We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@googlersagainstdragonfly/we-are-google-employees-google-must-drop-dragonfly-4c8a30c5e5eb <comment><USER2> Pretty bold. A lot of people are saying this wont work, but speaking from my own experience, you'd be surprised what companies are amicable to when it comes to business.

Im an engine mechanic by trade, and our shops handle bids for cash strapped local governments that outsource their motor pool maintenance. We do things like fire trucks and police cars, but we were working on a new regional idea as a "service center" for municipalities that purchased MRAP combat vehicles for their police departments. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP)

We all, especially the veterans I work with, hated this idea. MRAP's are for combat, not police work, and have a dangerous propensity to roll over in city streets or escalate already violent situations. 14 of us sent a signed letter to the owner and senior management detailing our major concerns and heard nothing back for about a month. Then out of the blue we got a call for a meeting with 3-4 very senior managers at a local irish bar.

They paid for dinner and tried to explain how the business would be extremely lucrative. we would all see major bonuses, we could hire more workers, and grow the business faster than just large truck repair. It took 3 very emotional hours, but we eventually talked down a handful of people from making a very wrong decision.

for a week after, we were all sort of stunned that it actually worked at all. Tire cages meant for MRAP tires were cut up and turned into random parts holders, or as new hangers for air lines...one even replaced our mailbox post.

<comment><USER3> You deserve massive credit for striking a blow against this madness. A great example of how working people have more power than they think if they're willing to risk dollars and cents for matters of right and wrong.

I say that fully realizing that not everyone is in the financial position where they can risk a fight with their employer. You can't expect everyone to be Ghandi.

<comment><USER4> > A great example of how working people have more power than they think if > they're willing to risk dollars and cents for matters of right and wrong.

I believe this is key. If more folks at more organizations were brave like this and willing to take the risk, a good chunk of the problems our civilization is facing might be greatly improved.

<comment><USER5> Worker's unions helped win the majority of our rights in modern democracies. I wish this fact was more widely appreciated.

<comment><USER6> > Worker's unions helped win the majority of our rights in modern democracies. > I wish this fact was more widely appreciated.

The problem with modern unions, particularly in tech, is that the legacy structure is inapt for current problems. Tech workers don't need a union to negotiate compensation, they're compensated fine already. They don't need a huge bureaucratic structure for engaging in long-term detailed negotiations. They don't need a _contract_ at all.

What they need is a no-dues no-fulltime-union-reps union that operates through direct democracy. It does _nothing_ unless the employer is doing something bad wrong. Then if the majority of the union members vote to refuse, either the employer concedes or they strike.

Because it's not about a thousand little things here, it's about a small number of big things. It needs to be able to address those and then go back to being invisible instead of succumbing to feature creep and destroying the host with overhead and principal-agent problems as we've seen with the auto makers.

<comment><USER7> > Tech workers don't need a union to negotiate compensation, they're > compensated fine already.

Software one of the highest margins of any industry. They can afford to pay more, especially since they are constantly whining about "shortages" of tech workers.

[http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/...](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html)

<comment><USER6> > They can afford to pay more

Which is why they already do pay more than other industries.

The best argument you have against that is the anti-poaching shenanigans they've engaged in -- but that's already illegal, so the answer there is a courtroom rather than a union.

<comment><USER8> No, it really isn't. The court requires someone to notice the pattern, or be aware of the pattern, and be willing to risk their reputation. With a union, the onus is on the business to act right, or risk labour action where the SRE folks walk out, and all the little blinky lights turn off.

<comment><USER6> > The court requires someone to notice the pattern, or be aware of the pattern

How is that different with a union?

> and be willing to risk their reputation

Class action suit or submit evidence confidentially to the attorney general.

> With a union, the onus is on the business to act right, or risk labour > action where the SRE folks walk out, and all the little blinky lights turn > off.

If Apple won't hire Google employees then the Google employees can retaliate against Apple by not working for them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I considered working at Google last year after a recruiter reached out to me, but their decision to backtrack on their promise in China changed my mind. I do not morally condemn anyone who works at Google. I have many good friends that are both bright engineers and undeniably good people that work there. I just feel that as someone who's family is Taiwanese, I cannot in good consciousness support the company. I let the recruiter know this because I believe it's important that they know. I'm curious if anyone else on HN has had similar experiences.

