The post makes sensible but generic statements based on the view of an IC. It tries to work back from the conclusion (Google struggles to move academic research into product) and produces plausible but hardly definitive explanations, with no ranking, primarily because there's no discussion of the thinking, actions and promises made at the executive level that kept the lab funded for all these years.

I'm curious about your perspective as a research manager in tech - would you be willing to chat privately?

Even if you were one of said executives, who was moving to a higher-level job at another company, and the company was interviewing you as to the reasoning behind decisions made in your previous job?

You have to be careful thinking you owe your employer everything they would wish to have. Disclosing the inner workings is extremely helpful to people trying to figure out where to work, and how their current employer compares to others. I got a job at Google X Robotics in 2017 in large part because the place was so secret and I always wanted to know what happened there. It was quite an interesting experience, but I do wonder how I would have felt if someone like me working there had written something like this before I made the decision.

All he says is his concern about "optics", which has nothing to do with contract.

If Google has a problem with his post, they can go after him, but that's an issue between Google and him, not with you or me or the rest of the internet.

I'm definitely struggling to see what any of this has to do with personal integrity, betrayal, or squeezing personal benefit. To the contrary, it simply seems informative and he's sharing knowledge just to be helpful. Unless I've missed something, I don't see anything revealed that would harm Google or his former teammates here. No leaks of what's coming down the pipeline, no scandals, nothing of the sort.

People are allowed to share opinions of their previous employment and generally describe the broad outlines of their work and where they worked. This isn't a situation of working for the CIA with top-secret clearance.

I actually could dig up my own contract from years ago (ugh, the effort though) but Confidentiality clause is in there, and it was made clear during on-boarding what is expected from employees: don't share any internal info unless you're an authorized company representative.

Here's a list of recent state laws in Washington, Oregon, and Maine, which prohibition certain kinds of NDAs (oriented toward unlawful activity, not general speech rights): https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2022/07/sever...

Contracts are required to be 'reasonable' for both parties. This puts limits on the ability to constrain in a contract. I don't know how much this reasonableness standard is statutory or judicial.

For public-sector employees there's some protection under the first amendment. https://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-public-employe...

And in Connecticut this free speech protection transfers to private-sector employees too: https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2005/title31/sec31-...

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/free-speech-and-express...

https://www.pullcom.com/working-together/there-are-limits-to... > there is no statutory protection if the employee was only complaining about personal matters, such as the terms or conditions of employment. The employee has to show that he was commenting on a matter of public concern, rather than attempting to resolve a private dispute with the employer.

"Workplace conditions" is protected similarly to wages.

I'm not personally aware of signing something that says "I'll keep all internal details private" though I agree I'd be highly unlikely to refer to anyone below the SVP level by name -- but I think that's exactly what OP did?

As others have said, I really don't see anything that's especially private in the article. The author wrote in pretty general terms.

While I agree the OP is "going for internet brownie points" (or probably a bit butthurt from being laid off from a certifiably top-5 cushiest job in the United States) the article doesn't include anything even remotely trade secret and is predominantly opinion. It's really totally fine to blog about how you feel about your employer. There are certainly risks, but a company has to pay extra if they actually don't want you to blog at all (or they have to be extremely litigious).

There's a strong precedent of employer-employee loyalty that has substantially been set due to pre-internet information disparities between the two. In the past year or so, there have been some pretty unprecedented layoffs (e.g. Google lays off thousands and then does billions of stock buybacks ...)... The employer-employee relationship needs to evolve.

Part of my problem is that Google (and similar companies) are already paying insane (in the best way possible) amounts of money, and when you sign the agreement to take said money, you explicitly promise you won't talk about company internals.

To me this is quite simple: if you accept what winds up being millions of dollars in cash+equity, and you give your word that you'll keep your mouth shut as one of the conditions for that pile of money... then you shut keep your mouth shut.

As far as one's opinions go, and in particular how the company made you feel, that's not paid for. A severance agreement might outline some things, but again that's legal hazard and not moral hazard. There are certainly some execs and managers who will only want to work with really, really loyal people, who throw in a lot more for the money. And some execs will pay a lot more for that... e.g. look at how much Tesla spends on employee litigation.

So how do you ever get a better job than entry level, if you aren't willing to use the knowledge you gained at prior jobs in new jobs?

I'm not saying you are wrong per se. But if you don't see why employees are willing to act in this way, you don't see how employees feel about being trapped in a system where no matter how much you are paid - you are ultimately making someone else more.

But there is no inequity or conflict of interest here. None of that about being trapped in a capitalist economy is to the point here. He has probably a couple million dollars in his bank account that wasn't there before, and the deal was to not talk publicly about internals (which includes promotions process, internal motivations and decision-making, etc).

"Yes, I agree to not share internal info, in exchange for this money. And by the way, I will still share internal info, because inequity."

