Why I'm Forced to Say Farewell: Google Management Has Lost Its Moral Compass(docs.google.com)
docs.google.com
Why I'm Forced to Say Farewell: Google Management Has Lost Its Moral Compass
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SH9QRTAlL02THgAN2AGmWe9El0_2ZJF6hhgDBx8k97c/edit?tab=t.0
287 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48496396
Why post a Google docs copy of the original article?
https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/post/leaving-google/
https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/post/leaving-google/
The blog post is from June 19th. Google Doc from June 17th.
My guess? He shared the Google Doc link with his peers, but forgot that Google Docs links are public for anyone who knows the link, so someone just forwarded it to oblivion, and he was forced to publish that as blog post. The addendums kind of reflect that.
That's a great reminded that any Google Doc with a shareable link is basically a public document for all intents and purposes.
My guess? He shared the Google Doc link with his peers, but forgot that Google Docs links are public for anyone who knows the link, so someone just forwarded it to oblivion, and he was forced to publish that as blog post. The addendums kind of reflect that.
That's a great reminded that any Google Doc with a shareable link is basically a public document for all intents and purposes.
This has little to do with shareable links and everything to do with the trust you put in whoever you share it with.
There's not much difference between them ctrl+v-ing the link to a third party, vs them ctrl+a, ctrl+c, ctrl+v-ing the contents to another party. If anything, by just sharing a link, you have a chance to disable the sharing and hope the content hasn't yet been copied.
There's not much difference between them ctrl+v-ing the link to a third party, vs them ctrl+a, ctrl+c, ctrl+v-ing the contents to another party. If anything, by just sharing a link, you have a chance to disable the sharing and hope the content hasn't yet been copied.
>That's a great reminded that any Google Doc with a shareable link is basically a public document for all intents and purposes.
There is also a great reminder next to the button you click to get a shareable link in Google Docs.
There is also a great reminder next to the button you click to get a shareable link in Google Docs.
> That's a great reminded that any Google Doc with a shareable link is basically a public document for all intents and purposes.
As per design.
Google gives you sufficient control over access permissions. If you make it public, you have to know anyone anywhere can see it once they get the URL.
I frequently share Google docs and sheets links widely and to entirely unknown readers. That is part of the utility of the tool.
As per design.
Google gives you sufficient control over access permissions. If you make it public, you have to know anyone anywhere can see it once they get the URL.
I frequently share Google docs and sheets links widely and to entirely unknown readers. That is part of the utility of the tool.
Google Docs had the best authz system when it came out and it's still an exemplar.
> That's a great reminded that any Google Doc with a shareable link is basically a public document for all intents and purposes.
I read that as "for all indents and purposes"
I read that as "for all indents and purposes"
Discussion of the blog post (284 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48496396
The blog post now also contains a second addendum that the Google doc doesn't have.
The blog post now also contains a second addendum that the Google doc doesn't have.
I think that article is rather a copy of the original Google Doc, judging by the included go link.
[deleted]
it's typical for googlers to leave a note like this in gdocs when they leave As thats the standard at google. i imagine its the original and google hasnt decided to turn off public sharing on it
moral clarity usually sharpens the moment the last RSU hits the brokerage account
Sometimes.
Sometimes not.
I left with more than 4 million in RSU's left.
Pretty much any Googler who leaves will be leaving lots of money on the table.
This is because they are usually 3/4 year grants, so it's pretty much impossible to leave without lots of unvested RSU.
There are some 1 year grants, but those are much more uncommon (~1%)
Sometimes not.
I left with more than 4 million in RSU's left.
Pretty much any Googler who leaves will be leaving lots of money on the table.
This is because they are usually 3/4 year grants, so it's pretty much impossible to leave without lots of unvested RSU.
There are some 1 year grants, but those are much more uncommon (~1%)
ejoso(3)
Your total comp was ~1.2 mil/year?
About 3x that, actually.
Timing wise, I happened to leave after my old grants expired and before my new grants would be in my account. I was a VP of engineering when i left. Google pays VP's quite well.
If there's a reason you want more exact numbers, poke me over email.
Timing wise, I happened to leave after my old grants expired and before my new grants would be in my account. I was a VP of engineering when i left. Google pays VP's quite well.
If there's a reason you want more exact numbers, poke me over email.
Makes sense. Thanks!
You should probably have email in your bio if you share CTAs based on it
same I left with approx that amount and when stock was still fairly low compared to today, so left life changing money.
no ragrets lol.
This must have been a long time ago? Because that's leaving over a billion dollars "on the table" at the current price.
"in RSUs", I think that meant $4M, not 4M shares.
Alphabet dropped “don’t be evil” from its moto in 2015. This guy went in knowing how the sausage was being made.
they did not. it’s still right there in the code of conduct
https://abc.xyz/investor/board-and-governance/google-code-of...
scroll to the bottom
https://abc.xyz/investor/board-and-governance/google-code-of...
scroll to the bottom
> scroll to the bottom
that illustrates the point nicely...
that illustrates the point nicely...
"But the motto was on display..."
"Yes, it was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
"Yes, it was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
That is not corporate motto.
the motto was always a part of the code of conduct (it was the preface), it just moved from google's to alphabet's when it became a subsidiary.
Motto's, slogans, mission statements...
All of these things are 100% bullshit and always have been. It's tragic that Google actually had people believing them when they championed "don't be evil".
All of these things are 100% bullshit and always have been. It's tragic that Google actually had people believing them when they championed "don't be evil".
The slogan originated in Eng, and was honest at the time, and for many years after.
It obviously got promoted by marketing for external consumption as well.
It obviously got promoted by marketing for external consumption as well.
Maybe they should not have joined the company in the first place if they had "morals" or "principles". Yet they still joined in 2017 even after knowing that slogan was removed anyway.
Company mottos, principles, slogans and values are all fake fronts to lure in these sort of people alongside the free food with the carrots on those sticks.
Once that all runs out or the company goes south and stops being a daycare, then they start doing silly virtue signalling posts like this.
Now you are seeing who was there for the 'good vibes', free food, rest n' vest and who was there to keep the company alive.
...And finally we know that this is a love letter to get themselves hired at Anthropic. I think you might need more than that honestly.
Company mottos, principles, slogans and values are all fake fronts to lure in these sort of people alongside the free food with the carrots on those sticks.
Once that all runs out or the company goes south and stops being a daycare, then they start doing silly virtue signalling posts like this.
Now you are seeing who was there for the 'good vibes', free food, rest n' vest and who was there to keep the company alive.
...And finally we know that this is a love letter to get themselves hired at Anthropic. I think you might need more than that honestly.
Google provides annual RSU refreshes. There is no "last RSU".
This announcement is also 9 years after they started, and Google has a 4 year vesting schedule, so it's not even possible that this coming after the initial grant vests.
This is a completely unfair and unsubstantiated dismissal of the article.
