according to the article: 'would blacklist phrases like “human rights,” “student protest,” and “Nobel Prize.”'
> People are (rightly) bothered by this.
> Facebook and Twitter tell Alex Jones to pound sand.
> People argue "Private corporations don't have to give anyone a platform".
One of the two actions you listed results in the families of school shooting victims getting harassed by Alex Jones social media following less and the other enables the imprisonment, torture and execution of millions of people in China.
The difference is intolerance. I don't think the problem with Alex Jone's is the subject matter or beliefs but the advocation of violence and spread of intolerance, hate, and misinformation. Freedom of speech is not without reasonable restriction. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater without punishment.
Silencing Jones on these platforms in my opinion amounts to good housekeeping allowing others to actually express their opinions without manipulation. Part of an intellectually open and honest society is banishing those who seek to manipulate it.
Facebook is a legitimate issue as it pertains to the Alex Jones style censorship, because they have a massive, entrenched monopoly over a very important communication / expression corner of US society and many parts of the globe. It's an important question as to whether Facebook should ever be allowed to ban a person from their platform, or whether it's a public square that should be forced open to all. Note, that's not the same as saying Facebook shouldn't be allowed to censor certain narrow types of content that violate the law. Those posts should be deleted, the rest should be left alone. If it's questionably offensive speech, it'd be easy enough to restrict it to adults, or require an acknowledgement to view it; some form of one to one privatization restriction of the exchange, rather than mass distribution, for that type of content.
If someone like Jones wants to be an idiot that pushes conspiracies about gay frogs, or Obama being an alien, they should be allowed to - if society deems Facebook something akin to a utility that everyone should have access to.
Alternatively, break Facebook up into pieces and end the monopoly.
Twitter is not so much an issue. They're a modest player when it comes to market share in social. Maybe 3% to 5% the size of Facebook in regards to true reach and influence (not just supposed daily or monthly actives).
If Twitter wants to be biased against conservatives, it's not nearly as big of a deal as people being banned for life from Facebook. Wikipedia recently stripped all Breitbart stories from their site (re sources/references), with a target of doing the same to Fox News next. Is that a big deal? Not so much, it's similar to Twitter's left bias when it comes to allowing hate speech and racism from the left, and banning or locking accounts on the right for trivial things. It's just not that important, Wikipedia is influential but has no monopoly on knowledge.
The solution to Twitter's bias, is the DOJ should sue them and make them enforce their terms of service for all parties equally (rather than allowing one side to freely issue death threats, racism, hate speech, etc. without having accounts get suspended or banned), which they're refusing to do right now. Levy increasing fines against them until they enforce their terms of service for all users equally. Problem solved.
They were at one point neutral and uncompromising in their principles even if it excludes them from a market, fighting for freedom of speech and being against censorship, trying to provide the best information whatever it concludes.
They now impose their biases, believe the power consumer doesn't know best and thus change the interfaces of their products removing advanced options or open standards, have biases in their search results, and are trying to make the world conform to their ideals where possible, or compromise principles and submit to illiberal societies if it means market access.
Better to be the ones censoring over a billion internet users than to miss out on that sweet sweet profit
lol if any of these employees think they will be protected from the repercussions of doing this. I would never hire or want to work with someone with such cheap morals
On a technical basis I'm surprised this project was / needed to be undertaken at all. What am I missing?
The reason for my confusion is that the search engine already implements various "knock out" rules, for example:
- it inherently makes a choice as to how to respond to a query based on what it knows about the user ("Tyler" is more likely to refer to "Cowan" for me while "Swift" for the little girl next door).
- Though Google has resisted to some degree, it has whole swaths of results which are not permitted in various jurisdictions (various definitions of "hate speech") for example
- New "right to be forgotten" restrictions and copyright attacks
- "Fake news" attacks and complaints -- spam
Given that there have already been implementations (of varying levels of compliance -- I believe many of the censorship demands are intractable) really how would Dragonfly be different? Couldn't a censorship request from CCP use the same API the RIAA does?
> We are working with you to make sure your careers are not affected by this.
This is how you can hurt recruitment efforts indirectly. If I, as an employer, avoid Xooglers to make a statement, even if it has no material impact to the actual employment market as a whole, some people will hesitate before working there in the first place. People should work on parts of the company they can brag about shamelessly or any efforts as a tech community to blackball developers of perceived immoral features will expand to developers of entire companies.
