In fact, I'd like to ask this question of you: your website is undoubtedly being used by people to build software that you disagree with, perhaps even censorship. How do you justify still hosting your site instead of shutting it down? Enough of the cognitive dissonance. Face your choices and tell me how you square yourself with them.
Is it because you need the money from your site? So do Google employees (probably).
Is it because you still enjoy the work of building your site? So do Google employees (probably)?
Is it because on the aggregate you think that your site still provides benefit to society, despite it possibly being used for things you disagree with? So do Google employees (probably).
There are plenty of reasons why people still work for Google, and you probably would relate to them too if you stopped being so combative towards anyone who works for [big corp].
Who is using SourceHut to build software I disagree with on ethical terms? I am not aware of such a project.
Your past comments and submissions to HN say otherwise. You have been very outspoken and proud about the fact that you haven't taken money from "the man" (my words, not yours), and that others should do the same [0][1]. Whether it be a VC or Google, your messaging is clear.
>Who is using SourceHut to build software I disagree with on ethical terms? I am not aware of such a project.
You're dodging the question. Have you done an audit on every single project hosted on SourceHut to see if you disagree with them? Would such an action even be something you agree with? What if someone was hosting such a repository (I'll go create one right now), would you remove it? But that is censorship, is it not? Do you even have the technical capability to do such an audit? If not, that means people could easily use your site for nefarious things, so how do you justify keeping it running?
Your link omits context. A couple of comments up is this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23080485
In the quoted link I am speaking from the perspective of a startup founder offering advice to potential startup founders. In today's discussion I am speaking from the perspective of a tech worker speaking to other tech workers. I have been in both roles, and I have different advice for different kinds of people with different kinds of goals. Do me the courtesey of not assuming that I expect every person in all circumstances to be exactly like me.
>You're dodging the question. Have you done an audit on every single project hosted on SourceHut to see if you disagree with them?
This is a disingenous line of questioning. Google employees are aware of their employer's misbehaviors. In order to even have seen my comments in the first place, they would have had to visit a discussion about those bad behaviors. Google employees cannot claim ignorance in the way you're assuming I am.
I am familiar with most public projects on sourcehut, of course. I do not conduct an audit on private projects, but if something was brought to my attention, I would conduct an investigation which may result in the termination of the account. For example, if some knucklehead on HN went to create a bunch of abusive repositories to prove their point in an internet argument, I would definitely terminate their account.
So your context arguing against my assertion that you are telling people to quit and start their own company is a link to a comment telling people they should quit and start their own company?
How about this [0] comment? I'll quote it here for you:
>But, I may suggest an additional option: do something about it. Build a business that eschews VC culture, or become a VC who doesn't fit in among their blood-sucking peers.
>This is a disingenous line of questioning. Google employees are aware of their employer's misbehaviors.
You're still dodging the question, and your reasoning is "I've stuck my head in the sand and I'm going to pretend nobody is using my site for things I disagree with"?
I'll ask it again and maybe you won't dodge it this time: You just admitted that you do not conduct audits on private projects. Without a doubt, someone is now or will be in the future using your site to build software that you disagree with. Knowing this, how do you justify still hosting your site instead of shutting it down?
You are arguing in bad faith and I have no interest in entertaining it any further.
Ironic, because this entire comment chain was started by you with a loaded question that was asked in bad faith. I guess it's fine when you do it, but not others, eh? Is this the same mentality you're holding in regards to sourcehut? "It's fine that I'm building something that may be used nefariously, but when Google employees do that, they're bootlickers"?
The fact that you still dodged the question is duly noted, btw.
I'll remind you that this "line of questioning" wasn't intended to bash SourceHut or you in any way, but rather to try to get you to empathize with the fact that "quit your job and stop working on things you enjoy just because someone on the internet disagrees with your company" is hardly a winning stance to take.
> Is this the same mentality you're holding in regards to sourcehut? "It's fine that I'm building something that may be used nefariously, but when Google employees do that, they're bootlickers"?
And yet it was previously asked:
> Who is using SourceHut to build software I disagree with on ethical terms? I am not aware of such a project.
It is clear to me that Drew has declared an absence of knowledge of such malfeasence with his products.
99% of startups fail (a turn of phrase, not a real statistic AFAIK), and that is usually said in reference to those that do take VC money. Tell me: what happens when my bootstrapped startup fails?
Rather say that he's apolitical
"Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down?"
"That's not my department!" says Werner von Braun
As the other comenter noted, Tom Lehrer is indeed a national treasure, and his satire is top shelf.