This announcement is also 9 years after they started, and Google has a 4 year vesting schedule, so it's not even possible that this coming after the initial grant vests.
This is a completely unfair and unsubstantiated dismissal of the article.
This is incredibly annoying to see in the real world. People who pontificate values on LinkedIn but work for a company they disagree with, only to see them stay until they hit 4 years and leave. No idea how they think they have any moral high ground.
“Severance”, On Apple TV+ provides one answer
Exactly.
<rant> I am so tired of reading these stupid "why I am leaving my job after making millions". One thing I can say about myself: I work for money. That's it. Lots of things the companies that I work for (normally 25,000+ employees) do immoral and unethical things. Still, I stay, earn money, and I don't write stupid fucking self-righteous blog posts after I leave. At this point, blog posts like this look like an "own goal". </rant>
<rant> I am so tired of reading these stupid "why I am leaving my job after making millions". One thing I can say about myself: I work for money. That's it. Lots of things the companies that I work for (normally 25,000+ employees) do immoral and unethical things. Still, I stay, earn money, and I don't write stupid fucking self-righteous blog posts after I leave. At this point, blog posts like this look like an "own goal". </rant>
Also his complaints about morale compass failure are largely activism goals. Hard to make money when you waste it.
I tell employers I’m clearly a mercenary and I am only here for the money. I do great work, but I’ve been compensated well.
I tell employers I’m clearly a mercenary and I am only here for the money. I do great work, but I’ve been compensated well.
> I am so tired of reading these stupid "why I am"
Don't read them. The rest of us may actually gain from another perspective, different from corporate marketing.
Don't read them. The rest of us may actually gain from another perspective, different from corporate marketing.
[deleted]
yep, and happy to make everyone around them feel guilty when they got theirs. i strongly dislike people who do this performative crap while unfortunately believing in their right to say it.
Post-deposit clarity
>*"You cannot explain something to somebody whose livelihood depends upon [others] not understanding..."
Something. $omething. something. $teinbeck?
Something. $omething. something. $teinbeck?
Upton Sinclair
Yes, that is correct:
>>"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." –Upton Sinclair
>>"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." –Upton Sinclair
Isn't his just weird repost of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48496396 ?
Whilst I appreciate the commitment to their values, I wonder where they stand on the 'safety' of their users as it relates to the Android Developer Verification update (currently top of HN, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48755965).
"Security" vs Openness
> “make things so secure that we ourselves can’t break them, whether the device costs $1000 or $100, or the user is a celebrity or a refugee“
That can mean different things to different people in different contexts. Could easily mean building a software platform with security features that banks will build their apps to require.
"Security" vs Openness
> “make things so secure that we ourselves can’t break them, whether the device costs $1000 or $100, or the user is a celebrity or a refugee“
That can mean different things to different people in different contexts. Could easily mean building a software platform with security features that banks will build their apps to require.
> I wonder where they stand on the 'safety' of their users as it relates to the Android Developer Verification update
He discussed this briefly in a talk he gave at the Grazer Linuxtage 2026 in April https://media.ccc.de/v/glt26-615-what-can-we-learn-from-andr... at around minute 46
He discussed this briefly in a talk he gave at the Grazer Linuxtage 2026 in April https://media.ccc.de/v/glt26-615-what-can-we-learn-from-andr... at around minute 46
That is wasn't even covered says enough for me.
> Google Management Has Lost Its Moral Compass
This needs a "2004" date.
This needs a "2004" date.
This mirrors my own experience as a European that worked at FAANG in the Bay Area.
It used to be a dream job. Now I've relocated back to Europe and want nothing to do with American Big Tech. It's become toxic and completely counter to my values.
America has become a much darker place that has a very different place in the world. American tech companies have not just accepted, but actively embraced this transition. I am not interested in joining them and being complicit.
It used to be a dream job. Now I've relocated back to Europe and want nothing to do with American Big Tech. It's become toxic and completely counter to my values.
America has become a much darker place that has a very different place in the world. American tech companies have not just accepted, but actively embraced this transition. I am not interested in joining them and being complicit.
Darker than what other point in America’s history?
Perhaps darker than the initial mild optimism of the early internet.
It is easy to forget US history as the vast majority of us have only been exposed to the 1960s to 2000s era which in retrospect seem like an anomaly.
It's an interesting time window you chose. Why would there be an anomaly during that window (if there is one)?
Perhaps it is due to the outward-facing, civic-oriented values coming out of WW2?
There was a lot of reflection in America on what went wrong in German pre-war thinking and culture coming out of that period.
The WW2 men in their 20s in 1940 were in their 40s in 1960s and their political power would have kept growing through peer older politicians into the 90s.
Perhaps it is due to the outward-facing, civic-oriented values coming out of WW2?
There was a lot of reflection in America on what went wrong in German pre-war thinking and culture coming out of that period.
The WW2 men in their 20s in 1940 were in their 40s in 1960s and their political power would have kept growing through peer older politicians into the 90s.
Time window is roughly to a non US citizen from when civil rights and women’s rights were ascending there. The last 20 odd years show a marked decline in both. I often wonder when segregation in the US will be introduced.
You're not gonna like it when you find out where, exactly, America learned those values from.
Luckily, we've gone through that phase around ninety years ago in Europe. We've been trying to avoid it happening again ever since, though right now is a dangerous time here as well. But hey, at least Europe hasn't fallen yet.
If you think you've "gone through that phase", you're not paying much attention.
European companies exist to extract profit without regard to decency, same as American companies. BP filling up the Gulf of Mexico with oil? European. Wirecard's fraud? European. HSBC money laundering? European. Dieselgate? European.
I'm sure I could find more.
Hell, Sergey Brin was born in Moscow and raised by Soviet parents.
The US was founded mainly as an experiment in European mercantile colonialism. This is just a continuation of that.
The downside of there not being any American exceptionalism is that everything you see in America is not an exception.
European companies exist to extract profit without regard to decency, same as American companies. BP filling up the Gulf of Mexico with oil? European. Wirecard's fraud? European. HSBC money laundering? European. Dieselgate? European.
I'm sure I could find more.
Hell, Sergey Brin was born in Moscow and raised by Soviet parents.
The US was founded mainly as an experiment in European mercantile colonialism. This is just a continuation of that.
The downside of there not being any American exceptionalism is that everything you see in America is not an exception.
Morally fallen? Sure, Europe hasn't fallen yet.
Systemically and structurally? Already on its way there.
Excessive moral policing results in strangling regulations, which is exactly what Europe is facing right now. The opposite of innovation.
Good luck in your endeavors.
Systemically and structurally? Already on its way there.
Excessive moral policing results in strangling regulations, which is exactly what Europe is facing right now. The opposite of innovation.
Good luck in your endeavors.
European companies aren’t much different so just be sure to check where you stand first before you’re SURE you’ve actually escaped.
Laurel1234(1)
Google never had a moral compass. They went in, got their money, and left when it was easy and barely affected them. They still profited.