Similarly, employees of these companies will now have to realize they are judged by the company they keep so to speak. I will say Google employees, compared to other companies, seem to have taken this judgement seriously. Don't think "I didn't work in that area" will save you if "that area" comes to fruition. There is not much pity for employees with other outs/options.
I can confirm that something is definitely going on for sure.
Since 2008, google in China were: coding mules, tech support for ad doubleclick, sales for minor 3rd tier products. That was stable for 10 years, but suddenly, since around a year ago, they began to talking about whole new campuses, and rumors began circulating that country's top tier talent is being poached through shell companies by an obscure "internet search startup"
During the cold war, cozying up to the Russians the way Google is now sucking up to the Chinese would have been rated as treasonous. How times have changed, the almighty dollar sign reigns supreme.
Here's a summary of the current meaning of "Don't be evil":
re. the USA: No, we can't possibly bid on the US Department of Defense cloud computing contract. because the contract may not align with the company’s principles.
re. China: Yes, we want to build a censored search engine for Chine because there are a billion potential users there.
To me the hypocrisy is astounding. What I don't understand is how Google's employees deal with the cognitive dissonance. I guess they're real good at compartmentalizing.
> What I don't understand is how Google's employees deal with the cognitive dissonance.
There are so many Google employees that I won’t expect them to all agree on these things. There are probably enough number of Chinese employees who would want to make such a product
I think this is a turning point for Google's dominance in search. While they focus on reducing search quality in order to access more users, somebody out there will focus on improving search quality.
DuckDuckGo is already better than Google in some areas at least. You also have SymbolHound which made it a point to support searching for nonalphanumeric characters.
looks like the main contradictions are in terms of the scope of the google project (300 employees, full time), the amount the project has been developed already (a very substantial amount), and the awareness of political issues as demonstrated by the leading google employees on the project (more than enough to know they're doing the wrong thing).
it also appears as though they are fully conscious of the prospect of social censure:
>We are working with you to make sure your careers are not affected by this.
so, they know they're clandestinely doing immoral things. but google corporate is determined to protect the minions from the consequences of being identified as an aid to totalitarianism.
given that we don't have a list of the google employees working on dragonfly, i think he's just succeeded in tainting the reputation of 100% of googlers and former googlers.
any one of them could have been working to keep the chinese oppressed via censorship by knowingly joining a new project designed explicitly to do so.
> it also appears as though they are fully conscious of the prospect of social censure:
>>We are working with you to make sure your careers are not affected by this.
I'll tell you how Google is going to spin it (maybe it's true, maybe it's spin, but it's what they're going to say) - If you work on a big project at Google that never gets launched, it affects your ability to move up in the ranks. So he's saying that people working on this aren't going to be "penalized" (passed over for promotion) because the political climate made their project unable to launch. Without that assurance, even if you assume there were no ethical concerns with the project, smart employees would not sign up for it because of the risk of external events preventing its launch.
I agree holeheartedly that Google management should be taking major flak for this and turn back from this plan, but I won't paint the engineers working on this as evil.
I know the people working as full time engineers aren't living on Ramen noodles and sleeping in boxes, but it's real hard to fight something when your and your family's livelyhood depend on not fighting it.
We should champion those willing to take the extraordinary step of walking away, leaking or pushing back on this; while recognizing such actions are extraordinary, and should not be expected of everyone.
It would be nice to live in a world where anyone can stand up and fight in this manor, but I just imagine an engineer who really, really can't lose his health insurance and the inner turmoil they go through.
The Google execs who had big enough balls to walk away from the mountain of cash that the Chinese market represents are all long gone or retired.
Larry and Sergei in particular are nowhere to be seen in these discussions.
The people left in charge are nowhere near having the kind of backbone and ethics-driven decision making style the top management team had 8-10 years ago.
What Google has become in the last 10 years just another boring evil faceless corporation.
> What Google has become in the last 10 years just another boring evil faceless corporation.
Has there ever been a company that made it big, big enough to be in the Apple/Microsoft/IBM/Google class, that didn't become evil? To me, it seems inevitable once a corporation reaches a certain level of success in the market.
Does Google seriously believe the Chinese government will let them threaten Chinese companies? Are they just planning to use it as a window into a more technologically-integrated society to gain an advantage in the West?
I'm not very educated on this aspect, but could the US gov potentially be pushing Google to get more involved in China for this reason? More data on their lives.
