...or they are trying to convince Google to find a different means of making money.
They already sunk a large military contract and are setting their sights on AI in general. If Google accedes to all the various pet issues of individuals working there then they won't have a business anymore.
This is the risk of appeasement. Google (and every company for that matter) should try a new stance: If you fundamentally disagree with the areas and methods that our leadership has chosen for our business, then find a new place to work. Working for a company while using it as a staging ground for a coup against it is unacceptable.
And it sounds like Google is doing basically what you are saying.
I don't really see a reason to be upset at communication and get angry about "appeasement".
Are you the sort of person that tells people not to complain about the politics in your home country or to "move to China/North Korea if you don't like it here"? That would seem consistent with what you're saying.
If you fundamentally disagree with their values, find a new place to live? Hey, at least it's possible to move to a democratic country, but a democratic corporation? Not that many of them around.
Should people have zero insight into issues which could cost a company money or PR? Or should everyone expect to toe the line and simply follow the suits lockstep into hell?
> Google (and every company for that matter) should try a new stance...
Perhaps it was pipe dream to actually believe the "don't be evil" pledge?
Whatever the case, the outrage of the dissents does seem cloyingly naive and I find it difficult to feel sorry for them. Maybe it's time for people to learn that "mega-corps" aren't exactly the best place for idealists after all.
It might be a good thing for google to shed some talent to the wind and see what comes of it. Who knows, it might lower housing cost and seed many more start-ups and small businesses with new people.
As for "don't be evil" that became useless a long time ago, it was just an invitation for everyone to describe their pet hate as "evil" even when that was clearly over the top. When I worked there I routinely saw trivial things like reskins of Gmail be described as evil (because we're ignoring feedback from users who didn't like it!). The word became debased to the point that it was worthless to even have such a slogan.
All the current issues are morally debatable at best, and simply not evil at worst. Even if you consider the US military hopelessly bloated, for example, is their view that the USA shouldn't have an army to defend itself at all? If not, why not, and how is it consistent with wanting Google to not be involved in such matters?
It really is morally indefensible that Google provide technology for military drone warfare (for example). If someone working at Google finds that ghoulish, it is their responsibility to speak up about it and leave (or be fired) if that's what it comes down to. Lucky for them, they probably have plenty of job prospects and don't "need" Google.
Similarly for the military, they're perfectly capable of funding and staffing their own research centers on novel ways to incinerate human beings. Does a surveillance capitalism platform really need to do that for them?
But that's a pretty small slice of Google's business.
> Working for a company while using it as a staging ground for a coup against it is unacceptable.
So what does unacceptable mean?
Historically, coups like this happen to organizations all the time, to the point where conservatives consider it a fact of life.[1][2] It may be unacceptable now, but they'll just keep at it until their view becomes orthodoxy; it's more or less the point of liberalism. I'm also skeptical that the people in senior positions are that far from them ideologically; they simply have legal obligations to shareholders.
Another notion of acceptability is whether a coup sinks the company in the meantime. But it's a risk either way, unless the complaints are entirely without merit, and that seems unlikely.
Let's say Googlers who dispute this did quietly leave over these issues as you suggest. Google's incentives are structured perversely, the "user as product" business model is just ethically dysfunctional. Losing people who act as a check on bad behavior can thus compound these problems over time. If people then decide they've had enough (buoyed by a string of complaints from ex-Googlers) and go to Congress, that can also effectively sink the company.
[1]: https://www.isegoria.net/2008/07/robert-conquests-three-laws... [2]: https://opc.org/OS/html/V5/1a.html
I've heard this isn't nearly as true as current conventional wisdom would lead one to believe. (to your point, those in power may feel they MUST do certain things even if they don't have to). If so, push back is one of the ways to correct any deviation and move towards a balance.
You seem to have an internal inconsistency in your argument -- assuming that it has the potential to destroy the company, if one fundamentally disagrees with the areas and methods that the leadership has chosen, by far the most effective means of preventing those actions would seem to be using it as a staging ground for a coup.
Just a thought, but perhaps this is just another power play where employee wellness is used as vehicle. The best way forward in enabling unionization and get better benefits is to create more division between employer and employee. If you look more closely that is already happening. In the coming months there will be a lot of rehashing the stories (and even a dedicated movie) where Google employees are deprived of a bigger and better paycheck.
Not my intention - I was offering an alternative to the "If you don't like it you should just leave, because appeasement is death for a company"(paraphrase) I was replying to. (Though I do think people as a whole tend towards communal improvement, albeit with lots of short term self-focused protections)
> The best way forward [for union/benefits] ... is to create more division between employer and employee
OTOH, I wouldn't agree with this statement either. More division is something that CAN happen (and appears to HAVE happened here), but it's a bad idea for both employee and employer to SEEK that out.
On the gripping hand, people regularly find a way to perform below my lowest expectations, so I may be pollyannaing all of this.
That is just basic politics, strength in numbers. If you want align people with different ideological ideals/background or engage non participants, you use a common ground. What better way than to tell people they are being treated/payed unfairly. Not saying it is the best way or that they are intentionally doing this, but it works.