We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18065083.

"OK, no problem. Having Google on my resume means I can get a new job by the end of the week. I'll be sure to spread the word to users and developers alike that you're shady."

Let's not pretend that developers are powerless.

Unless you're an H1-B worker in which case it's gets much more complicated.

In my experience, most of the H1-B workers we have are very much Yes Men when it comes to doing what's asked of them. There are also cultural factors that come into play (e.g. never admitting ignorance on a topic, pleasing authority ) and .

Maybe it's because when they get fired they get deported. Other permanent residents just have to find another job.

H1-B is modern day slavery.

> H1-B is modern day slavery.

Eh, there's a power imbalance, but let's not go overboard.

They are offered a good job with good pay in another country. That means they have less power in negotiations, and may be deported, but they don't lose the money they earned, and it's not like they are being exiled to some foreign place, they are literally sent home.

Nobody's freedom is being taken away, and nobody's rights are being infringed (that I know of). It may not be morally acceptable depending on your point of view, but it's not slavery. Using that word here lessens how strong it is when used in other contexts, modern day (human trafficking) and historically (in America and eslewhere). We don't need that.

Being sent "home" when you've been living and working in another country for possibly years at a time doesn't really make it any better. You don't necessarily have a "home" wherever you came from.

> Being sent "home" when you've been living and working in another country for possibly years at a time doesn't really make it any better.

Than slavery? Yes it does make it better. Much better.

It's more like indentured servitude.

Is this not a problem?

I think it contributes to the loss of morality in software. There might also be an element of cultural unfamiliarity and assuming behavior is normal and acceptable.

It's not the big deal it was, and is likely to involve a massive cut in pay, fwiw.

If you're already prepared to lose your current job, why not organize a union vote before you go? If they were already going to fire you over one thing, you might as well make it two things.

Not everyone is in a position to walk away from a job in hopes to land a new one in a week. People have families, bills, obligations.

No, but most everyone at Google is in a position to be financially responsible and put aside a bit of money each paycheck for emergencies and/or decisions like this.

Not really. People could be in debt, people could be taking care of their parents or other family members. You are making a lot of assumptions because you think everyone who works at Google is rich.

I was mostly just assuming that people at Google have a relatively stable job, which is really all you need to start being financially responsible and do things like set any amount of money aside each month, not live paycheck to paycheck, slowly cut out unnecessary expenditures, etc.

To bring things back to the ancestor comment this was all responding to: people who can't leave a job because they're relying on a paycheck are definitely less powerful when it comes to being able to take a stand and make change at that job. People who are able to rely less on a paycheck have a bit more of a cushion in this area (especially when they have some savings for e.g. doctors, car problems, etc, and have enough set aside to find another job before those savings run out).

Anyone can put a % of their paycheck aside each month to become more financially independent. Whether they're at Google or not doesn't really matter here -- but, it is probably a bit more likely that an engineer at Google might be able to put aside a little bit more than a grocer at Target (and, is probably more capable of finding another job faster).

True. I was a bit flippant. But a software developer at Google is likely to be making six figures, and is likely to be able to find another job within a few months.

"I have to do something immoral or I won't be able to feed my family" is not a position they're likely to be in.

Having Google on your resume is in no way impressive in my opinion. I have reviewed plenty of resumes and been part of the interview process. Being a Google employee just doesn't matter.

Your opinion is not representative and thus not relevant to the argument (that ex-Google engineers have very good job prospects).

>Your opinion is not representative and thus not relevant to the argument (that ex-Google engineers have very good job prospects).

He never claimed it was. More importantly, he is providing a data point, whereas the original claim did not provide anything to back it up.

That is fine that it is not representative, I don't think I said that it was. I said it doesn't matter to me. As someone that reviews resumes it is actually relevant.

What type is that? Genuine question, as I’m in healthcare in a country far away.

Indeed. I even had one door closed by having Google on my resume! ("We've had bad luck with ex-Google types in the past")

"Luck" is a BS excuse, including in said argument

...they don't literally mean "luck", except to express that there is variance. They're using the word to mean bad results, happening more often in ex-google employees. And that's not BS at all.

They don't have to use the word or mention it at all because bad results are already implied by the context. The reader already gathers as much.

Mentioning the word luck draws it in a different light, as if next time the odds might be on their end. Luck is meaningless if there's enough skill. Its an overused (if not downright abused) word.

Why not?

It just simply doesn't set a candidate apart from anyone else. Just like what school someone went to. I simply don't care if it was an ivy league school or local school. It doesn't matter. what really matters is their accomplishments. Trading on a name is not going to work for me.

But since you mentioned this is your opinion, you do acknowledge that these forms of signalling are effective for most other hiring managers, right? Your view is pretty atypical.

Not to be blunt, but your perspective on Google employees is irrelevant in the context of how they're perceived by the broader market. I think that's why your other comment is being downvoted; it seems like what you're saying isn't wrong per se, it's just inconsequential to the job prospects Google employees actually have. Even though you're a hiring manager and don't personally consider Google employment to be a plus, most other hiring managers really do.