If we're worried about one country using a tech corporation's hardware to spy on another, there is in some sense where we're denying the potentially neutral or amoral nature of what it means to be a multinational corporation that needs to consider the costs of operation in many different business environments. We might be unwarranted in our complaints in this regard.
At the other extreme, there is the possibility of legitimizing the company that operates in international markets to be aligned with a particular nation's values, and that this alignment is baked into the core of its business operations.
This option will probably leave a bad taste in the mouths of some hackers here who resent a consolidation of government power over companies, given that this smells a lot like some other rulerships in history that we frown upon.
But I'm unsure if there is a middle ground here. That's my fault if I'm missing it. Can we really hold a global company accountable to our ethical standards, which would not allow them to engage in the moral relativism necessary to access all markets?
I wonder how people would react to the following situation:
There are many Google mirror sites, most of which are currently blocked by China. If the Chinese government decides to work with some of the mirror sites to deliver Google search results in China, on the condition that the mirror sites apply a government filter to the search results, what would happen? I could think of three reactions:
1. Block those mirror sites from accessing Google search results, but this may be difficult since they could just use a different IP address.
2. Do nothing. A censored Google is available in China but people can hardly blame google for not blocking the mirror sites.
3. Work with the mirror sites (for example, require them to display Google ads along with search results).
When pressed to give specific details, Enright refused, saying that he was “not clear on the contours of what is in scope or out of scope for that project.”
I'm not sure what is more intellectually offensive: that an executive would say this, or say it and actually believe it would fly. A senior manager? Okay, sure. You might not know what project outside of your division is working on. An executive really shouldn't be this oblivious to their organization working with a foreign government.
The intent is to be intellectually offensive. He said it and knew it wouldn't fly. The attitude is "this is none of your business, deny deny deny, what are you gonna do about it?"
I don't like the secrecy, but I don't mind Google being in China. Just like with Apple, Chinese people would be better off with censored Google than without it at all.
This is insane - for all the folks out there saying that Apple and Amazon’s recent statements have been vague, here’s your first lesson in Dodging 101:
> When pressed to give specific details, Enright refused, saying that he was “not clear on the contours of what is in scope or out of scope for that project.”
Bravo - you’ve managed to make the parodies of Valley-speak look tame!
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|7 years ago|reply
I know most folks on HN will think "Google has been this way for years", but I think the way The Intercept articles describe the erosion of the culture at Google is a perfect template for how virtually all large profit driven companies eventually turn "evil". It's the added secrecy that can be rationalized at first, the stretched gray areas (e.g. "we're just in an exploratory phase") that eventually cross over to full-fledged lies, but you're still able to convince yourself it's just a little "spin" for the greater good.
The really hard thing about "not being evil" is that in requires conscious, continuous effort to forgo profit (sometime huge profits) to adhere to that value. The lure of the Chinese market is simply too great, so people convince themselves it's possible to get at that potential market without compromising their values, and they do lots of mental gymnastics trying to get those opposing ideals into congruence.
I've seen this pattern many times before, honestly with much lower stakes than what Google is contending with, so I applaud Google for holding out as long as they did. This is one reason I hate talking about "company values": it's easy to adhere to those values when they're not in conflict with the company making money, but the second there is a quarter to hit or a metric at risk, those values always seem to go out the window (or at least get vastly watered down) in the pursuit of profit. I think it's pretty inevitable, and I wish companies would just admit to it.
[+] [-] jiveturkey|7 years ago|reply
anyway, back on point, the turning point for google wasn't gradual, it was sharp. yes they danced around china before -- i'd say this was required of them, you can't properly say no if you don't assess -- but they stood up to their values. it's ok that there were other factors.
no, the turning point was when they hired ruth porat. ask any insider. that's when it became all about the benjamins.
[+] [-] mikeash|7 years ago|reply
For example, “don’t cut corners” by itself is easily lost. “Our reputation for high quality products creates loyal customers and allows us to set higher prices” will be more durable. It’s not perfect by any means, but it helps.
I don’t recall Google ever having a rationale for how “don't be evil” helped them make money, either explicitly or implicitly. It was just a fun little thing they had.
[+] [-] quotemstr|7 years ago|reply
Now, I'm very far from saying we should ban corporations. They're quite useful, for all the reasons classical economics tells us. But we should stop expecting them to be moral. Instead, let's just accept that the object of a corporation is to maximally profit within the law, then use the law to constrain corporate behavior while retaining corporate benefits.