From the light-hearted "The Elements": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcS3NOQnsQM (watch for the surprise at the end)
To the gallows comedy of "We Will All Go Together When We Go": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
NB: I appreciate the irony linking to YouTube content in a 'WTF Google/YouTube' thread.
Google pay better than most, and if you’re on the right team I assume you get to work on very interesting/challenging projects. They’re just as heartless/selfish as any other bigco, but I don’t know that they’re worse.
Tech giants have picked the winners and I'm pretty convinced they've picked sides based on their personal convictions. They're removing hate speech because they think they're on the right side of history, not because they think it will make them the most money.
Assume I believe that moderation is a reasonable action. Why is this unreasonable moderation, who is harmed?
Put another way, assume that I have some line on the sand drawn on when I would leave. Assume also that I believe that what I'm doing at Google has net-positive impact. Why should I move my line in the sand back to <whatever this is>?
Not working for Google, in particular, is extremely easy. Something that roughly 99.999% of the world's population succeeds at without even trying :-) And most people who are working for Google are also likely to be able to find another job quite easily.
The two are not comparable. At all. In any way or form.
I would have a stronger civic spirit if I were a willing member of my country rather than a prisoner.
It's not as easy as you might expect, through normal channels. There's a points system to gain access and a whole lot of hoops to jump through if you aren't able to pay for the economic class.
Now, if you were to walk across the border at certain locations and claim refugee status you could probably remain so long as your application is being processed; regardless of the merits of your claim, that process time has become _rather long_.
However, even with that in mind, it is still a very difficult and complicated process, with tons of hard limitations that can put a complete stop to the whole thing due to something trivial, like not having a degree. And even with that barrier of hard requirements cleared, it is still a pretty draconian experience.
Having gone through a similar thing myself (not with Canada, but I ended up coincidentally reading a lot about Canadian immigration laws), I can assure you, it is way more difficult than getting any job, even if you are a successful Google engineer, and by a far margin.
I am pretty sure that any person who went through an immigration process to another country can attest to that. And I am talking purely about the legal-paper-stuff aspect of immigration to another country, not things like getting adapted to your new country or anything like that.
Our process isn't that easy; we have an immigration system that the GOP would _like to have_.
There are points awarded based on your education and training, variated against the demand for those skills in Canada. If you are being imported by an employer they must go to considerable lengths to prove that they attempted to find an existing Canadian to fill that role. And so on.
And it can be all avoided by paying approximately $800,000 to what is effectively an escrow: you get it back after a few years, less inflation.
That was the whole point of my comment. Out of all western countries, Canada is definitely one of the easiest. But even with that in mind, it is still extremely difficult.
That's not the point though. Google is so large that it's just weird to talk about the morality of its employees in the context of the company's decisions.
"Not my department / group / office"
"Just a few bad apples"
I mean yes, those are valid points - and I'd imagine most junior workers being there just for the future (career) opportunities.
No junior engineer at google is going to have any say in strategic and political decisions like censorship.
For example, nothing good would come from the Go team quitting over unrelated political stuff.
Are you sure about that? It might actually harm google enough that they respond by giving into some demands.
Go in particular is known for stability. In the short term, descoping or delaying Go releases is unlikely to matter to any business goal. Language and SDK improvements are for improving the ecosystem in the long term.
Commoditize your complement. https://www.gwern.net/Complement
If software can be profitable whether it's open or closed-source, then isn't open-source inherently better?
Not a Google Employee , but in 99% of the case it's money + experience/situation.
This is similar to what others tech company are doing ( Reddit , Adobe etc.. ) in terms of arbitrage when they decide to enter Chinese Market , Partner with Chinese VC or with ideas that challenge their values.
Regardless of where you'll go in tech you'll end up in Amoral corporations like Google/Amazon/Microsoft which are driven solely by Money and Growth , regardless of the consequences. ( Remember Gillette and Child Labour ? Nestlé ? )
Also , the last people who tried to Unionize at Google , which could have enable them to do something about it , got laid off instantly[0] , same pattern happened in all others tech companies...
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/25/20983053/google-fires-fo...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/technology/google-walkout...
Do it again.
(And you still haven't addressed my point about, suppose they strike successfully and Google decides it won't help the CCP at all and the CCP bans Google and has Tencent step in - what then? Did you save the world?)
[citation needed]
I don't believe that if a majority of Google's software engineers went on strike that Google would be able to hire and train new employees without any of the striker's domain-specific or institutional knowledge without enormous expense.