<comment><USER10> Do you in good consciousness support the U.S. government? I'm asking because the government doesn't recognize Taiwan as an independent country and kicked Taiwan out of the United Nations in 1971.

<comment><USER11> The United States did not kick the Republic of China out of the United Nations in 1971, the UN General Assembly did. The US voted against Resolution 2758.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think, what these employees don't realize is: Even when a company places values over profits, it is still in an attempt to maximize profits over the long term. By placing values above profits, it increases it's goodwill with customers thus increasing it's moat and it's retention, as well as it's employee retention. This strategy made sense in the early days.

Not anymore.

As Google's position becomes increasingly strengthend (with all the market share it can capture in search already realized ~ and it slightly decreasing anyway due to it's slightly tarnished brand), it doesn't need to maintain this illusion of values over profits anymore.

<comment><USER13> The "values over profits" approach was always more of a recruitment tool than a PR tool. It did give a nice PR boost, but realistically Google's been the best choice of search engine since it came out in 1998. They don't need additional customer goodwill for people to keep using them, they just need to continue to give good results for esoteric queries.

Since 2005, though, good engineers have had _lots_ of options for where to work, many of which pay better or have more growth potential than Google. And "Don't Be Evil" was a great way to persuade them to come work for Google rather than Yelp or Facebook or some hedge fund, and keep them there rather than have them go off and found their own startups that potentially could compete with Google. Because so much of their product moat depends upon technical excellence, keeping the best engineers within the company is critical for them.

I'll predict that if they don't reverse course on this, we'll see a mini- exodus of Googlers who either end up founding their own startups or start working on political-tech projects. Ultimately I think that may be good for the world, but it's not really in Google's long-term interests, although perhaps at this point their moat is entrenched enough and they're big enough that it doesn't really matter.

<comment><USER14> > Since 2005, though, good engineers have had lots of options for where to > work, many of which pay better or have more growth potential than Google.

Growth probably, but very few actually pays better than Google considering all the perks and work life balance you would get from working for Google. And since the startup boom is almost over, it is even more so like that now...

<comment><USER13> Almost all wealth in Silicon Valley comes from equity price appreciation. Google stock has appreciated 7x since 2009, but Facebook has appreciated 38x in the same time period, Yelp 13x, Netflix about 35x, Apple about 6-7x.

I think the boom in web & mobile startups is basically over at this point, but there's a new boom in cryptocurrency & AI startups that's just beginning, along with a social movement (multiple social movements, actually) that's just beginning and will likely need communication technology to organize.

<comment><USER15> This is only really true at startups. At a bigco, your on paper comp can be 250 or 350k annually in cash equivalents. That quickly generates wealth even if you are given only cash.

You're comparing 2 pre-ipo companies to Google and apple.

<comment><USER13> Still true at BigCo. Total comp as a senior SWE at Google when I left (almost 5 years ago - it's more now) was something like ~$175K cash, ~$125K stocks + options, ~$50K bonus. With the 5x appreciation in stock that was going on while I was there, the stock portion could be worth $625K/year by the time it all vested. That's as employee 20,000+.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If I was in China and had to choose between having a choice between censored baidu and censored google vs just censored baidu, I'd rather have both baidu and google. It's easy for us here in the western world as we have access to both and more uncensored sources to take the moral high ground and subject the Chinese to a "let them eat cake" attitude. Not sure if this will benefit people over there though to ban google completely.

<comment><USER17> But why do you need two censored search engines? What would be the difference between them?

<comment><USER16> Google is technically superior to baidu in many areas, specially for a developers. It gives better answers in many subjects, not just the censored ones. Besides who are we to decide for the Chinese what is best for them? Sounds a bit condescending and paternalistic. Here here, baidu is enough for you to play with, don't bother with google.

<comment><USER18> > Besides who are we to decide for the Chinese what is best for them?

You do realize that the "people" do not have a voice in China right? It is not a democracy...

<comment><USER19> The Chinese appear to think, collectively, that authoritarianism is better than democracy. They could revolt. The Chinese military is under funded with failing equipment, though they are trying to improve in areas. The sheer size of their military makes it difficult to have common weapons and gear available. 100 million citizens throwing themselves against that machine, would wear it down quickly. They don't do this.

The Chinese had a century or more of bloody civil war recently, within historical terms. They don't like regime change.