The state is the only entity powerful enough to go toe-to-toe against the profit motive and win. Activists, however well-intentioned, just don't have the firepower.
If I can proffer an opinion that's probably unpopular: I think prominent CSR activism is probably harmful on a net basis. It accrues attention to itself and deprives more serious efforts, ones that operate at the level of the law, of oxygen. If you want to change how corporations behave, change their incentives.
[+] [-] harryf|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cromwellian|7 years ago|reply
I don't support Dragonfly, and I do fear the allure of the Chinese market is influencing people to put aside ethical quandaries for revenue growth, but it seems to me that standards are different for different companies.
[+] [-] kodablah|7 years ago|reply
I do and always have. I also have a problem with their silence concerning relinquishing control of iCloud DCs there too. I avoid Apple products due to their anti-developer, opaque, and money-above-all approaches.
> it seems to me that standards are different for different companies.
Exactly. And countries. So I try not to draw any reaction equivalence except in personal preference. People's outrage is more a product of who they like most at any given time, often driven by narratives in the press/community. All you can do is be consistent with yourself and don't get too whataboutist when these double standards rear their heads.
[+] [-] creaghpatr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bogomipz|7 years ago|reply
Pulling an App from the App store is nowhere near the same as building a tool to satisfy the CCP. I get it you're a Google employee and want to defend them but this is nothing more than a red herring and an equivalency fallacy. It sound like you've really drank the Mountain View Kool-aid.
[+] [-] codezero|7 years ago|reply
I do think if Google hadn't left, it would probably have been more normalized by now.
I think I'd be a lot more critical of Apple if, for example, the Chinese government got a special ability to unlock iDevices, if they already have this, I'm not well informed, so feel free to let me know.
[+] [-] ur-whale|7 years ago|reply
When they keep on being evil (within the boundaries of the law), no one flinches, it's business as usual, and the Apple fanboys keep on submitting to being mistreated by their favorite toy-maker so they can keep on secretly caressing their shiny new Iphones in their bed at night.
But back in the days, Google set the moral bar for themselves very, very high.
Now that they are openly failing to meet their own standard, the world is sorely disappointed.
[+] [-] LyndsySimon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iamdave|7 years ago|reply
Google working on project Dragonfly, a service that-according to the article: 'would blacklist phrases like “human rights,” “student protest,” and “Nobel Prize.”'
People are (rightly) bothered by this.
Facebook and Twitter tell Alex Jones to pound sand.
People argue "Private corporations don't have to give anyone a platform".
I'm not here to promote the idea that the members of the first group are automatically members of the second, some overlap could probably be found...probably.
Why does the first get so much coverage and ultimately ending up in The Intercept with an inferred tone of apoplectic disappointment-and in some cases-anger towards Google, but coverage of the latter seems to be glee, jubilation and almost schadenfreude?
Note that I'm not making any sort of value judgments about Alex Jones' politics or statements, suggesting that I agree with his views, or that even that he may be right about gay frogs (this really shouldn't have to be said, it should be painfully obvious but I'm covering my ass out of trained habit: unless one explicitly says "I am not supporting this person", someone will come out of the woodwork and make the association because it's easier to debate). I'm pointing to actions of corporations and our responses to them: between the two things here, I'm hard pressed to find a difference beyond a matter of scale between what Google is doing and what Facebook and Twitter have already done.
[+] [-] darpa_escapee|7 years ago|reply
> People are (rightly) bothered by this.
> Facebook and Twitter tell Alex Jones to pound sand.
> People argue "Private corporations don't have to give anyone a platform".
One of the two actions you listed results in the families of school shooting victims getting harassed by Alex Jones social media following less and the other enables the imprisonment, torture and execution of millions of people in China.
[+] [-] dumbfoundded|7 years ago|reply
Silencing Jones on these platforms in my opinion amounts to good housekeeping allowing others to actually express their opinions without manipulation. Part of an intellectually open and honest society is banishing those who seek to manipulate it.
[+] [-] adventured|7 years ago|reply
If someone like Jones wants to be an idiot that pushes conspiracies about gay frogs, or Obama being an alien, they should be allowed to - if society deems Facebook something akin to a utility that everyone should have access to.
Alternatively, break Facebook up into pieces and end the monopoly.
