> (you work at a company that amasses your user's data and uses it in all sorts of morally questionable ways, but where you draw the line is when your employer engages in business dealings with other morally questionable firms? Really?)

I feel like climate change and aggregating user data for ads are... not morally equivalent evils.

It's about responsibility and effectiveness: voyeur-capitalism is something for which Google and it's employees are more directly responsible for, and one which they might be in a better position to solve (though I suspect the solution may ultimately come from a competitor).

Climate change may be a bigger issue, but that doesn't mean the actions of Google's employees are going to be effective at dealing with that issue.

> uses it in all sorts of morally questionable ways

That's a subjective opinion. I happen to agree, but not everyone (even outside of Google) think their uses are morally questionable.

Fair point. I can tell you the people I know who work at Google predominantly feel very uncomfortable with the aim of total surveillance for profit. I suspect giving these same employees more of a say in the day-to-day running of the business - rather than big-ticket issues that are easy to assemble around - could lead to improved rights for users.

> hypocritical employees who pick and choose about what to be outraged about

Prioritizing issues does not make you a hypocrite. Probably the opposite is more likely.