They historically were fine under the emperor, who was authoritarian. They are use to autocratic, central government. Unless things get extremely bad, I don't see them thinking that democracy is better than their current stability. If Xi Jinping does a decent job of getting rid of corruption and improving the air quality, I doubt you'll see a revolt even with a depression in China.

Edit: for those downvoting, how about a dialog? Democracy is not a native idea for the Chinese. Their major philosophical systems support a rigid hierarchy, which is not compatible with the democratic norm of anyone can attempt to run for office. They've lost millions to wars before Mao calmed everyone down. Even with Mao's major famine, there wasn't a revolt. 45 million died, and no uprising. If 100k died at the hands of the US government, there would be blood in the streets. Probably true with 1k. The Chinese do not care about authoritarianism.

<comment><USER20> The military equipment is irrelevant; they are still far more _coordinated_ than the civilians are permitted to be. Suppressing collective action is one of the central goals of authoritarian censorship.

Democracy is no more a native idea for western culture; 250 years ago every state was a monarchy, and political ideologies based in hierarchy still regularly win elections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Quick summary (if you don't know the name "Dragonfly", like I didn't):

> We are Google employees and we join Amnesty International in calling on > Google to cancel project Dragonfly, Google's effort to create a censored > search engine for the Chinese market that enables state surveillance.

> Our opposition to Dragonfly is not about China: we object to technologies > that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable, wherever they may be.

<comment><USER22> > we object to technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the > vulnerable, wherever they may be.

And where's the actual research showing that Google in China would do such a thing? By all calculations, it would bring more knowledge and access to Chinese citizen that they already have.

This make it sound like Google is the reason why the citizen don't have access to information.

<comment><USER23> By building and delivering such a system they'd be condoning the actions of the Chinese government.

<comment><USER24> I don't understand the outrage about censorship particularly with respect to the Chinese government.

Google has agreed to remove plenty of stuff from the search engine that many Europeans see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google)

Sounds like double standards to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Given how trash of a search engine Baidu is, Google would likely achieve market share dominance in China within a couple years - should they move forward with Dragonfly. Complying with demands of the Chinese gov't is the only way they can penetrate the Chinese market.

Search engine advertising constitutes close to 85% of Google's revenue. And unlike Project Maven, which was ended due to internal resistance from employees, doing business with the second largest economy in the world isn't an expendable venture.

Curious to see how they move forward. My guess is they will: human outrage never really lasts long, especially when their livelihoods are far from in jeopardy.

<comment><USER26> Why dont western companies band together and threaten a boycott until some kind of IP laws are enforced?

They just keep getting picked off one by one.

<comment><USER27> Have you used the internet in China? There is no meaningful presence of foreign companies. They're already kicked out.

<comment><USER28> Not disagreeing with you, but with a lot of our manufacturing happening in China there is definitely a different kind of presence.

But still, not sure if they would give up the low cost of manufacturing for this. Frankly, the regime makes that possible.

<comment><USER27> Are there? You can't open a business in China without it being majority Chinese owned. There are plenty of companies doing their manufacturing in China, but every example I know of the wforeigb company contracts the Chinese company to do the manufacturing. Often they're even further removed, such as Apple who works with a _Taiwanese_ company who just happens to have their manufacturing in China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I find the Google/Chinese search engine troubling, but I do think people are playing this up to be a lot more than it should be. I think one fact is that Google is in an area and recruits people that are hyper liberal individuals. For example: not wanting to work with the U.S. military on projects, having AI use gender neutral writing, random PC things, little diversity in political thought etc. I don't think Google has so much changed as their employees have changed.

Look, I am a huge Google critic, you can view my past posts, but a lot of what employees are complaining about seems pretty laughable, unattainable and shows a lack of maturity. In my estimation, Google's power struggle between making money and its employees creeping political stances is and has been unsustainable. I think censoring results in China is one thing, but there are so many other cultural problems at Google that honestly just don't belong in a corporate environment. Google has long been seen as a playhouse, and has let employees be too dramatic and vocal about politics as well. In a normal company, it is -not- normal to have a sit down after an election to baby sit staff members, and offer grief counseling.

So while, yes Google certainly has some problems with "values," I think there are two problems, not just one. It's not so much that leadership has moved to drive profits no matter the cost (Google has long done that!) it's that while that is still happening there has been a shift in the company's politics. Again, I'm not talking about the Chinese censorship itself, I want Google/Microsoft/Facebook etc to not empower Xi. But it's all the other stuff going on that just seem so counter productive, not only to culture but to profits.