Twitter is not so much an issue. They're a modest player when it comes to market share in social. Maybe 3% to 5% the size of Facebook in regards to true reach and influence (not just supposed daily or monthly actives).
If Twitter wants to be biased against conservatives, it's not nearly as big of a deal as people being banned for life from Facebook. Wikipedia recently stripped all Breitbart stories from their site (re sources/references), with a target of doing the same to Fox News next. Is that a big deal? Not so much, it's similar to Twitter's left bias when it comes to allowing hate speech and racism from the left, and banning or locking accounts on the right for trivial things. It's just not that important, Wikipedia is influential but has no monopoly on knowledge.
The solution to Twitter's bias, is the DOJ should sue them and make them enforce their terms of service for all parties equally (rather than allowing one side to freely issue death threats, racism, hate speech, etc. without having accounts get suspended or banned), which they're refusing to do right now. Levy increasing fines against them until they enforce their terms of service for all users equally. Problem solved.
[+] [-] molticrystal|7 years ago|reply
They were at one point neutral and uncompromising in their principles even if it excludes them from a market, fighting for freedom of speech and being against censorship, trying to provide the best information whatever it concludes.
They now impose their biases, believe the power consumer doesn't know best and thus change the interfaces of their products removing advanced options or open standards, have biases in their search results, and are trying to make the world conform to their ideals where possible, or compromise principles and submit to illiberal societies if it means market access.
[+] [-] jiveturkey|7 years ago|reply
to be fair, often they don't
[+] [-] opportune|7 years ago|reply
lol if any of these employees think they will be protected from the repercussions of doing this. I would never hire or want to work with someone with such cheap morals
[+] [-] zethraeus|7 years ago|reply
They're also not becoming social pariahs outside of, perhaps, the vocal liberal segment of silicon valley.
I bet they'll be fine.
[+] [-] AckSyn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gumby|7 years ago|reply
The reason for my confusion is that the search engine already implements various "knock out" rules, for example:
- it inherently makes a choice as to how to respond to a query based on what it knows about the user ("Tyler" is more likely to refer to "Cowan" for me while "Swift" for the little girl next door).
- Though Google has resisted to some degree, it has whole swaths of results which are not permitted in various jurisdictions (various definitions of "hate speech") for example
- New "right to be forgotten" restrictions and copyright attacks
- "Fake news" attacks and complaints -- spam
Given that there have already been implementations (of varying levels of compliance -- I believe many of the censorship demands are intractable) really how would Dragonfly be different? Couldn't a censorship request from CCP use the same API the RIAA does?
[+] [-] kodablah|7 years ago|reply
This is how you can hurt recruitment efforts indirectly. If I, as an employer, avoid Xooglers to make a statement, even if it has no material impact to the actual employment market as a whole, some people will hesitate before working there in the first place. People should work on parts of the company they can brag about shamelessly or any efforts as a tech community to blackball developers of perceived immoral features will expand to developers of entire companies.
Similarly, employees of these companies will now have to realize they are judged by the company they keep so to speak. I will say Google employees, compared to other companies, seem to have taken this judgement seriously. Don't think "I didn't work in that area" will save you if "that area" comes to fruition. There is not much pity for employees with other outs/options.
[+] [-] burkaman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dixie_land|7 years ago|reply
You mean the bank statement you have to show your top dollar lawyer to keep him on retainer for the discrimination lawsuits?
[+] [-] baybal2|7 years ago|reply
Since 2008, google in China were: coding mules, tech support for ad doubleclick, sales for minor 3rd tier products. That was stable for 10 years, but suddenly, since around a year ago, they began to talking about whole new campuses, and rumors began circulating that country's top tier talent is being poached through shell companies by an obscure "internet search startup"
[+] [-] tempodox|7 years ago|reply
(edit: slight change in wording)
[+] [-] clubm8|7 years ago|reply
I am a huge critic of China's human rights record, but "treason" has a very specific legal definition. Doing trade with a country is not "treason".
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PhantomGremlin|7 years ago|reply
re. the USA: No, we can't possibly bid on the US Department of Defense cloud computing contract. because the contract may not align with the company’s principles.
re. China: Yes, we want to build a censored search engine for Chine because there are a billion potential users there.
To me the hypocrisy is astounding. What I don't understand is how Google's employees deal with the cognitive dissonance. I guess they're real good at compartmentalizing.