If the company is asking you to do things that you find ethically untenable, you should leave, even in full knowledge that the company will find a way to do it anyway.

In an ideal world, yes. But people have mortgages, families and other commitments. Some have social anxiety and find job hunting an impossibly scary prospect. Others might suffer from depression.

It's all good and well placing generalised ethics on individuals to do the right thing but in those kind of ideal world scenarios you also wouldn't have accountants finding tax loopholes, lawyers perpetuating patent abuse, nor company directors asking their staff to do morally objectionable things to begin with.

In general I agree with you, clearly not everybody has the luxury of being able to quit their jobs if it doesn't align with their values, especially when the problem is so relatively benign in the grand scheme of things. I'm not trying to downplay Google's decision here, I invite everybody to stop using Chrome, but it's not like they're enslaving people or something. I can imagine that most people wouldn't risk hurting their families or losing their houses for something like that.

That being said, is it really a concern for the average Google engineer? I mean sure, if we're talking about Google's cleaning staff I can imagine that leaving their jobs can be risky but software devs? Even assuming that they have multiple children and a huge mortgage, surely they can easily find other well paying job without much difficulty?

You won't have me believe that the majority of Google's engineers is financially unable to quit their job.

>Some have social anxiety and find job hunting an impossibly scary prospect.

I'm sure that can be a factor but does it really justify anything? As far as looking for a job is concerned we have it super easy. If you can't stand for your values because of "social anxiety" then maybe you don't value your values that much?

And I realize that I sound like I'm on a high horse right now and I am, but I'm talking out of experience. I've been in that situation in the past, doing a job that I found morally questionable but finding myself excuses. Don't make my mistake, it's not worth it. There's more to life than working full time tricking people into watching ads.

> If you can't stand for your values because of "social anxiety" then maybe you don't value your values that much?

I’m not going to downvote you, but if you don’t suffer from social anxiety, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. As someone who is affected by it, I can tell you it’s soul crushing when it prevents you from making a move out of a bad situation. It’s completely paralyzing.

I mean yeah, if you have a medical condition obviously it's different but that's not really what I was getting at. I'm sure a few Googlers have genuine reasons for being stuck in their jobs and maybe that's one of them but I'm sure it's not the case for most of them.

My overall point is basically: if Google engineers can't justify quitting their jobs on moral grounds, then who can? We're utterly privileged compared to 99% of job sectors. If we are willing to give them a pass then we really can't complain about, say, people working for PRISM or military personnel in the drone programs, because I'm sure many of these people are in a much more precarious situation than your average Google engineer.

The thing I would add is that Google's whole thing about "bringing your whole self to work" and providing food and amenities to keep you at the office as long as possible leads to some unfortunate effects: Many Googlers social circles are heavily filled with other Googlers, and a Googler may rely on Google for a lot more than just the paycheck.

If someone's spending say 14+ hours a day on a Google campus, leaving can be a lot harder than just "finding a new job".

Even some of those publicly protesting Google's behavior or pushing for a union will turn around and help promote their friends' products or encourage people publicly to apply to join Google.

So I'd point out they've successfully made it as hard as possible, socially, to quit.

Sure, but let's be honest: this isn't true for everyone working for Google (or whatever Big Bad you want to talk about). Tons of developers don't give a toss about ethics and just prefer to stay with their unethical employer because the tech is cool and it's more convenient to not to have to look for another job (even if you have it so easy you actually take time out of your day to whine on social media about recruiters pestering you with job offers).

This already played out with the NSA after the Snowden leaks. The money is good, the tech is cool, so who cares if it's technically unethical as long as it's not illegal, nobody's going to hold you personally accountable and you still can easily find a job if things get too shady and you finally decide to leave.

Also, people can rationalise doing all kinds of evil things as long as they're allowed to safely live in a bubble ("Facebook is about connecting people, which is a good thing, so Facebook is a force for good and improves people's lives" is a recent one I heard from an FB employee).

That can certainly be the case, but it isn't really relevant in this case. Google have a infamous interview process, a very recognisable brand and essentially only hires in major location. Being able to walk across the street and get a new job is one major feature why people want to work for companies as Google and why they tolerate things like the interview process and high rents in the first place.

So by having a mortgage you justify unethical behavior? I fail to see how one creating their OWN problem justifies unethical behavior.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

It is unreasonable to expect someone to deliberately harm themselves -- self-sacrifice is noble but not an obligation.

>people have mortgages, families and other commitments. Some have social anxiety and find job hunting an impossibly scary prospect. Others might suffer from depression.

So what? Standing up for what you believe in is never easy, and almost always involves challenges like those. Imagine if Dr. King gave up because he was anxious and depressed with death threats coming in on a regular basis.

Failing to take a moral/ethical stand because you're worried you might lose money or have to withstand some social anxiety blatantly shows that you don't really believe in those morals/ethics.