<comment><USER30> Declining to work with paid murderers is not a partisan position.

Opposing sexism is not a partisan position.

Attempting to reframe these sorts of things as "lefty silliness" and paint them with the same brush as being sad and disappointed that a rapist won the election is simply subterfuge.

<comment><USER31> > Declining to work with paid murderers is not a partisan position.

Calling military paid murderers is definitely a partisan thing. What else do you propose? Someone has to do the dirty work to keep the citizens safe.

> Opposing sexism is not a partisan position.

Are you talking about harassment cases. Have you been to Google or talked about it to a Googler? It generally is swift and works without any proof. What they are asking is anonymous complaint system and things like that, which can definitely have two thoughts.

What about Google giving huge advantage to women in hiring. Just one verified anecdote, in kickstart, which google uses to hire in Asia Pacific, men do get a call for interview within rank 50, many time lesser than that. And they have definitely called women if they got rank 1000, likely even more.

<comment><USER32> > Calling military paid murderers is definitely a partisan thing. What else do > you propose? Someone has to do the dirty work to keep the citizens safe.

How exactly did US operations in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua etc. keep you 'safe'?

<comment><USER29> As someone that worked to get someone asylum from Afghanistan, there are many many many citizens in Afghanistan that long to have the US back with a significant presence. It's not easy sleeping when a car bomb just went off outside your house and it was targeted at you for not being a religious hardliner.. The US isn't always about keeping its own citizens safe, it often steps in when there is genocide, etc.

<comment><USER32> > there are many many many citizens in Afghanistan that long to have the US > back with a significant presence

Which would be true of any military force that invaded, slaughtered hundreds of thousands and then pulled out leaving a power vacuum.

The US didn't go into Afghanistan to save people from car bombs.

If the US has somehow done you a favour as a result of its wars of aggression, it's a complete coincidence.

> It's not easy sleeping when a car bomb just went off outside your house and > it was targeted at you for not being a religious hardliner..

Sounds like Iraq and the rise of ISIS doesn't it? Another US war of aggression that left hundreds of thousands dead along with a power vacuum filled by religious extremists.

<comment><USER29> The US went in because it facilitated terrorism and led to the direct death of 3000 Americans. The rise of religious extremism was well before the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Am I for US intervention as "world police," absolutely not. I don't agree with our presence in Iraq, but there is certainly a point where US presence is warranted and needed. Anything else is just a naive world view. I was like that when I was in my early 20s, then I grew up and realized how complex the world really is.

<comment><USER32> None of this address the original point I was making, in that US wars in the last few decades have not made Americans safer. Or anyone else for that matter.

The fact that people might now be clamouring to have them back after they left a power vaccuum to act as blocker on warlords and religious zealots fighting for control doesn't change that fact.

> nything else is just a naive world view. I was like that when I was in my > early 20s, then I grew up and realized how complex the world really is.

Implying that I'm immature because I disagree with you doesn't make you look as good as you think.

<comment><USER31> > None of this address the original point I was making, in that US wars in the > last few decades have not made Americans safer. Or anyone else for that > matter.

Can you just recite the number of American civilians killed due to terrorist attacks after 9/11 and compare it with how many terrorists have seriously threatened and even died to kill Americans. If someone is ready to die to kill less than one person on average, it needs to be taken seriously.

While, yes there are things which every military mishandles from time to time, certainly US, you are calling out all activities, for which I hate to say it but you are too naive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm glad Google Employees are taking a stand rather than just leaving the company and having their replacements do bad things thinking it will be a one off.

<comment><USER34> Those are mostly "Software Engineers" and not a lot of them. Google can kick them out and replace within a month.

Unfortunetly I dont think executives will give a slightest heck about this article..

<comment><USER35> > Google can kick them out and replace within a month.

Ah. A believer that software engineers are cogs and can just be "replaced" without training and learning of code bases.

Hiring software engineers, bringing them up to speed, and having them contribute to production features, is expensive. Also, you'll never truly recoup the lost knowledge that goes.

<comment><USER36> Google has literally _thousands_ of engineers. A significant percentage of those engineers leave every year as part of normal attrition. Google is certainly capable of dealing with the fallout these folks leaving without feeling a thing. While it's true there are some "one-in-a-million" type engineers that work at Google, I don't see any of the well-known ones on this list.