[+] [-] echevil|7 years ago|reply
There are so many Google employees that I won’t expect them to all agree on these things. There are probably enough number of Chinese employees who would want to make such a product
[+] [-] eightysixfour|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ur-whale|7 years ago|reply
They don't. The era of top notch engineers picking Google because of the company's vision and ethics are long gone.
Most employees at Google these days are just here to collect a (very fat) paycheck and don't give two hoots about the whole "don't be evil" thing.
[+] [-] phreenet|7 years ago|reply
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/tech/google-defense-contract/...
[+] [-] dqpb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] indigochill|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryoshon|7 years ago|reply
it also appears as though they are fully conscious of the prospect of social censure:
>We are working with you to make sure your careers are not affected by this.
so, they know they're clandestinely doing immoral things. but google corporate is determined to protect the minions from the consequences of being identified as an aid to totalitarianism.
given that we don't have a list of the google employees working on dragonfly, i think he's just succeeded in tainting the reputation of 100% of googlers and former googlers.
any one of them could have been working to keep the chinese oppressed via censorship by knowingly joining a new project designed explicitly to do so.
[+] [-] defen|7 years ago|reply
>>We are working with you to make sure your careers are not affected by this.
I'll tell you how Google is going to spin it (maybe it's true, maybe it's spin, but it's what they're going to say) - If you work on a big project at Google that never gets launched, it affects your ability to move up in the ranks. So he's saying that people working on this aren't going to be "penalized" (passed over for promotion) because the political climate made their project unable to launch. Without that assurance, even if you assume there were no ethical concerns with the project, smart employees would not sign up for it because of the risk of external events preventing its launch.
[+] [-] berbec|7 years ago|reply
I know the people working as full time engineers aren't living on Ramen noodles and sleeping in boxes, but it's real hard to fight something when your and your family's livelyhood depend on not fighting it.
We should champion those willing to take the extraordinary step of walking away, leaking or pushing back on this; while recognizing such actions are extraordinary, and should not be expected of everyone.
It would be nice to live in a world where anyone can stand up and fight in this manor, but I just imagine an engineer who really, really can't lose his health insurance and the inner turmoil they go through.
[+] [-] ur-whale|7 years ago|reply
Larry and Sergei in particular are nowhere to be seen in these discussions.
The people left in charge are nowhere near having the kind of backbone and ethics-driven decision making style the top management team had 8-10 years ago.
What Google has become in the last 10 years just another boring evil faceless corporation.
[+] [-] ConceptJunkie|7 years ago|reply
Has there ever been a company that made it big, big enough to be in the Apple/Microsoft/IBM/Google class, that didn't become evil? To me, it seems inevitable once a corporation reaches a certain level of success in the market.
[+] [-] gurumeditations|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reustle|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bordercases|7 years ago|reply
At the other extreme, there is the possibility of legitimizing the company that operates in international markets to be aligned with a particular nation's values, and that this alignment is baked into the core of its business operations.
This option will probably leave a bad taste in the mouths of some hackers here who resent a consolidation of government power over companies, given that this smells a lot like some other rulerships in history that we frown upon.
But I'm unsure if there is a middle ground here. That's my fault if I'm missing it. Can we really hold a global company accountable to our ethical standards, which would not allow them to engage in the moral relativism necessary to access all markets?
[+] [-] majia|7 years ago|reply
There are many Google mirror sites, most of which are currently blocked by China. If the Chinese government decides to work with some of the mirror sites to deliver Google search results in China, on the condition that the mirror sites apply a government filter to the search results, what would happen? I could think of three reactions:
1. Block those mirror sites from accessing Google search results, but this may be difficult since they could just use a different IP address.
2. Do nothing. A censored Google is available in China but people can hardly blame google for not blocking the mirror sites.
3. Work with the mirror sites (for example, require them to display Google ads along with search results).
[+] [-] dvtrn|7 years ago|reply
I'm not sure what is more intellectually offensive: that an executive would say this, or say it and actually believe it would fly. A senior manager? Okay, sure. You might not know what project outside of your division is working on. An executive really shouldn't be this oblivious to their organization working with a foreign government.
[+] [-] xvector|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djrogers|7 years ago|reply
> When pressed to give specific details, Enright refused, saying that he was “not clear on the contours of what is in scope or out of scope for that project.”
Bravo - you’ve managed to make the parodies of Valley-speak look tame!
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]