"The world's" doesn't mean "The part of the world we like most." "Universally" doesn't mean "Nobody in China gets to use our system until the Chinese government adopts Western notions of information control."
Google would operate in North Korea if it could, because as a point of philosophy, it's believed that access to more informtion, even curtailed by the government, is better than access to only information controlled by the government.
Also, this viewpoint is naive. Simply more information isn't better. What if all that information was about the flat earth theory and nothing else? Wouldn't more "mutually consistent" information be a better goal? Flat earth stuff is fun but you must limit yourself to a very small plausible universe in order to really buy into it.
The distinction is irrelevant; were I speaking as a Google employee I would still be speaking from personal opinion, not on behalf of my employer.
> Also, this viewpoint is naive. Simply more information isn't better. What if all that information was about the flat earth theory and nothing else?
It's not though; it's "all" the world's information (within constraints; Google also isn't vending a search index to make pedophilic imagery easy to find). But the flat-Earth hypothetical doesn't apply because that's only a subset.
In fact, it doesn't apply in a way that's demonstrative, I think, of the game Google plays with authoritarian states. Google banks on the notion nature cannot be fooled. Sure, individual phrases or sets of facts (like Tienman Square history) can be knocked out of returned datasets. But the missing data leaves holes; it becomes apparent where the cuts are in the data.
This is why North Korea cuts the whole internet; they know it can't be contained. China's ruling party is more subtle; they'll block unpopular signal it if a sense of "decency," as it were, but they know their people aren't stupid. In any sense of "stupid."
Seems like word splitting and I disagree. If you're working at Google, then your opinion is an answer to OP's question. If you're not, then your opinion doesn't count as a Google employee's justification for continuing to work at Google.
It’s almost impossible to lead en ethical life in this day and age if you do anything related to tech.
That doesn't change that an engineer in the bay area can choose to work for Google or choose to find an alternative place of employment. People can choose more ethical choices without living in a pure ethical panacea.
Take that template and apply it to Googlers. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism; everyone has compromised a rigid belief structure somewhere.
I think people (especially those in privileged positions like engs in the bay area) should feel empowered to think and decide their line as to what they want to support and contribute to the world.
A lot of engineers are wage slaves as much as anyone else. It's not like everyone wants to do this stuff.
EDIT: On a more personal note - I hope your name is actually "Bradly" and you're not "Bradley". And that you actually go by that in real life instead of "Brad". As I know there's some "Brad"s out there that like to buy up Bradly variations without actually going by it. It's killing me.
--
Yes, I am a Bradly. About half my coworkers/friends/family call me Bradly and about half call me Brad. I introduce my self as both interchangeably depending on the situation.
My point is - not everyone has a choice. You might get the pick of the litter but there are many people who are lucky if they even get one offer from a company paying $400k+/yr. And - for reference - I am one of the people who has never received an offer from one. All my offers have been under $200k/yr (that doesn't include that I have to pay over $2,000/month to buy options that will "maybe one day if we're all lucky" pan out for something).
The world of living in silicon valley under $200k/yr vs $400k+/yr is wildly different. One feels like you're no better off than a retail worker and the other feels like you're a working class professional.
So the lesson is: Being ethical in one way is hard, so don't bother being ethical in any aspect of your life?
The truth is most for-profit organization will not have a flawless ethical image that satisfied everyone, and that probably includes your employer. I'm not saying we should all look the other way, but let's keep things grounded in reality. Censorship is a delicate subject, especially as it concerns expressions involvong multiple cultures. This doesn't make Google immediately evil for electing to / not electing to act one way or another.
Maybe your accusation is that Google is choosing profit over ethics in this case? Then the "Chinese hardware" argument has to come into play. Are you, yourself choosing price and convenience when you know it means your dollars are ending up in those poorly run Chinese factories? What are you going to do about it? Should Googlers quit their jobs before or after you source all your hardware from ethically run, blame-free factories?
Whether buying hardware or working for google is worse is another debate, but you should be able to see why people can work at google and not necessarily feel guilty about it.
So wait, now buying something that was made in China means condoning the CCP? That's a pretty big jump in logic.
Hopefully, however, you have a voice (vote) in that government. The same obviously does not apply to you with China, nor generally does it apply to Chinese people within China.
You also generally have less choice when it comes to paying taxes, and significantly more choice when it comes to not buying things from China. If there are no non-Chinese alternative for X item, you can always choose to not buy X. However, that probably means not buying quite a few things, as you point out. But that was GC's point – it is fairly hard as a techie to not support the CCP. But just because something is hard to avoid does not mean you aren't doing it or aren't responsible for doing it.
