The people who are just purely about the money won't care enough to protest at all. I think the protesters' intentions are in the right place.
> I do think that this company can be a net force for good in this world (easier to believe at Google than at Facebook). But I don't want it to do bad things, and if I damage the brand publicly, the company will still survive, but will think twice about doing something like this in the future since they won't be able to just contain it internally.
That's the thing, at least for me - if you believe the company is not currently being a net force for good in the world, then I'd be contributing to something that is a net force for evil. Even if I believed that could be changed in the future, I couldn't do that. It's the difference between utilitarianism and deontology.
You're right, but I don't understand that perspective.
If my company is doing something that I think is morally wrong, I'm going to be finding employment elsewhere and telling them why. I might even speak out about it... after I leave.
If we're doing something that I think it's great but doesn't justify my quitting, then I'm going to be speaking up internally about it. Going public with a grievance against your employer just strikes me as being counter-productive - you're risking being fired, you're damaging your future prospects for advancement there, and you're potentially damaging the entity to which you've tied your financial future.
The way I see it, when I work for a company I'm part of their public face. Even though I may not (certainly don't, actually) represent the company, my actions and statements still influence people's impression of the brand. If I'm upset about something enough that I'm willing to damage the company's brand to speak out about it, then I'm upset enough that I don't want to be providing material support to them by continuing to work there.