I left Google four years ago after being there for a decade. It was really obvious at the time of my leaving that the moral compass was _long_ gone and that no one internally could even define what "evil" was anymore (I'm sure the prevailing post-modernist view that seem to come from the top didn't help). But it was when I started spending time in mandatory compliance meetings where moral preaching was becoming the norm that I really lost all love for the company. My mental health has jumped leaps and bounds since leaving that place.
Why is this a Google doc and not just an HTML page? I was super-confused when the links didn't behave like normal links. This is like when people post a screenshot of an Apple note.
Because it was intended for colleagues and not the wider public.
https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/post/leaving-google/
https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/post/leaving-google/
[deleted]
google used to be cool
25 years ago
Not as cool as Yahoo! used to be.
They should have stuck with the charging money model instead of giving away services for the cost of attention.
There is a deep irony in Google becoming one of the greatest corporations ever on the back of an ostensibly socialist utopia business model. Everyone on earth with an internet connection can use the full suite of google products (which pretty much every person reading this chooses to use daily) without having social class be a limiting factor like it is with paid services. Litterally anyone with internet can access and use the same youtube and office suite that a billionaire on his yacht is using (perhaps the billionaire has yt premium though).
And here we are, 25 years later, and google is considered one of the most evil and malicious corporations, despite most people never paying them anything (and a large subset of those never loading one of their ads either).
From a high level POV, its an incredibly perplexing outcome. Compared to someone like Apple, who charges money, has zero openness, and prices to align with first world upper class, still being largely beloved.
There is a deep irony in Google becoming one of the greatest corporations ever on the back of an ostensibly socialist utopia business model. Everyone on earth with an internet connection can use the full suite of google products (which pretty much every person reading this chooses to use daily) without having social class be a limiting factor like it is with paid services. Litterally anyone with internet can access and use the same youtube and office suite that a billionaire on his yacht is using (perhaps the billionaire has yt premium though).
And here we are, 25 years later, and google is considered one of the most evil and malicious corporations, despite most people never paying them anything (and a large subset of those never loading one of their ads either).
From a high level POV, its an incredibly perplexing outcome. Compared to someone like Apple, who charges money, has zero openness, and prices to align with first world upper class, still being largely beloved.
You know, Google hinders competition. They are so powerful, they dictate the rules. If you do not play by Google's rules and align to their algorithms, you are allowed to consume, but not to provide. You have to pay them and others to even gain a small amount of visibility in their search results. The Google and YouTube algos are unfair as f*ck and promote the already successful.
Your comment in itself is deeply ironic.
Your comment in itself is deeply ironic.
Regular end-consumers didn't pay them anything. The people paying were corporations that advertised online. Through Google's publisher network (Adsense), their Doubleclick acquisition and the DART For Publishers middleware, and the ad buying tool (Google Ads), they completely price-fixed the market. Add to that "Jedi Blue", their non-compete cartel with Meta, and you can see Google is built on crime.
he resigned because of... "politics"? and not because of the path Google has chosen for Android security?
The actual reason is right at the top: he's a director who was "promoted" to IC.
The only stated reason for his resignation is that Google is no longer adhering to their promise to not use AI for weapons. I was surprised that the reasoning was so one-dimensional.
While I don't agree with the author exactly, I do admire someone sticking to their guns (no pun intended). Like Oscar Wild said, "Morality, like art requires drawing a line somewhere".
One of my favorite 80's movies was Real Genius with Val Kilmer. He accidentally helps develop a weapon and then goes to extreme measures to prevent its use. For some people creating weapons is a line they wont cross and that's not a bad thing.
One of my favorite 80's movies was Real Genius with Val Kilmer. He accidentally helps develop a weapon and then goes to extreme measures to prevent its use. For some people creating weapons is a line they wont cross and that's not a bad thing.
Go through enough pattern recognition and you'll realize it's often not someone sticking to their guns.
Would the author have left if they didn't have another job lined up? Definitely not. Then, how strong are their principles?
That's not remarkable to many.
Would the author have left if they didn't have another job lined up? Definitely not. Then, how strong are their principles?
That's not remarkable to many.
He has not been responsible for Android Security since 2019.
https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/post/leaving-google/
https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/post/leaving-google/
right, I don't see the connection between being _forced_ to resign and his his pacifist principles + as EU academic he sees himself as target of likely mass surveillance
i know right. i imagine they were other reasons and this one sounded nice to share on a public doc tbh.
They are one and the same.
I came to Google via acquisition end of 2011 and left end of 2021. Google bought my employer so it could further cement its display ads monopoly. They never had a moral compass, they just wore one in a costume so that nobody would dig too closely into their business practices.
We got to wave pitchforks and ask tough questions at TGIF for a while, and march in pride parades under a Google banner, and get fed nice treats and the like but under it all was still just an old fashioned railway monopoly.
A huge fire hose of cash that let it play in all sorts of domains and espouse some vaguely California Ideology liberal/libertarian ideals while doing it.
But the moment that monopoly came under threat and the moment they felt they no longer needed the costume, it came off.
Google never had a moral compass. Anybody who thought it did was naive. It's not possible for a corporate entity to have one.
We got to wave pitchforks and ask tough questions at TGIF for a while, and march in pride parades under a Google banner, and get fed nice treats and the like but under it all was still just an old fashioned railway monopoly.
A huge fire hose of cash that let it play in all sorts of domains and espouse some vaguely California Ideology liberal/libertarian ideals while doing it.
But the moment that monopoly came under threat and the moment they felt they no longer needed the costume, it came off.
Google never had a moral compass. Anybody who thought it did was naive. It's not possible for a corporate entity to have one.
> It's not possible for a corporate entity to have one.
Is it really not possible? Lots of corps are controlled by one or two people. They can decide what the company espouses, no?
Is it really not possible? Lots of corps are controlled by one or two people. They can decide what the company espouses, no?
If you want profits, the market tells you what to do.
Surely, there is a spectrum between "founders doing whatever they want with the company" and "the market entirely dictating the company's every action."
I could see some of that in 2011 (I started before the ipo), but it was almost all from ads. People in other parts of the company had a very different experience.
Oh absolutely, I transferred out of ads as soon as I could and of course it all seemed different.
The reality is that ads was 95% of the company revenue though, so it was all fantasy.
The reality is that ads was 95% of the company revenue though, so it was all fantasy.
For many years infra was delightfully oblivious, just finding interesting things to build. :)
Working on promo committee I could see how different ads was
Working on promo committee I could see how different ads was
Yeah I transferred through Access / Home / Hardware / Nest, with a foray through Fiber... it was a different world certainly.
But there's also something about a PA being disconnected from its revenue sources to create a sense of unreality and distorted incentives.
But there's also something about a PA being disconnected from its revenue sources to create a sense of unreality and distorted incentives.
