Have you read the reporting on this? The Intercept described Beaumont, G’s head of ops in China, as intentionally excluding security and privacy teams from key meetings about the project, undermining privacy reviews, and taking whatever measures he could to make Dragonfly a fait accompli with no oversight. One googler says that “[Beaumont’s] ideal circumstance was that most people would find out about this project the day it launched.”
So I’m not sure what choice there would be other than to make these objections publicly. Google management doesn’t want people knowing about this because they understand how bad it looks, and they’re going to great lengths to circumvent the normal processes that would prevent this kind of product from seeing the light of day. My favorite bit was that Dragonfly would blacklist the term “Nobel Prize” from being searched. Is there really an argument that participation in this kind of oppression isn’t morally reprehensible? And if there isn’t, don’t employees who are able have a responsibility to try and prevent it?
Complaining about your company’s vacation policy might be whining, being incensed that the company’s stopping free lunch might be privileged, but speaking out against building the machinery of oppression definitely isn’t.
(Intercept article: https://theintercept.com/2018/11/29/google-china-censored-se...)
It's also a lack of clearly defined leadership as well. Maybe because there's so many different 'teams' all working on different things?
This is conflicting, on the one hand if I have a bunch of employees all whining like these guys are I would simply replace them all, regardless of cost. On the other hand, aiding a hostile oppressive regime isn't cool. But screaming like privileged babies on Social Media really isn't the answer either.