The potential benefits are substantial. Google could be the first big tech player to break into what is usually seen as a walled off market. Over time economic ties could bring the countries closer together, and reduce the likelihood of conflict (this is the original rationale behind the EU, for example). As far a I can see, Dragonfly is not any worse than the status quo, and had potential benefits - and this is speaking from someone who had no incentive to see Google succeed. I don't work there nor do I own any stocks in the company.
Yes. It normalizes suppressing political speech that disagrees with the incumbent power. That flies in the face of values democracies hold dear. "Someone else would do it" isn't a valid excuse. If you're doing it, you're complicit. (Also, Google will do it better than almost anyone else. That a respected American technology giant will work with China's censorship regime gives the institution legitimacy.)
Precedent matters. Google having built a censored search engine for China makes it harder to say "no" to Saudi Arabia, Russia, Poland, France or even the American government. Apple understood this when they refused to build a cracking tool for the San Bernardino shooter's phone.
It's also worth reminding that Google did exit China in 2010 because of precisely these ethical concerns. Only to watch all of its competitors - Apple included - unscrupulously do business in China. It's no wonder they reconsidered their stance.
I think people forget there are probably more engineers not working at Google that are better than Google engineers. Yes Google does try to hire the best, and often does.
There are tons of amazing Engineer that never applied or have no desire to work at Google.
Please also keep in mind the Google we all think of as being awesome is gone, simply because the churn rate is so high. Many of the people who were responsible for building google to it's current status simply are not working there anymore ( yes some still are, but the vast majority seem to have gone or don't care anymore )
We really need to stop acting like getting a job at Google means you are a good engineer.
Also I'm not sure where you get the idea that Google churn is higher than elsewhere or that it's grown significantly. To say those remaining don't care anymore implies there has been a dramatic attitude change, what are you basing that on?
As long as Google attracts the best(which i think they generally do) working there will be a signaling trait of a good engineer.
That being said I can just point to Linux, FreeBSD, and a bunch of other open source projects that have no real central home of operation that are comprised of teams of smart people spread all around the world who have done amazing things.
So the flaw in your logic is that we are actually spread all over the place, when we are all spread around on this rock but find our self's milliseconds away from each other.
> To say those remaining don't care anymore implies there has been a dramatic attitude change, what are you basing that on?
I am saying there is a markedly different quality of software coming out of google today than in the past. Things that flowed and worked flawless now do not. Things that were fast and clean are no longer. There have been many HN post about various things coming out of google that are not optimal and raise a lot of questions.
> As long as Google attracts the best(which i think they generally do) working there will be a signaling trait of a good engineer.
Google attracts everybody -- not just the best. Working at google only signals a trait of doing interviews well. The average tenure at google is 1.90 years, which is just about the time it takes to realize you are not cut out for the job.
You really have to start asking yourself how so many people have strings of less than 2 years at a job. At a place like google it probably takes you 1 year to even get up to speed.
I have happend to work at a company long enough to see the pattern. Mediocre employees often have a long string of short stays -- and many of them leave a path of destruction behind them.
It takes at a minimum 3 years but more like 5 years at any given company to know if the work you did was any good. Simply having a launch means nothing, the real quality shows under pressure years later.
So, for now, if Google was hiring amazing people who could do awesome things they simply would be staying there longer -- and google would be doing everything it could to ensure they did.
If you look this is a trend in SV. This is partly because the entire industry has been flooded with people who chose this line of work because it makes money, not because they had any real passion about writing software or solving hard problems.
This industry was built in the 90s when computer nerds where made fun of, and it was not cool. Then the money started flowing and it was flooded with all the wannabe software devs, because it was cool, and it made money. It was built on the type of person who knew how to program before taking their first programming class in College.
Every Chinese expat I've talked to is pro dragonfly, because of the exact reasons in parent comment: no new negatives, some new positives.
For some reason, nobody seems to care what they think. The anti people just pivot into demonizing the Chinese, resolving their cognitive dissonance in one nice hypernationalist stroke.
Let's say we agree with the premise that search censorship is bad, and we want to work to get rid of it. What is the best way to accomplish this if you are Google?
