Why I'm Forced to Say Farewell: Google Management Has Lost Its Moral Compass
61 points
1 hour ago
| 6 comments
| mayrhofer.eu.org
| HN
JuniperMesos
4 minutes ago
[-]
> The culture was transparent and open to diverse discourse, and from the start it was made clear that, as Googlers, we were not only welcome but expected to bring our own identity and values into the job.

Google management lost its moral compass in 2017 when they fired James Damore for writing a memo critiquing their gender diversity efforts. They were never serious that employees were expected to bring their own identity and values into the job, they only thought this with respect to identities and values they were already mostly-aligned-with.

reply
ashleyn
2 minutes ago
[-]
Considering they rolled back DEI along with everyone else after Trump's second victory, it's difficult to view those previous "values" as anything other than cynical kissing-up to the previous holders of power.
reply
aucisson_masque
12 minutes ago
[-]
It's great to follow your own moral compass, whatever the cost.

Much harder than taking the money and blindly following management decisions.

reply
andriy_koval
5 minutes ago
[-]
Its easier once he vested his director level stock compensation since 2017.
reply
cheekygeeky
1 hour ago
[-]
Google will want him terminated immediately and will probably make him some settlement (combined with a threat) to keep his mouth shut, going forward. Meanwhile, the media will be clamoring for interviews and more sound bites.
reply
moomoo11
13 minutes ago
[-]
well at least the TC and stock appreciation was worth it right?
reply
saltyoldman
1 hour ago
[-]
. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people.

So if our enemies had no qualms at all about doing this, wouldn't it make sense that we have weapons that can at least counter, and potentially fight back? Would it be facilitating injury if the AI is used to stop an ISIS linked attack in our homeland?

> "Don't be evil"

Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?

reply
jubilanti
1 minute ago
[-]
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of https://enwp.org/Pacifism
reply
lokar
12 minutes ago
[-]
Your argument is not really responding to his.

He has, and has had, a specific moral philosophy he follows. When he took the job the public (and once he started, internal) words and actions of the company fit within that philosophy (or closely enough). Now the company has changed and they don’t fit. Further, the obvious changes happened without any real notice or explanation.

It seems reasonable in that situation to leave. FWIW; I was in the same situation, and left.

Do you fault him for his personal moral code? He is not telling you how you should act.

reply
leptons
10 minutes ago
[-]
>Can evil also be interpreted as letting your government be impotent in protecting you?

When they rename "Department of Defense" to "Department of War", there can be no mistake about the intention of the government. They aren't "protecting" us, they are actively starting unnecessary wars, because cruelty has always been the point for them.

reply
mieses
8 minutes ago
[-]
he is a self described pacifist. how nice to be him.
reply
nathan_compton
1 minute ago
[-]
I don't know, it seems like being a pacifist is harder, since it exposes you to violence to which you cannot retaliate while alienating you from your peers with less stringent moral opinions. Doesn't seem like it really makes anything easier. You don't have to look hard to find that history is replete with pacifists who paid social and legal penalties for their moral stance.
reply
izacus
55 minutes ago
[-]
If you actually read the article you'd know that the Googles government isn't friendly with the author's government, which makes your nitpicking nonsensical.
reply
taid9iK-
56 minutes ago
[-]
Good for you. Us. I always wondered what being pacifist means specifically in this space. Thank you!
reply