Hacker News Reader

Comment by vaishaksuresh | Hacker News Reader

Morality also works both way right? If you bite the feeding hand, how are you morally right?

> If you bite the feeding hand, how are you morally right?

Whistleblowing? You could argue you have a moral obligation to your fellow citizens. Not arguing, just offering an example.

Don't be reductionist, he doesn't work for google, he worked for a nonprofit to which Google donated. Google threw its weight around to get him fired by threatening to pull funding.

he worked for a nonprofit to which Google donated

Ipso facto, he worked for Schmidt/Google.

"Working for" implies paid employment. He never worked for Google. The think tank is supposed to be independent from its donors. If, in practice, it's not as independent as it's supposed to be, all the more reason to admire him for following the spirit of what the organization was supposed to do. In no way was he legally or morally beholden to Google, despite the fact that it was ultimately revealed that they were in a position to get him fired. If I hold a gun to your head, you don't owe me anything--though you might still do what I say.

The correct response would be "Go ahead, kill me now, motherfucker." ;)

A morally defensible, if impractical, position. Kant would be proud.

Zoom! Let me explain that joke, and the truth behind it. Murderers and would-be murderers are more likely to:

- derive enjoyment of begging victims than indifferent ones

- respect someone whom is willing to pay the price

Furthermore, in way, this is what Christians and nonviolent leaders like Gandi originally meant about "turn the other cheek"... not being meek and defenseless but to volunteer for punishment. The bully or abuser is confused and/or gives respect for such, and then is more likely to stop doing it. It's not a guarantee, but it's better than nothing. Only a good guy with a gun or having massive balls and a plan, can stop a bad guy with a gun. ;)

Incorrect. He was not a Google employee. Google was a patron of the nonprofit think-tank, NA, and he worked for NA. The patron didn't like what think-tank was saying and used leverage to corrupt think-tank because it's leader lacked integrity and moral courage. NA's leadership could've chosen to say "FU and here's your money back" to Google, but they didn't. NA sided with Google, but he still isn't, and never was, a Google employee. It's fucked up and every NA patron should pull their funding if they had any integrity.

You work for whoever pays you. In this case Google/Schmidt paid NA, who paid the author. In an ideal world, then yes a think tank would be independent of their funding source. In the real world, they aren't and never have been. Ignoring this just gets you fired.

By all means shame NA for this, but thinking that it's a scandal that the non-profit world works for corporate donors is naiive.

>It's fucked up and every NA patron should pull their funding if they had any integrity.

That is what Google did, just not because of integrity.

By the same argument, I assume you believe the people on this[1] list also work for Schmidt/Google?

[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000067823

Yes, of course they do. Why the hell else would alphabet donate to them?

It's literally the best investment they could make[1]:

"Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. A year-long analysis by the Sunlight Foundation suggests, however, that what they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion in federal business and support"

[1]https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-big...

Depends on what else the feeding hand does with its time.

Everyone knows that morality does not work that way. There is no 1:1 relationship between righteousness and being a provider.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com