Maybe the best answer is to refuse to work with the Chinese government and not do this project. Maybe, though, the best approach is to comply and try to work within the system to change it.
I am not saying that answer is correct, either. I am just saying you can't act like the answer is cut and dry without any room for differing opinions or debate as to the best way to accomplish the goal.
If you're making a huge salary at Google, and you value that, and working there for x more years will net you an even huger salary, what are the chances that you start to work against it from the inside at that point, if you're not already doing it now? It ain't gonna get easier. You're not gonna become more of an outsider/breath of fresh air.
Think of things like the Civil Rights Act... it was passed by people with conviction that worked within the system (or at least some of them worked within the system)
Were the congresspeople who pushed the law through hypocrites because they worked within a system that was horribly oppressive towards minorities?
Edit: though I do see how the "individuals" argument can be used in both directions - I'm essentially arguing that google and its ilk are fundamentally tainted by their business models, in a way that the US government never was.
Every business exists to make money, and China is a huge market for all of them, so wouldn't they all have the same problem?
I know some people make that argument, but it is a pretty extreme view.
It sets the precedent of Google censoring search results for a government. Once they do it for China you don't think other countries will say "censor these results like you did for China or GTFO"?
We've recently seen leaked internal discussions by Google engineers saying they want to ban media publications they don't like. You can say they're a private company but at this point if google bans you, you effectively don't exist online
Disclaimer: ex-googler
Individual engineers did not have the means to ban in 2013 when I was an engineer in Search Features. I seriously doubt that's changed.
From everything we know so far, there was no consensus about Dragonfly, but it got built anyway.
Just because some evil thing would have happened anyway, with or without your assistance, doesn't absolve you from moral responsibility for that assistance if you offer it.
Yes. Read the open letter by Google employees[1]. One of their main concerns is how Dragonfly will be used to put people into political prison camps[2].
From the open letter by Google employees:
> Our company’s decision comes as the Chinese government is openly expanding its surveillance powers and tools of population control. Many of these rely on advanced technologies, and combine online activity, personal records, and mass monitoring to track and profile citizens. Reports are already showing who bears the cost, including Uyghurs, women’s rights advocates, and students. Providing the Chinese government with ready access to user data, as required by Chinese law, would make Google complicit in oppression and human rights abuses.
[1] https://medium.com/@googlersagainstdragonfly/we-are-google-e...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/muslims-...
1. Is this the case in existing Chinese search engines?
2. If yes, Do you have evidence to suggest that Google's Chinese search engine would be any more harmful than said existing search engines in China?
If these points cannot be proven, then it does not seem intellectually honest to claim that Dragonfly is making China a worse place. To say that it fails to make China a better place, sure that makes sense. But to say that it makes it worse necessitates proving that the status quo in China without Google is better than a China with Google. Most commenters in this thread aren't actually outlining the impact of the product iself, choosing instead to criticize the fact that Google isn't signalling American or Western values as much as they want . I'd be opposed to Google entering China if the majority of Chinese were opposed to it, but this does not seem to be the case. It seems patrimonial on my part to think that I'm better equipped to judge how a society on the other side of the world functions than the people that actually live there. No doubt some Chinese oppose censorship, but the majority seem to accept it or even support it as a necessary means to ensure social stability.
Google probably has 5000 Chinese national employees. Where are they on the issue? Wouldn't they be in a better position to judge than a bunch of Americans who grew up hearing that our system is the only workable one?
No. China is taking millions of political prisoners and putting them into camps[1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/muslims-...
If a government is currently using software to target, kidnap, and torture journalists and you supply them with new software that basically does the same thing then you're still complicit in the bad behavior. You're still responsible for your actions even if others would be willing to do it if you didn't.
In China's case there's also a history of this rationalization that getting involved will help westernize the country, while there's some truth to this with their embrace of capitalism - the government is not trending in a good direction. Eliminating presidential term limits, deep packet inspection, social credit system, total/unrestricted surveillance.
Western companies that operate there in a capacity larger than just manufacturing seem to just have their IP stolen and then a Chinese approved local company gets explicit government support.
It's important to help citizens of countries where the people are more vulnerable - I'd argue it's irresponsible for a company to help an authoritarian government oppress its own people. It's not a question of whether or not it's legal, something can be legal and still be wrong.