All that said, I commend the folks who signed this letter. If anything, the fact that most of the folks who signed are in relatively junior positions shows how Google has lost its way when it comes to it's morals. The more senior execs feel the pressure of serving Wall Street and have more to lose, while these more junior folks, while taking a risk know they can get hired anywhere else in a heartbeat. It's the kid standing up saying the emperor has no clothes.

<comment><USER37> Does a few engineers leaving hurt google? No. Does the massive PR storm that will never be erased from the Internet cause problems for them down the road? Absolutely.

The fact this is posted on HN and the regular gauntlet of tech sites is enough to have a major impact on their recruiting. I, like many of the people here, am a frequent target for Google recruiters and Dragonfly is more than enough for me to turn down an interview with them. Maybe they will have more luck with fresh college grads and interns who are less discerning.

<comment><USER38> Same. I normally avoid me-too comments, but...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> As someone who lived most of his life in a dictatorship, I really struggle to understand the logic of these employees. I was actually surprised Google stepped out of China a couple of years ago and felt like the decision was taken by a bunch of people who don't understand what it's like to live in a non-democratic country.

Do they think that everybody in China cares that their internet is censored or that they're being watched? I'm pretty sure if there was a poll conducted inside China to choose between censored Google vs no-Google almost everybody would choose censored Google.

It's not like a person who's opposing the Chinese government online is going to be using Google without a secure connection anyway. For the rest, you're providing a service that is significantly better than what they're currently being offered.

<comment><USER40> While i do understand where you are coming from, i think if google gave up it will set a precedence and many countries will demand their own censored version of google.

<comment><USER41> and it's one thing to accept censored Google as a Chinese consumer. what's the choice when all products are censored. whatever your values, you have no choice.

but it's another thing as a Google employee. I assume that working towards a censored product and passing on user data to the Chinese government is opposed to the values of a lot of Googlers. developers do have a choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> And if the employees placed thier values over profits, why are they still there?

I wonder if they are going to refuse their stock based compensation?

<comment><USER43> > btw if I quit on Feb 1, I'm walking away from half a million dollars in > stock. This has some serious monetary consequences for me.

[https://twitter.com/lizthegrey/status/1067469950594486272](https://twitter.com/lizthegrey/status/1067469950594486272)

<comment><USER42> I'm not saying anyone should walk away from money. But the same people who want Google to walk away from the world's largest country aren't willing to walk away from thier stock but expect Google executives to make financial choices for moral reason.

<comment><USER44> I don't think walking away from all your stock vs. a company walking away from a deal that would account for a small fraction of its profits is a fair comparison.

A more fair comparison would be asking if employees would be willing to have their stock decrease in value 10% in exchange for their company being more moral. I expect many employees would take such an exchange, although not all.

<comment><USER45> But those employees who _did not_ care about morality also would have their stock decrease by 10% in value due to no fault of their own. Therefore, it's only ethically correct for those who want to take the stance to also accept a decrease in stock compared to those who didnt.

<comment><USER46> And if the stock rebounds? Are they then going to forego the rebound?

Or is it "all privilege, no responsibility"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It really pains me how Google has changed. When I was younger I always wanted to work there. Now that I've graduated college, I would probably never want to work there.

<comment><USER48> I agree. However, for every person who doesn't want to work there, five others are willing to join the company, especially those who live overseas and are willing to work for pennies.

<comment><USER49> Exactly. They still are one of THE companies to work for, and throw so much money at people its hard to say no

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Really the Chinese market seems to be a greed trap. Companies drool over themselves at the prospect of the second largest economy, compromise themselves and harm existing sales only to find that China isn't a greenfield market like they arrogantly expected and if there wasn't already a local competitor there will be soon.

</comment><comment> EZ-E At this point I don't believe this project could be successful. Even if it's not canceled the Chinese government is never gonna let a foreign company get the market share against the local champions : even more as this company has internal disent about the project. Also the links with the US government won't help.