In other words, consider someone's perspective who has society split into two camps: the people who do all the work, and the corrupt elite that make their living through theft and oppression. In such a world, signing a contract with an employer (i.e. capitalist i.e. elite) is more of a practical step than a sacrosanct bond. There's a level of "what's reasonable" and "what legally enforceable" beyond the basic "never break a promise" level you're working at, IMO.

No ones endorsing publishing trade secrets randomly, but you're treating all disclosures like they're equivalent.

So, many researcher types (and not only them, but also including many of us) are motivated by — find it personally rewarding at a psychological level — to share their thoughts in a dialog with a community. They just find this to be an enjoyable thing to do that makes them feel like they are a valuable member of society contributing to a general collaborative practice of knowledge-creation.

I hope it doesn't feel like I'm explaining the obvious; but it occurs to me that to ask the question the way you did, this is probably _not_ a motivation you have, not something you find personally rewarding. Which is fine, we all are driven by different things.

But I don't think it's quite the same thing as "internet brownie points" -- while if you are especially good at it, you will gain respect and admiration, which you will probably appreciate it -- you aren't thinking "if I share my insight gained working at Google, then maybe more people will think I'm cool," you're just thinking that it's a natural urge to share your insight and get feedback on it, because that itself is something enjoyable and gives you a sense of purpose.

Which is to say, i don't think it's exactly a motivation for "personal benefit" either, except in the sense that doing things you enjoy and find rewarding are a "personal benefit", that having a sense of purpose is a "personal benefit", sure.

I'm aware that not everyone works this way. I'm aware that some people on HN seem to be motivated primarily by maximizing income, for instance. That, or some other orientation, may lead to thinking that one should never share anything at all publicly about one's job, because it can only hurt and never help whatever one's goals are (maximizing income or what have you).

(Although... here you are commenting on HN; why? For internet brownie points?)

But that is not generally how academic/researcher types are oriented.

I think it's a sad thing if it becomes commonplace to think that there's something _wrong_ with people who find purpose and meaning in sharing their insights in dialog with a community.

While he technically may have violated the NDA, it's really hard for me to see any damage or fallout from this post. It's gentle, disparages only at the highest levels of abstraction, doesn't name names, etc. I don't think it makes sense to view it in a moralistic or personal integrity light. Breach-of-contract is not a moral wrong, merely a civil one that allows the counterparty (Google) to get damages if they want.

If I'm wrong and nothing in your contract or on-boarding said you shouldn't talk about internals, then my bad. But I suspect they were as clear with you as they were with me, that it's not ok to post anything based on inside info. And in your opening paragraph you say:

> As somebody with a unique perspective

Your unique perspective was your access as an employee.

> and the unique freedom to share it

Your unique freedom is that you're done receiving money from them. But contractually, this doesn't matter.

I've worked in extremely secretive companies, and very open ones. I prefer the open ones. But I still don't say anything about internals at the secretive ones -- because that was part of the commitment I made in exchange for employment.

> and I believe that if someone doesn't like them, they should not sign them to begin with, rather than breaking them.

Do you, at least, believe that confidentiality agreements should be broken if it is to make the police or public aware of a crime? How about a civil infraction, such as a hostile working environment?

Absolutely. I referenced whistleblowing in my original post above. This isn't a such a case.

Does this apply to moral wrongs, which are technically legal (e.g. cruel conditions at animal farms)?

Ignore this person.

We're all thinkers who are asked to apply our minds in exchange for money, not slaves whose brain is leased to or owned by our employers for the duration of our tenure.

Even when asked to keep things secret, there's still no way for a company to own every last vestige of knowledge or understanding retained in our minds, and there's still an overwhelming public interest in building on and preserving knowledge, to the point that, in my opinion, nearly any piece of human knowledge short of trade secrets should eventually be owned by humanity as a whole. (and there's even some moral arguments to be made about some trade secrets, but that's a much deeper discussion)

I personally find that people who are overly concerned with secrecy view their integrity from the lens of their employer, but not at a human interest level. To be clear, there are still times for secrecy or the security or integrity of information to be respected, but it's nuanced and generally narrower than people expect.

I think he's just not sure what's ok or not ok to write about. Nothing he wrote here was problematic. No secrets and just sort of mild criticism.

One side is what's in the papers you signed and the other side is to what extent the terms can be enforced. But you have a point in that it would be good professional practice to wait for a decade before disclosing internals especially when names of people are dropped...

Which country are they in? Is their employment contract directly with Google, or with some other, independent company that provides services to Google?

(I've been employed by G in multiple jurisdictions and have never seen or heard of such a clause.)

What fallout is this ? Did you sign a contract with him ? If you are harmed by it, why don't you seek legal recourse ? Your entire rant started with some NDA stuff, and in the end you say, "legal issues aside". This is like the "Having said that" move from Curb. You start with something, then contradict yourself completely with "Having said that". If you have a contractual grievance, seek it. If not, you are grieving on the internet, just like he is.