Ultimately, two thirds of their complaints involve taking a position counter to the stated national interest of the United States. Sure, maybe they believe that national interest is wrong, morally objectionable, or whatever, but the inference you draw from the writing is that it clearly is. That everyone at Google knows this is wrong, should be stopped, but isn't because of the monetary gains of doing these things.
> 2. Google Cloud sales to the oil and gas industry
I mean, if Google Cloud makes the extraction of natural gas more efficient then that strikes me as a net good for the planet. A large part of the emissions decrease in the U.S. over the past decade is from the economic viability of natural gas relative to coal. Dream of a bucolic lifestyle all you want, but reality should be confronted in these matters.
3. Expansion into the weapons industry and the business of killing
The business of killing terrorists - with increasing levels of precision - strikes me (and every administration in memory) as clearly being in the national best interest. The better targeting capacity available, the less collateral damage and need for U.S. boots on the ground abroad there will be.
You can, of course, find drone strikes morally objectionable. You can find killing what are deemed threats to the homeland as objectionable. That's fine. But to state this as an objective truth is to find yourself holding a position at odds with nearly all elected law makers.
If you, as a company, agree or disagree with U.S. domestic and national security policy, fill your boots. But Google working in concert with the U.S. domestic and national security policies isn't choosing money over morality per se.
People have different perspectives and these people clearly have perspectives unaligned with their former employers. Good on them for leaving. However, I have to say reading this screed makes it seem like the adults in the room are the executives they lambast.