Ex-googler here as well. I'm not sure the distortion was worse outside of the core business. In the peripheral businesses (if one can call them businesses), I think you had more of an opportunity to ponder the larger implications of your actions. As an early Nester I argued vociferously for designs that would specifically dis-empower Google as a central service, in deference to the end user and as barrier to future misuse. Of course many of these ideas were not accepted. But my sense was, had I been part of the core Ad business, many of these ideas would have been third-rail topics, subject to immediate shutdown. Whereas within the Nest org I was able to foster discussions on the topics at multiple levels.
Indeed, my impression was that people within the core Ad business were more adept at maintaining an air of integrity while doing substantively the opposite for the goal of optimizing revenue. I suspect that the closer you got to Google's "center of gravity" the more distorted your reality and motivations became.
Indeed, my impression was that people within the core Ad business were more adept at maintaining an air of integrity while doing substantively the opposite for the goal of optimizing revenue. I suspect that the closer you got to Google's "center of gravity" the more distorted your reality and motivations became.
The title is comical
Google's founders never had a moral compass, at least not one that ethical people would understand
Perhaps some employees thought they could make one up. It didn't last long
Google's founders never had a moral compass, at least not one that ethical people would understand
Perhaps some employees thought they could make one up. It didn't last long
"Don't be evil" was just a diversion from a path that was laid out from the beginning.
And it worked --- for a while. Until the path became impossible to deny.
And it worked --- for a while. Until the path became impossible to deny.
Yeah, I'm sure the "don't be evil" charade was good marketing from the get-go or else they would've never taken In-Q-Tel funding.
They lost their moral compass over a decade ago. Perhaps the blinders slowly eroded from inflation and salary stagnation
> Then there were the people. Larry and Sergey were still answering some tough leadership questions every week, and “Don’t Be Evil” wasn’t just a slogan of often-referenced Googliness—it was a north star for teams making hard calls.
I'm sorry, but this is very hard to believe. I get 9 years is a lot of time, but Google has been awful for much longer thant that. In fact, 2018 was the year the motto was removed from the handbook, which certainly indicates it wasn't anything like a "North Star":
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-dont-be-evil/2540...
I'm sorry, but this is very hard to believe. I get 9 years is a lot of time, but Google has been awful for much longer thant that. In fact, 2018 was the year the motto was removed from the handbook, which certainly indicates it wasn't anything like a "North Star":
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-dont-be-evil/2540...
While I can understand the concerns, I wouldn't use a google doc to air my grievances though
"Oops, sorry, we have no idea how your document was lost in that cloud failure"
>" I still believe in Android as the (currently) best end-user facing operating system for mobile devices, with its balance between openness, flexibility, and security."
I do not give a shit whether it is the best. If one can be cut off instantly by whims of some algo with no recourse - thank you but I'll pass. Yes I still use Android phone but mostly as phone, GPS and camera all of which can be replaced.
I do not develop for Android or iOS exactly for the reason of not being in control. Stick to desktops, servers and browsers as deployment platforms
I do not give a shit whether it is the best. If one can be cut off instantly by whims of some algo with no recourse - thank you but I'll pass. Yes I still use Android phone but mostly as phone, GPS and camera all of which can be replaced.
I do not develop for Android or iOS exactly for the reason of not being in control. Stick to desktops, servers and browsers as deployment platforms
It's a systemic issue unfortunately. When some of these unethical CEOs say that they feel like they have no control and that if they didn't do it, someone else would, I believe them and it makes sense. That's why they should try to reform the system.
[dupe] Discussion on website source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48496396
Can anyone in this industry really say goodbye without posting it? We act like artists, believing our ideals will illuminate the world with our moral compass.
This is surreal.
This is surreal.
Thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands, leave tech companies everyday and never post anything. You just don’t hear about them.
Not until tech companies stop pretending tech jobs are special. It’s part of the entire industry culture at this point that you join certain positions to “make a big difference.”
Yet most startups are just b2b AI sass or whatever.
Yet most startups are just b2b AI sass or whatever.
This was a post to colleagues.
Someone else shared it out. Now, calm down. Your acting emotional. Maybe try smiling.
Someone else shared it out. Now, calm down. Your acting emotional. Maybe try smiling.
Uh, its a company. It never had a "moral compass". And if companies had any attributes at all, it would be a Psychopath.
Maaaaaybe when Dunbar's lower number was 13, the people working did. When Dunbar's 150 was hit, sure they had " do no evil" but that was just marketing spiel.
When they bought Doubleclick, that coffin was welded shut and thrown in the ocean. Only the rubes believed the adtech marketing shit.
Maaaaaybe when Dunbar's lower number was 13, the people working did. When Dunbar's 150 was hit, sure they had " do no evil" but that was just marketing spiel.
When they bought Doubleclick, that coffin was welded shut and thrown in the ocean. Only the rubes believed the adtech marketing shit.
> Google was a different company 9 years ago.
No it wasn’t.
No it wasn’t.
yeah, looks like some history rewriting.
9 years ago was 2017-- and by that time Google was already doing sleazy SEO shit, scanning peoples emails to who them ads, trying to make ads seem like general search results etc etc
Google was *exactly* this company it is today
9 years ago was 2017-- and by that time Google was already doing sleazy SEO shit, scanning peoples emails to who them ads, trying to make ads seem like general search results etc etc
Google was *exactly* this company it is today
The "Don't be evil" motto was diluted in 2015 when alphabet was formed, and taken down in 2018, so yeah, things were brewing from before.
The author of this article disagrees:
> “Don’t Be Evil” wasn’t just a slogan of often-referenced Googliness—it was a north star for teams making hard calls.
It definitely counts for something that at least one senior leader felt the slogan was relevant for decision making.
> “Don’t Be Evil” wasn’t just a slogan of often-referenced Googliness—it was a north star for teams making hard calls.
It definitely counts for something that at least one senior leader felt the slogan was relevant for decision making.
Most people that one would describe as evil do not see themselves as evil, but rather see what they're doing as justified. Saying you're not going to be evil means literally nothing.
Don't be the bad guy, ok, but if you think your goals are noble enough then crossing lines becomes acceptable. Google sold everyone on the "we're going to change the world for good and improve everyone's lives and make all information accessible and free" line, and in doing so justified everything else they did - privacy invasion, monopolistic behavior, etc.
The fact that they said "don't be evil" should have been a massive red flag for everyone, not a green one.
Don't be the bad guy, ok, but if you think your goals are noble enough then crossing lines becomes acceptable. Google sold everyone on the "we're going to change the world for good and improve everyone's lives and make all information accessible and free" line, and in doing so justified everything else they did - privacy invasion, monopolistic behavior, etc.
The fact that they said "don't be evil" should have been a massive red flag for everyone, not a green one.
The villain in every James Bond film thinks they're the hero.
Exactly. Everyone who posts here regularly believes themselves to be “not evil”. Working for Google, Facebook, burning resources to produce ai slop, etc.