<comment><USER51> agree. i don't quite see what _enduring, long-term_ competitive edge Google could actually have in China.

is it the huge quantity of computing resources behind their search engine? (wouldn't Baidu or other Chinese companies be able to easily outbuild Google?)

is it the incredible, mysterious superiority of the super-duper secret Page Rank algorithm? ( jk )

is it the sophisticated and complex home page design and superior google doodles?

i mean what is it exactly?

google won't be able to reach the monopoly level of market share it enjoys in the US search market so it would actually have to _compete_ on a month to month basis for its very life. this means it will hire a lot of very hard workers in China. and that means google's secret sauce (if it even exists) will make its way out and into the competitive landscape _before_ Google can get close to being a monopoly. it just seems like a losing game.

<comment><USER52> Yeah, it seems like it's more of Google's desire than China's, even, which especially makes it questionable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> But then there's Outline, from Alphabet's Jigsaw.[0] It utterly simplifies the creation of private VPN servers on Digital Ocean droplets.[1] They use Shadowsocks obfuscation. It's apparently effective against China's Great Firewall, and seems popular among Chinese dissidents. So the main intended application is pretty obvious, no?

So are they playing both sides? Or trying to con the Chinese government? Or just a large and loosely coordinated organizarion?

0) [https://jigsaw.google.com/](https://jigsaw.google.com/)

1) [https://blog.digitalocean.com/digitalocean-outline-jigsaw- vp...](https://blog.digitalocean.com/digitalocean-outline-jigsaw-vpn/)

<comment><USER54> Perhaps a bargaining chip in a larger negotiation? Retaliation for previous attacks?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Even though Google's search engine will censor some content in China, it will still be miles better than Baidu. People who use Google will find highly relevant results quickly when searching about health, academic research, and a million of other things. They won't have to worry about finding thinly disguised promotions of illegal hospitals ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wei_Zexi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wei_Zexi)) on the first page of Google. They don't have to worry about combing through pages of search results for something that should've been found in seconds. They don't have to play the game of mouse and cat just to get a usable VPN to use Google outside of the GFW.

So, the logic of this protest is that Chinese people do not deserve even incremental improvement, a huge improvement by the way, in their lives?

<comment><USER56> They do deserve it, just not a censored one.

<comment><USER57> As a Chinese living abroad, I censor my internet voluntarily via custom ublock cosmetic filters that kick in automatically upon match of certain regex patterns. I call it my "outer great firewall". Very effective protection against hate speech

<comment><USER58> Out of curiosity, why would you do this? Why would you want to voluntarily censor information from yourself?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> While I agree with their stand on this issue, there is a big level of hypocrisy in these statements since Google is well known for suppressing search results and banning people on YouTube etc. based on political ideology. So I'd like to see them stand up against that as well.

<comment><USER60> > Google is well known for suppressing search results and banning people on > YouTube etc. based on political ideology.

Can you give some examples of this?

<comment><USER61> PragerU is a right-wing channel that Youtube is constantly suppressing by removing videos or demonetizing them. The content is about on-par with what you might hear on a politically slanted news show. It doesn't make sense that Youtube would expend trust capital to harass such an uninteresting channel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Good for them. Any company claiming to have moral backbone should not cater to the demands of the Chinese government which has shown time and again that it is a tyrannical regime.

</comment><comment><USER63> I have a counter question - what about Google's support to the US Government? Have people forgotten the PRISM project? The US Government has backdoors at almost every big tech company.

<comment><USER64> People have forgotten. Hey, as long as our searches are not censored!!

In all seriousness, I find this current dragonfly outcry ridiculous when you consider the NSA dragnet that's currently monitoring most if not all US web traffic.

<comment><USER65> Because data collection is purely for out protection and maybe to help us shop from time to time.

Censorship is just evil, full stop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> What am I missing? The cost of switching to an alternative search engine like Bing or Duck is next to zero. (Actually, I dropped Google for Duck just 2 months ago.)

Brand is the most valuable asset Google has. Is the Chinese search market - and other evil projects - really worth the damage to Google's public image?

<comment><USER67> It's a billion users potentially, and Google only has a few billion users to begin with. Which is to say, yes, corporate greed suggests the opportunity to grow by 20-30% is absolutely worth sacrificing petty things like conscience and morals.

<comment><USER68> Business don't decide that kind of things, consumers do.

If there were clear intention from the majority of Western people to stop using every Google product the same second Google launch the censored search service in China, then Google would never do it.

Western people don't really care much? Well, they should blame themselves then, not Google.

<comment><USER69> > Business don't decide that kind of things, consumers do.