Buying made in China products supports this economic growth, and also the cheap, often exploitative, labor that went into producing them.
Besides, you should probably support the local manufacturing industry wherever you’re living.
I mean, from your description, I'd rather want a system that actually shows continued growth, rather than hollowed promises of growth.
Let's be honest here, democracy's real growth had been going to war with nations and extracting/exploiting resources from them. Hence why the past 50 years, there has been no real growth in democratic countries because they are not able to as easily extract from the rest of the world.
I'm also fairly certain that the US (and other countries) have been warring a lot in the Middle East in the past 50 years, and many people claim that this is directly related to oil, an "exploited resource".
Has that not been happening either?
If there were no other thermostat companies, you might have an argument. But there are plenty of other thermostat companies, and plenty of other tech companies than Google.
I'm not saying I agree with the incentive structure but money is one of the core incentives in the US since it translates to other necessities and wants in life. Those working at dubious businesses are being highly incentivized to do so and at the same time, normalizing said behaviors.
Here's the kicker as well, as the clench on labor grows tighter with the middle class being squeezed more and more, people seem oblivious that even if you're getting paid relatively well (6 figures) and have options to jump ship, that may not always be the case when labor keeps caving (sometimes without option) into business incentive structures for compensation.
If there are plenty of people on the labor market capable of competing with you yet willing to do work you won't for money, you too will be displaced. Ultimately, the people dangling carrots in front of us win and we (those who rely on labor for income) lose.
It's a reason. It's not a good reason.
- Am an employee of a large company whose practices would probably also not stand up to public scrutiny
First question is has this been verified beyond "someone said so"? Perhaps it has - but any search I do ultimately leads back to the same comment.
Second, google is hardly the only company to occasionally kowtow the the PRC. I don't think any large company wants to a face-off with them. Are there more ethical employers? Probably, but they're probably small and not everyone wants to work at a small company pace. Also, if the company got larger and push came to shove, I suspect they'd do what they needed to do to stay on China's good side. It's a better option than going under.
Really a lot of employers are ethically shaky.
- Is it better to work for the DoD? Some people say no.
- Is it better to work for a Big Bank? Some people say no.
- Is it better to work for Big Pharm? Some people say no.
- Is it better to work for a place that frankly abuses their warehouse workers? I think we've had that discussion.
I'm not sure where that leaves anyone who likes gainful employment, particularly outside the Silicon Valley startup culture.
That doesn't necessarily translate to 'throw up our hands' but it does meant a more nuanced approach to where we work, how we feel about our employer, and how we measure that against all the other places we do business with that also have their dark sides.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23042618
Of the first 12 posts, one is the FBI, one is questionable (using proxies to circumvent rate limits, anti-scraping tech, etc), and the other 10 seem anywhere from boring to laudable.
Most tech jobs do not require you to make broad ethical compromises to work there.
But when I look out at the tech industry landscape, it is clear that I can do more good from within, because I have more freedom and influence on the work, and I believe that the work is net positive for the technology ecosystem.
Businesses large and small seem to have their heads on backwards here in Silicon Valley. Their founders are all highly profit-motivated, and don't truly seek to make the world a better place. Those that wear a facade of idealism give me no reason to believe they are any better than Google. If I left Google, where would I go where I can work without shame? I even have a hard time imagining starting my own business without falling prey to the same broken mechanics that brought us to where we are today.
At least at Google, I can say with confidence that there is ongoing work by people I trust - who in turn are given a lot of autonomy by the company - to make the world a better place with technology.
They just need you to not be elsewhere making that money for someone else, or disrupting a market that they are entrenched in. IMHO much of the FAANG hiring / head count / acquisition process could be analyzed in this light.
Based on what we're seeing right now, this is likely caused not by the latter, but by the former. Consider: the ML-assisted thread moderation logic can be vulnerable to brigading. If several tens of thousands of Chinese people decided to start flagging comments with that phrase, YT would also start killing the phrase (because its sample is biased towards seeing "That phrase usually results in a flag, so the community clearly doesn't want it").
It ranks up there with the problem of dealing with seductive disinformation.
For everyone pointing out that nothing happened in Moab there’s someone else with a Remember Moab bumpersticker[1].
[1] Neal Stephenson reference.
The best answer to your question I received from a Google employee, is that the pay is good and the work is interesting.
I work for Google. It does some things I don't like but this does not prima facie appear to be one of them.