Not me of course. I’m making the world a better place by introducing ai into your Facebook feed.
Not me of course. I’m making the world a better place by introducing ai into your Facebook feed.
The author is not cynical enough.
Do you going around telling people how virtuous you are? No, good people just try and be good.
The slogan was a red flag right from the start.
Do you going around telling people how virtuous you are? No, good people just try and be good.
The slogan was a red flag right from the start.
That sounds pithy, but a person doesn't need to remind themselves of their own values; a company of 200,000 people does.
Which isn't to say cynicism for these sorts of company charters isn't warranted, just not for that reason.
Which isn't to say cynicism for these sorts of company charters isn't warranted, just not for that reason.
I agree.
But the moto has always lacked any aspiration about how they should do good or make the world better. “Don’t be evil”. Who thinks they are being evil? No one.
But the moto has always lacked any aspiration about how they should do good or make the world better. “Don’t be evil”. Who thinks they are being evil? No one.
At the beginning of Google it meant "we will not be like Microsoft" and it was good marketing.
This is the relevant historical context to understand how this ever got into big G's mission statement, it was to distance themselves from the then well-known anti-competitive mal-practices of the Redmond giant.. which seemingly they've learned a lot from. Don't no-one worry too much, they only have less than half of the world population's messaging metadata, schedules, realtime location and private pictures.
It was purely self interest don't piss off people so that regulators break our monopoly. Once the monopoly was challenged it became less important.
They aren't cynical, just disingenuous.
Google was providing cloud computing to the DoD before 2017 - there's no real morale difference between providing lower level compute vs providing a higher level AI algo other than giving yourself an excuse by adding one layer of abstraction (obfuscating?).
Very convenient to suddenly decide it's enough after collecting a massive paycheck for 10 years.
Google was providing cloud computing to the DoD before 2017 - there's no real morale difference between providing lower level compute vs providing a higher level AI algo other than giving yourself an excuse by adding one layer of abstraction (obfuscating?).
Very convenient to suddenly decide it's enough after collecting a massive paycheck for 10 years.
Morals only matter when they restrain someone from doing something beneficial to themselves.
Absent a stake in the outcome, it's just virtue signaling.
And when Google was forced to choose between juicing ad revenue and its morals, it chose the former.
Absent a stake in the outcome, it's just virtue signaling.
And when Google was forced to choose between juicing ad revenue and its morals, it chose the former.
And it was just something that some guy said in a meeting
That’s quite a bit different from helping to kill people.
Let’s not lump every ethical issue into one. And not conflate SEO sleaze with aiding murder.
Let’s not lump every ethical issue into one. And not conflate SEO sleaze with aiding murder.
Except Google works with the Pentagon and the Israeli government so yes they are helping kill people.
Yeah, I think since it's getting provably worse no matter where you start the clock everyone can claim this whenever they actually do leave.
Just to give one example, you have the Google founders bending the knee to Trump these days whereas when Trump started his first term you had articles like this:
"Google co-founder Sergey Brin joins protest against immigration order at San Francisco airport" (2017)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512063
Just to give one example, you have the Google founders bending the knee to Trump these days whereas when Trump started his first term you had articles like this:
"Google co-founder Sergey Brin joins protest against immigration order at San Francisco airport" (2017)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13512063
I worked at Google for a similar span. It was different 9 years ago, in ways that are specifically described in the blog post you're ignoring, which I and many other Googlers would confirm are true.
Was it different or are the people who voluntarily started working for Google around that period unable to admit to themselves and others that it was always questionable to work for a entity like Google?
To certain observers this was obviously the direction tech monopolies were going to go.
What have those people always seen that you're only now beginning to admit is an inherently defective aspect of these organizations?
To certain observers this was obviously the direction tech monopolies were going to go.
What have those people always seen that you're only now beginning to admit is an inherently defective aspect of these organizations?
Holy cow dude, I am not personally answerable for all the faults of a megacorp, nor am I "only now beginning to admit" anything in your imaginary personal history about me that you made up now.
This entire thread makes me sad. A handful of people, the original writer and some other commenters, are saying "this corporation has changed for the worse in some ways" and the overwhelming majority of posts are these weirdos attacking them for why didn't you specifically say the opinion that I want, and why didn't you say it sooner than this post I just became aware of?
This entire thread makes me sad. A handful of people, the original writer and some other commenters, are saying "this corporation has changed for the worse in some ways" and the overwhelming majority of posts are these weirdos attacking them for why didn't you specifically say the opinion that I want, and why didn't you say it sooner than this post I just became aware of?
It's too convenient that so many of these stories go something like "It was okay when I joined but somewhere along the way things there got dirty, but I'm still clean!"
Why is it always that way?
Why is no one ever writing "It was always dirty there but I convinced myself that it wasn't until I couldn't do it anymore."
Because people don't want to admit "I made a mistake."
That's why.
Why is it always that way?
Why is no one ever writing "It was always dirty there but I convinced myself that it wasn't until I couldn't do it anymore."
Because people don't want to admit "I made a mistake."
That's why.
That’s one possibility. Could also be “it got worse”. Could also be a combo of the two.
This “holier than thou” stuff is lame. Shaming people for having a job. You working for UNICEF?
This “holier than thou” stuff is lame. Shaming people for having a job. You working for UNICEF?
It isn't in dispute that it got worse.
Most of us have worked at a place that was either bad enough that we knew and didn't say anything or that we should have known was that bad. That isn't anything new. You do what you gotta do and all that.
What we're splitting hairs over is whether or not Google (and others) were already "too bad to work for" 10-15 years ago. And whether or not some people correctly identified this and others didn't / did but say that they didn't.
You're totally right -- very few of us have careers entirely at places like UNICEF. That's just reality. What isn't reality is the image some people like to portray that they didn't know or couldn't have reasonably known that the entity that they were a part of for so many years was no UNICEF.
Most of us have worked at a place that was either bad enough that we knew and didn't say anything or that we should have known was that bad. That isn't anything new. You do what you gotta do and all that.
What we're splitting hairs over is whether or not Google (and others) were already "too bad to work for" 10-15 years ago. And whether or not some people correctly identified this and others didn't / did but say that they didn't.
You're totally right -- very few of us have careers entirely at places like UNICEF. That's just reality. What isn't reality is the image some people like to portray that they didn't know or couldn't have reasonably known that the entity that they were a part of for so many years was no UNICEF.
> I am not personally answerable for all the faults of a megacorp
It's not very fair for you to answer for the faults of the megacorp but to be honest you kind of put yourself in that position when you defended the indefensible.
For all intents and purposes, looking from a user/customer perspective, Google is just as morally bankrupt today as it was 9 years ago. And that's what really matters. You can rationalize it, you can pretend that you couldn't see the trend, that it didn't smell as bad back then, but at the end of the day what Google is doing today is just as morally acceptable as the things they were doing in 2017 were at the time. We just pushed the baseline down and normalized the ever worsening behaviors.