So, assuming you're tight on money, the job market is looking crap, but you got lucky and got a well paying job. Chances of getting another job are slim. You have a few responsibilities, a wife, say 2 kids, maybe even someone who needs medical bills paid.

Do you just say "fuck it", and quit, ignoring all your responsibilities? Over cookies?

Of course, when its not about cookies, but about something more drastic, say something ludicrous like giving google nuclear launch codes, then the whole thing looks different. Some things are worth the fight, some are not.

> Some things are worth the fight, some are not.

That argument goes both ways. If the Chrome team were unionized/organized in some form, and said "hell no" to the cookie change, then I doubt Google's management would shrug and replace the whole team with fresh H1B workers just to get this small change in.

I also find it fascinating that so many people bring up children as a reason to give up your ideals. My dad gave up a well-paying job for a more fulfilling one, and it would never occur to me to blame him for it; if anything it's inspiring. This was in Europe, with a reasonable safety net, but I don't think that Xooglers would hit rock bottom anyway.

This isn't just about cookies though. When Google designed HTTP/2 they kept cookies in favor of a separate authentication mechanism. Arguably because otherwise people would end up removing cookies altogether making themselves harder to track and with Google losing ad money in the process. Now Google have seemingly decided they want to have their cake and eat it too, just only for themselves. This isn't one incident but Google manifesting thier direction for themselves and the Internet. (Just recently they also disabled sign out from their YouTube app for instance). If you disagree with this direction that is certainly a good reason too quit sooner rather than later. Pretty much everyone I have ever talked to that ended up changing e.g. jobs because of a disagreement wish they did so earlier. It is very easy to sit in the same position and hope that things will get better and hard to see what else is out there even if it is very clear in hindsight.

>Do you just say "fuck it", and quit, ignoring all your responsibilities? Over cookies?

If you follow the news about Google at all, you'd know its obviously not just about cookies.

>Of course, when its not about cookies, but about something more drastic

It's about the the greatest surveillance apparatus in history encroaching towards total informational awareness.

for the individual developer getting asked to implement this, it is over cookies. The decision is "Do I implement this, or do I tell my kids I dont know how to feed them"

>for the individual developer getting asked to implement this, it is over cookies

No, cookies would be the straw that broke the camel's back. The context you're ignoring the the countless other straws beneath it.

>The decision is "Do I implement this, or do I tell my kids I dont know how to feed them"

False dichotomy

> Imagine if Dr. King gave up because he was anxious and depressed with death threats coming in on a regular basis.

I don't think anyone would blame him. I couldn't handle the pressure, how could I demand it of someone else?

You don't have a right to subject your children to homelessness just because you felt like taking a stance based on feelings.

Does one have a right to give a crappy life example to one's children?

You should first ask, can I & others change the company from within.

Many people credit a small group of Microsoft employees for getting the company to embrace open source. This group grew from within as I'm told.

> Many people credit a small group of Microsoft employees for getting the company to embrace open source. This group grew from within as I'm told.

I've been wondering how this transition came about. Do you have more information on that (e.g. an article or a blog post that you could refer me to)?

Just years of seeing them credited in random forums & social media sites.

Quick Google Search:

Credits Hanselman & Guthrie - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8596268

AMA w/ Hanselman mentions it being 10 yrs ago - https://hashnode.com/ama/with-scott-hanselman-cjbx98jh506b34...

This article might be exactly what you're looking for - https://thenewstack.io/microsoft-finally-came-around-open-so...

I'd bet that's a PR stunt to retain employees

Come on. Most users want their "chrome google account" to be the same as their "web google account", and it is confusing when they aren't.

You can argue it is unethical to build tech for the military. But you have a really broad definition of unethical if it includes improving a product so the default is what most users want, and you need to adjust some things to make it the way you want.

They are lotsa shades of gray and (virtually) every company does things that are somewhat fishy.

But, IMO, Google has gone to black

What is with the H1B bashing? Have you met a representative sample of people in H1B? How is your prejudice any different from being a racist or sexist? Just because visa type is not a protected class?

I highly recommend talking to many more people on H1B and if even a few doesn't fit your preconceived notion, kindly stop this bashing. It is people you are dealing with.

Painting all workers on H1-B visas in one brush seems unfair. The H1-Bs at Google get paid way more than the H1-Bs at companies like Wipro or Infosys. [1]

These are skilled workers, with options, that happen to be foreign.

Not foreign workers that are just skilled enough and grateful enough.

1: https://h1bdata.info/highestpaidcompany.php

For all we know this could have happened!

"Let's not go to the moon, I have heard that it's really really hard." -JFK

You gotta be the change you want to see in the world, even if you know it's not going to make a significant difference by itself.

Sure, they'll hire someone else. But that's not the point. The point is sticking to your ethics.

This problem can only be solved by legislation. There's money in surveillance capitalism, so the money will be grabbed.