It's trendy this week to take simplistic positions regarding law enforcement, so people jump into that train. It costs them nothing, it makes them look good, and it makes them feel good about themselves without actually changing anything.

Are we going to get angry at staples because they buy paper there too?

There are the AI principles now that are meant to prevent the ridiculous abuses of the advanced tech. The conversation has moved on to the level of "should we do any business with orgs we have moral doubts about". Anything "less moral" would raise an eyebrow.

complicit: “choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act.”

If you feel that the act is questionable, you know that you are involved, and you choose to remain involved, you are complicit.

Trying to morally distance yourself by coming up with justifications is self-hypnosis. Which is fine, but it’s deceiving yourself.

Should Google and everyone else also stop paying taxes, because they fund the police?

If you are assuming that this would be absurd, that assumption and the belief system it rests on may be preventing you from seeing and understanding what is happening.

There is a long history of people doing personally uncomfortable things after checking their internal moral compass.

> If you feel that the act is questionable

The "act" of law enforcement in general? Is anyone (a few very confused people aside) even arguing that?

yeah, they're using the wrong word as there's nothing questionable going on.

how people "feel" on the other hand...

It's about this post: https://gsuite.google.com/customers/clarkstown-police-depart...

and the fact that Google chose this PD "while facing lawsuits for illegal surveillance of Black Lives Matter activists".

It's not about G Suite itself but this PD.

Seriously man, english is not even my native language but I could understand that.