So let's not judge 2017 with the eyes from 2026 when the things done back then look more palatable. If you were to ask 2017 me about Google you'd get the same answer as today. Then again I wasn't paid by Google so I could afford to give that answer.
It's not very fair for you to answer for the faults of the megacorp but to be honest you kind of put yourself in that position when you defended the indefensible.
For all intents and purposes, looking from a user/customer perspective, Google is just as morally bankrupt today as it was 9 years ago. And that's what really matters. You can rationalize it, you can pretend that you couldn't see the trend, that it didn't smell as bad back then, but at the end of the day what Google is doing today is just as morally acceptable as the things they were doing in 2017 were at the time. We just pushed the baseline down and normalized the ever worsening behaviors.
So let's not judge 2017 with the eyes from 2026 when the things done back then look more palatable. If you were to ask 2017 me about Google you'd get the same answer as today. Then again I wasn't paid by Google so I could afford to give that answer.
> what Google is doing today is just as morally acceptable as the things they were doing in 2017 were at the time. We just pushed the baseline down and normalized the ever worsening behaviors.
You can’t hold together your premise for 2 sentences. If you admit that the behaviors are “ever worsening” then you cannot logically believe that it was the same 9 years ago.
You can’t hold together your premise for 2 sentences. If you admit that the behaviors are “ever worsening” then you cannot logically believe that it was the same 9 years ago.
> You can’t hold together your premise for 2 sentences
Or maybe you were so eager to lob a snarky remark that you failed to put in your full attention and intellectual capacity to understand what I said. See, this is how you assume good faith. So let's run through it again with clarifications that would pierce even a googler's shield, shall we?
>> morally bankrupt
...Is what I said. Morality is a sliding window, it moves with time to follow the tolerance of society. But when in the past you supported something that was outside that window for that time you can't come a decade later and over-impose today's window of morality to make it look like "we were pretty swell back then by today's standards". Morality by comparison isn't morality. Otherwise all you'd ever have to do is wait for someone to do worse and then you're Mother Theresa.
Google will do worse next year, and even worse the year after that. Because every generation of its employees see dollar signs and embrace doing the shitty thing of the day. Today's generation implements Android lockdowns, first party malware, more spying, you name it. Even the googler in the submission thinks this is a sign of moral bankruptcy. But ten years from now when Google will have promoted through a few more shittiness levels this same generation of googlers will come out to say "this is not the company it was x years ago". And if I'm still alive maybe I'll tell them the same thing as today: they went morally bankrupt when they embraced doing the shit of the day, not when that finally became tame by comparison.
Or maybe you were so eager to lob a snarky remark that you failed to put in your full attention and intellectual capacity to understand what I said. See, this is how you assume good faith. So let's run through it again with clarifications that would pierce even a googler's shield, shall we?
>> morally bankrupt
...Is what I said. Morality is a sliding window, it moves with time to follow the tolerance of society. But when in the past you supported something that was outside that window for that time you can't come a decade later and over-impose today's window of morality to make it look like "we were pretty swell back then by today's standards". Morality by comparison isn't morality. Otherwise all you'd ever have to do is wait for someone to do worse and then you're Mother Theresa.
Google will do worse next year, and even worse the year after that. Because every generation of its employees see dollar signs and embrace doing the shitty thing of the day. Today's generation implements Android lockdowns, first party malware, more spying, you name it. Even the googler in the submission thinks this is a sign of moral bankruptcy. But ten years from now when Google will have promoted through a few more shittiness levels this same generation of googlers will come out to say "this is not the company it was x years ago". And if I'm still alive maybe I'll tell them the same thing as today: they went morally bankrupt when they embraced doing the shit of the day, not when that finally became tame by comparison.
Attacking someone for leaving Google because they are no longer comfortable with Google’s actions is some combo of virtue signaling and counterproductive purity testing.
You’re not influencing anyone’s behavior nor meaningfully educating anyone. You’re basking in your feeling of moral superiority while you look down your nose.
You’re not influencing anyone’s behavior nor meaningfully educating anyone. You’re basking in your feeling of moral superiority while you look down your nose.
> Attacking someone for leaving Google
Did I? And who would this person I attacked for leaving Google be? My comment's right up there, feel free to just copy/paste the "you're shit because you left Google" part. It's fine, don't scramble, that's not the point.
Good on them to leave, better late than never I guess. In you frenzy you ignored that the point almost everyone on this side of the fence makes, this thread included, isn't "bad that you left", it's "don't pretend it was morally better when you joined". Because that's how all these people like to wash the stench and paint themselves in a better light. When (generic) you started a decade ago you had to wade through what in 2017 was neck deep shit, looking for that paycheck. Googlers of today also have to go neck deep, just in what 2026 defines as shit [0].
> You’re not influencing anyone’s behavior nor meaningfully educating anyone. You’re basking in your feeling of moral superiority while you look down your nose.
My friend, it's just me, you, and the other googler here on a submission marked as dupe and already in the HN cemetery. I wasn't putting on a show for the world. I know you are personally invested in defending your choices at any cost lest your internal moral framework collapses. Your livelihood and self worth depend on that. And I know I'm not educating you because every one of the people who lies to themselves that "they did it better in their time" will still lie to themselves for that paycheck in the future. Every few years they have to explain how it wasn't like that at the beginning, when it totally was for anyone with eyes and not just a money counter. No rando on the internet will ever educate you differently.
And believe me when I tell you I will never feel morally superior to anyone working for Google and friends for two reasons. I've probably done worse in my life before I've done better, and bragging about being morally superior to a generic googler is a victory without glory.
[0] But I'll leave you with what I told googler #2 earlier:
> You know how $1 in 2017 is $1.37 in 2026? Well it's the same with character in a society that just degrades morality. What looks like an unacceptably high moral debt today in absolute figures is probably the exact same debt you took on a decade ago if you adjust for "moral inflation".
Did I? And who would this person I attacked for leaving Google be? My comment's right up there, feel free to just copy/paste the "you're shit because you left Google" part. It's fine, don't scramble, that's not the point.
Good on them to leave, better late than never I guess. In you frenzy you ignored that the point almost everyone on this side of the fence makes, this thread included, isn't "bad that you left", it's "don't pretend it was morally better when you joined". Because that's how all these people like to wash the stench and paint themselves in a better light. When (generic) you started a decade ago you had to wade through what in 2017 was neck deep shit, looking for that paycheck. Googlers of today also have to go neck deep, just in what 2026 defines as shit [0].
> You’re not influencing anyone’s behavior nor meaningfully educating anyone. You’re basking in your feeling of moral superiority while you look down your nose.
My friend, it's just me, you, and the other googler here on a submission marked as dupe and already in the HN cemetery. I wasn't putting on a show for the world. I know you are personally invested in defending your choices at any cost lest your internal moral framework collapses. Your livelihood and self worth depend on that. And I know I'm not educating you because every one of the people who lies to themselves that "they did it better in their time" will still lie to themselves for that paycheck in the future. Every few years they have to explain how it wasn't like that at the beginning, when it totally was for anyone with eyes and not just a money counter. No rando on the internet will ever educate you differently.