Just because a communist country doesn't need our help oppressing people doesn't mean we are A-OKAY to assist them with it..
The potential benefits could be substantial, we could be the first big US weapons manufacturer to break into this regime's market. Over time, economic ties could bring the countries closer together and reduce the likelihood of conflict...
Do you see how insane it is to justify something morally repugnant with potential long term economic benefits? The only way your argument works is if you don't care about censorship in the first place. If that's the case, then you need no justification at all because it's just another regular customer.
I think the same might be applicable to this scenario.
Not saying I have a position on dragonfly I would quit over, but several people in the company who do stay because they believe leadership is responsive to employee concerns and believe they can influence the direction here. I believe that personally as well. I certainly didn’t believe that about any other company I had worked at before.
And that belief is great. But what happens if leadership does nothing? What if they do as they are currently doing and making excuses about it? They aren't currently saying there are any plans to change the course on this. Will those same people you mention leave when nothing changes in another year? I doubt it.
As I said above: your friends want their free lunches, their high salary, their status-symbol job. They'll convince themselves leadership listened to them and will ignore that they didn't change anything.
And lest you think I'm being an asshole about this because I'm not in the situation: I have quit a good job over ethical concerns before. Had meetings with senior leaders that I truly respect and said "this is wrong". They wouldn't budge so I walked. Got a job paying less money. Slept a lot better at night.
Of course, we will never know the alternative outcome. And I appreciate the value of a company standing for moral principals even when it goes against practical considerations. But I think it is highly reductionist to suggest that yours is the only or "obvious" moral view on the situation.
> And so that is why Google won't stop. Because there's no reason to. They won't lose many employees. They're dominant enough that they won't lose customers. They'll be just fine.
What you're saying here is that this guy is a good employee, at minimum is above the medium in tech skills. So he is valuable.
This seems like a reason WHY Google would stop. If they keep losing valuable talent, then they can't maintain a reputation of having the best. Or if they have an extremely high turn over rate (where people get their stamp of approval and leave. Not being let go), then Google (or any company) can't maintain a high quality product. You need high quality people to develop high quality products.
This is actually why Google (and other companies) have caved to employees concerns in the past. Because in reality it is good business practice to pay attention to your employees' ethical concerns.
> you would think that there would be more than just a handful of Googlers quitting for ethical reasons over Dragonfly. But there aren't. The sad truth is, the thought of making just that little bit less money per year at another company (but still more than enough to live well), the thought of losing that status symbol of "Googler", that's enough that they're willing to accept that their work will support suppression of human rights.
My point is that people are not quitting, will not quit, and Google has no real worries about an employee uprising. Because other than this guy and a handful of others, nobody is going to quit over this. Google leadership doesn't care. There's too much money for them to worry about ethics.
Edit: to be more precise: I'm not certain they ever did, or if they simply got lucky/stumbled their way through previous incidents.
There's no way any of us would accept not being employed over principle like this when the harm is so far removed from us. This guy is an exception.
The overwhelming majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians.
I completely disagree, look at what happened to project Maven.
There is only one logical conclusion: don't have (any more) children. If you don't have children, consider not having any children. If you do, consider not having any more.
If the society as a whole doesn't want to pay for the cost of raising a child, why should you grind your bones?
Now consider the rest of the world. The large majority of people for whom quitting for moral/ethical reasons means a significant risk of your kids going hungry. They can't just quit without something else lined up ahead of time. When you're precariously employed (and a growing percentage of the world is) you can't take that kind of a risk even if you work for the devil himself.
So given this dichotomy between employees, you would think that there would be more than just a handful of Googlers quitting for ethical reasons over Dragonfly. But there aren't. The sad truth is, the thought of making just that little bit less money per year at another company (but still more than enough to live well), the thought of losing that status symbol of "Googler", that's enough that they're willing to accept that their work will support suppression of human rights.
Instead, they'll find a mental justification for why it's okay. That's far easier. Look, Sundar Pichai has done a wonderful job of it.
And so that is why Google won't stop. Because there's no reason to. They won't lose many employees. They're dominant enough that they won't lose customers. They'll be just fine.