And believe me when I tell you I will never feel morally superior to anyone working for Google and friends for two reasons. I've probably done worse in my life before I've done better, and bragging about being morally superior to a generic googler is a victory without glory.
[0] But I'll leave you with what I told googler #2 earlier:
> You know how $1 in 2017 is $1.37 in 2026? Well it's the same with character in a society that just degrades morality. What looks like an unacceptably high moral debt today in absolute figures is probably the exact same debt you took on a decade ago if you adjust for "moral inflation".
Where did I defend whatever "indefensible" things you're accusing me of defending? The OP post described specific ways Google's culture changed, on the inside. I said those were true. This was the entire scope of the claims I made.
Your response to that is "my personal opinion is canonical, your specific examples to the contrary don't matter, and I'm going to go ahead and imply you're bad for working there or saying anything."
I'm not going to spend more time here. I don't think you and these others are commenting in good faith.
Your response to that is "my personal opinion is canonical, your specific examples to the contrary don't matter, and I'm going to go ahead and imply you're bad for working there or saying anything."
I'm not going to spend more time here. I don't think you and these others are commenting in good faith.
> It was different 9 years ago, in ways that are specifically described in the blog post you're ignoring
I'm not OP but I'm not ignoring anything. In 2017 Google was doing just as many "questionable" things for that time as today. Googlers at the time were embracing doing the shitty thing of the day. All that happened in the meantime is that Google did even shittier things that made those older ones look tame by comparison.
By the time you were at Google the company had a litany of reported concerns. Look at them [0], look at how many happened before 2017. And that's just one list, only about very public privacy concerns.
You know how $1 in 2017 is $1.37 in 2026? Well it's the same with character in a society that just degrades morality. What looks like an unacceptably high moral debt today in absolute figures is probably the exact same debt you took on a decade ago if you adjust for inflation.
> I don't think you and these others are commenting in good faith.
An entirely expected yet still disappointing cop-out.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_with_Google
I'm not OP but I'm not ignoring anything. In 2017 Google was doing just as many "questionable" things for that time as today. Googlers at the time were embracing doing the shitty thing of the day. All that happened in the meantime is that Google did even shittier things that made those older ones look tame by comparison.
By the time you were at Google the company had a litany of reported concerns. Look at them [0], look at how many happened before 2017. And that's just one list, only about very public privacy concerns.
You know how $1 in 2017 is $1.37 in 2026? Well it's the same with character in a society that just degrades morality. What looks like an unacceptably high moral debt today in absolute figures is probably the exact same debt you took on a decade ago if you adjust for inflation.
> I don't think you and these others are commenting in good faith.
An entirely expected yet still disappointing cop-out.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_with_Google
"Google was a different company n years ago" where n is how long they've been there + ~6 to 12 months
It's different now because his stocks have vested.
Yes but now they have a moral imperative to collect their ad money and aren’t a vested interest.
“I’m shocked shocked to find out my pay cheque and stock money came from selling ads.”
“here are your winnings sir”
“I’m shocked shocked to find out my pay cheque and stock money came from selling ads.”
“here are your winnings sir”
Truer words have never be told. It truly wasn't. Google had been rotten for a very long time.
actually it was. they were no angels. but a majority of devs wanted to do good. now everyone wanta to make a quick buck no matter what.
im surprised dave is still there too. probably can't let it go...
im surprised dave is still there too. probably can't let it go...
I think a big difference is the majority of developers knew they could find employment relatively easily elsewhere, so they felt comfortable protesting things they didn't feel comfortable with, and google leadership had some level of accountability to employees. Now though, if you speak up you might get targeted for the next round of layoffs, and the current job market is a lot tougher, so you could end up unemployed for quite a while.
[deleted]
The employee experience was very different 9y ago.
The article clearly lists at least two ways they are significantly different now.
It is worse now than it was 9 years ago, but it even then it was clearly moving in the wrong direction. And the current google is the result of trends that started long before 2017.
Great, two whole ways!! Totally a different company.
When one of those ways is supporting mass killing, I'd say even one way would be enough to make it a completely different company. Your post is asinine.
It’s just a continuation of the very obvious trend. Google worked with NSA on PRISM, CIA on Iraq war, jigsaw was 2010, etc.
You’re not supposed to call people asinine just because you disagree with them.
You’re not supposed to call people asinine just because you disagree with them.
> Google worked with NSA on PRISM
Complied with legal orders. Do you have evidence that they did anything more?
> CIA on Iraq war
Are you talking about the Google earth data or something else?
> jigsaw was 2010
What does this mean? What did their jigsaw project do that I missed?
Complied with legal orders. Do you have evidence that they did anything more?
> CIA on Iraq war
Are you talking about the Google earth data or something else?
> jigsaw was 2010
What does this mean? What did their jigsaw project do that I missed?
Good Google was functionally gone when Doubleclick took them over. That was a loooong time ago.
They gave up trying to fight search spam and just permanently broke their search in like 2008.
Not long after that (IIRC) they started serving the same obnoxious ads as everyone else instead of their “nice” text-only ads, and stopped clearly marking inline ads in search results, so they could trick users and better-run their extortion racket (“pay us to advertise for your own company name or who knows where the people who are definitely trying to find your website might end up?”).
The notion that they were notably better in 2017 than today reads like some kind of joke.
They gave up trying to fight search spam and just permanently broke their search in like 2008.
Not long after that (IIRC) they started serving the same obnoxious ads as everyone else instead of their “nice” text-only ads, and stopped clearly marking inline ads in search results, so they could trick users and better-run their extortion racket (“pay us to advertise for your own company name or who knows where the people who are definitely trying to find your website might end up?”).
The notion that they were notably better in 2017 than today reads like some kind of joke.
Exactly. Google's "don't be evil policy" was never applied on Google itself.
It was enforced on users, advertisers and publishers.
Roughly 15 years ago, it no longer applied to advertisers. 50% of ads (if not more) are utter scams.
Noone cares, money talks.
Noone cares, money talks.
16 years ago it was
Jup! From day 2, the moment when they discover that customer data (yours, mine, everyone's) is more valuable than gold.
Also the interaction with government and defense and intelligence is well documented: from google docs to maps and clouds.
I wish people will read "Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet" by Yasha Levine and stop feigning ignorance. I even expect that minimal level of awareness about the real business culture and inherent nature of these internet mega-corps for people in top positions.
"Don't Be Evil" is a psychological machination for people working at google to ease their life in work related cognitive dissonance and marketing speak to the rest of us.
If I were an angel (actual, not fallen yet) I will not tell my self: "Don’t Be Evil". My motto will be "keep being holy" or "be holier" or something that keep me in my angelic state or better.
So even the “Don’t Be Evil” motto by itself already spill the beans!
I wish people will read "Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet" by Yasha Levine and stop feigning ignorance. I even expect that minimal level of awareness about the real business culture and inherent nature of these internet mega-corps for people in top positions.
"Don't Be Evil" is a psychological machination for people working at google to ease their life in work related cognitive dissonance and marketing speak to the rest of us.
If I were an angel (actual, not fallen yet) I will not tell my self: "Don’t Be Evil". My motto will be "keep being holy" or "be holier" or something that keep me in my angelic state or better.
So even the “Don’t Be Evil” motto by itself already spill the beans!
Google's purchase and subsequent integration of Doubleclick, reviled industry-wide for their invasive, sleazy adtech, was 18 years ago.
> When Google offered me the job of Director of Android Platform Security in 2017, it was impossible to refuse. Yes, Trump was already president—my family and I had qualms—but he seemed contained, even ineffective.
Why make this about trump and politics. It’s just a job.
Why make this about trump and politics. It’s just a job.
> Why make this about trump and politics.
They go on to explain exactly why in the fifth paragraph.
> It’s just a job.
Nobody operates in a vacuum.
They go on to explain exactly why in the fifth paragraph.
> It’s just a job.
Nobody operates in a vacuum.
He's Australian. Taking the job meant moving to the US. To do so without considering Trump would have been insane.
Cue the jokes about people ignorant of the difference between Austria and Australia.
vrganj(2)
Google: We're not evil.
Also, Google, later: No comment.
Like a slap in the face from a psychopath. It's not about "good", "bad", "honest", etc. It's literally the world EVIL that they no longer want to swear off. Astronomically monumentally fucked up psycho shit.
Dictionary:
Also, Google, later: No comment.
Like a slap in the face from a psychopath. It's not about "good", "bad", "honest", etc. It's literally the world EVIL that they no longer want to swear off. Astronomically monumentally fucked up psycho shit.
Dictionary:
*EVIL*
: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
an evil impulse
an evil tyrant
evil deeds
the evil institution of slavery
: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
a person of evil reputation
And I'm getting downvoted. Make of that what you will.
A typical case of false nostalgia for something that never existed .
"Enough of my equity has vested, virtue signal engage."
And good for them. If you have the freedom to follow your virtue, no matter how you gained that freedom, why not follow it?
If it sounds like hypocrisy, why? They gained the freedom from the grind and would have stayed if they believed in what they were doing.
If it sounds like hypocrisy, why? They gained the freedom from the grind and would have stayed if they believed in what they were doing.
There is some weird psychology going where the most morality posting is from people quitting Google or being unemployed.
Au contraire, Googlers have always been strangely academic brained and stuck in niche moral echo chambers.
This is par for the course.
This is par for the course.
That’s not really how RSUs work in that situation. The number outstanding and vested each year stays pretty steady.
Yeah what he means is he got enough money over a decade and then waited until a vest day to decide it was immoral.
Oh, sure. But with monthly vesting it kind of a wash.
Only if you are getting refreshes.
Biting the hand that fed you... on your way out.
This dude only now thinks Google has lost its moral compass? In 2026?
Bruh.
Bruh.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
tl;dr : Android head of security has quit on principl as he is a pacifist and Google are now working with USA department of war. And also as they scrapped the carbon neutral promise due to the AI Datacentre race.
hagbard_c(2)
rirze(1)
[deleted]
loeber(1)
nla(8)
These tech-bro public resignations are so tedious. Ostensibly he seems fine with the existence of AI mass surveillance and AI powered murderbots but he just never envisioned a scenario where they would get used that wasn't congruent with his politics.
Ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land and he's pointing out "all lawful uses" isn't what the admin says it is.
That doesn't appear to be stopping the current administration. That's why I think you should be more concerned about the tools of oppression existing rather than the laws that govern them.
Translation: “My GSUs that I received at $35 and upwards for the last 10 years have made me enough money such that I can now finally make the “moral” decision that I’ve always wanted to do but was willing to swallow until I made enough money. Now I can pretend I was always the moral person that I purport to be, even though not much has actually changed except my financially-improved courage.”
This is needlessly cynical. Everyone has thresholds, and it may not be tied (at least exclusively) to money. Those that _assume_ that the morals of others are always at whim of financial gain are those that I trust the least.
He is worth well over $20M given his title and the skyrocketing of Google stock since 2017. He could have left years ago if he were really so morally outraged.
There’s nothing more useless than a multi-millionaire “finally” taking a moral stand on something. I guarantee that this same person without the money would not have posted this ridiculous manifesto declaring his moral piety.
If he donates all his wealth away because it was made “immorally” then I will change my stance. We both know he won’t and that’s how we know his courage is really just because he’s rich.
There’s nothing more useless than a multi-millionaire “finally” taking a moral stand on something. I guarantee that this same person without the money would not have posted this ridiculous manifesto declaring his moral piety.
If he donates all his wealth away because it was made “immorally” then I will change my stance. We both know he won’t and that’s how we know his courage is really just because he’s rich.
The last time I worked for someone else was 1992 so one didn't really use personal sites like this where one would whine about why they left their job for all the world to see. We all have our reasons for quitting but something like this just gathers the "Yeah!!" crowd but no one gains anything from it and it's quickly forgotten.
You've already forgotten the content of his post now. Right?
You've already forgotten the content of his post now. Right?
Good for you, just try to remember those old days when you complained about bosses and "whine" about things to your friends and some work colleges about day to day stuff. Now think what you would say about a situation when you were fed up and had to quit because you couldn't take it anymore and every day you had these tasks going against your values ( doesn't matter if they are "right" or "wrong", they are yours ).
Also, Google is a multi-billion dreadnought with hundreds of millions of dollars for PR, lawyers and lobbying every year. I'm sure they can take a post about someone "whining" and quitting their job in disagreement. Something tells me Google be fine...
Also, Google is a multi-billion dreadnought with hundreds of millions of dollars for PR, lawyers and lobbying every year. I'm sure they can take a post about someone "whining" and quitting their job in disagreement. Something tells me Google be fine...
This was a post shared with colleagues. Apparently, reaching out to colleagues and friends is verboten now?
You are getting emotional. Maybe try calming down?
You are getting emotional. Maybe try calming down?
>but no one gains anything from it
venting can be helpful mentally/emotionally.
readers can feel solidarity, comfort in a shared experience, etc.
venting can be helpful mentally/emotionally.
readers can feel solidarity, comfort in a shared experience, etc.
everyone _works for someone else_, it's entirely about what the structure of that relationship is.
You don't make your own food do you? Build your own car? Make your own git repos?
Seems like you might want to have a better view about who you work for.
You don't make your own food do you? Build your own car? Make your own git repos?
Seems like you might want to have a better view about who you work for.
Your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote.
I stop reading internet comments when a baseless statement is used as the base of a comment. Appologies.