This is a cop-out. Businesses have a responsibility for the decisions they make, and "it's profitable" should only be one factor.

> If there were clear intention from the majority of Western people to stop > using every Google product the same second Google launch the censored search > service in China, then Google would never do it.

I think you underestimate how much Google has become not just the default choice, but the only choice for a lot of people, who have never heard of alternatives and who use Google because it's what their browser defaults to (we even call the very act of running a search on the internet "Googling it"), and might not know how to switch, much less reasons why they should.

I find the "market forces will take care of it, and if they don't then people don't care" argument more than a little disingenuous, because it ignores the huge number of variables that account for why people choose product A over product Y that have nothing to do with the quality of the product or the company that makes it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> I respect the motivation of the people behind this but I disagree with the logic here. It seems to be a zero or none type of logic. Are Chinese better off with not having google search engine as a choice, even if censored and having only local options, or are they better off having at least some choice, even if that choice is censored? I think it's the second, not the first.

<comment><USER71> (Spoken as if to a Google employee) — Someone will build them a search engine. In fact several someones have already. Your company doesn't have to do it, and you don't have to work for them if they do.

<comment><USER70> well, the company doesn't have to do it, I agree. the discussion is, if the company were to do it, would it be a bad thing for the company to do, conditional on professed company values? I don't think so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> "Many of us accepted employment at Google with the company's values in mind, including its previous position on Chinese censorship and surveillance, and an understanding that Google was a company willing to place its values above its profits."

When has it ever put values above profits? Google is selling our data to everyone. What values?

<comment><USER73> Just like Facebook, Google is NOT selling anyone's data!

What they are selling is the ability to run targeted ads based on that data. But the data never leaves Google!

<comment><USER74> What do you think sold data is used for? If the end product is the same, the ethics of the medium doesn't matter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Even if Google drops Dragonfly, centralized tracking will always be a tempting honeypot for abuse.

DuckDuckGo [1], the non-tracking search engine, is seriously worth considering. It wasn't good enough 5 years ago, but is now and serves well as my default search engine.

[1]: [https://duckduckgo.com](https://duckduckgo.com)

( _I have no affiliation with DuckDuckGo, just rooting for them to stay true to their mission._ )

</comment><comment><USER76> While the primary motivation of companies is to generate profits, Google has been in a unique position, thanks to its near monopoly, to generate profits while sticking to its values. It's a shame they've started down this other path.

</comment><comment><USER77> They may need to do more than demand, they may have to organize a strike. Get more people involved, unionize or not, you're going to have to strike.

Putting your name out there like this will just serve to have to replaced one at a time slowly which will kill the momentum until nobody is willing to take action again.

</comment><comment><USER78> When you chose to take 50% of your compensation in stock, you too have chosen to place company profits over company values.

<comment><USER79> How does that follow? If I benefit from a stock rising, that doesn't necessarily mean I value that benefit above all else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Local Chinese here, Personally, I don't need Dragonfly because I can cross the GFW of China, but other people in China can't. They currently suffer from China monopoly - Baidu's shitty and annoying search results. So I'd like to see an alternative search engine come to here even if it does have some trade- offs. From another perspective, even Google does provide an uncensored search result here, most Chinese users still cannot access them because of the firewall. What's the difference of censored and uncensored result for them? In the long run, I do think China will close the firewall someday. So let us (Chinese) take the trade-off for now and move forward.

</comment><comment><USER81> Extremely brave. Especially people putting their names down on paper as individuals.

I printed this paper out to look at the names more and to keep for the record. If you signed it and are reading this comment, I find what you did incredibly brave (US hasn't had almost any labor activism like this in decades), and worthy of much more merit than any CEO or billionaire co-founder. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER82> On the other hand, I recall reading somewhere that people who were forced into making munitions for the German army during WWII got to be really good at manufacturing faulty products that would still pass rigorous inspection. If you're really concerned about the moral implications of a project like that, it might be worth keeping your mouth shut (since somebody's going to do it whether you do it or not) and finding ways to make it plausibly breakable.

<comment><USER83> > keep your mouth shut (since somebody's going to do it whether you do it or > not)

How do you know?

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> But Google already built a censored search engine that enables state surveillance, that's what we have in the west.

</comment><comment><USER85> The alternative to google censoring its search is using chinese services - search, shopping, payment, IM.

For work reasons I had to use chinese web, and believe me, the later is much worse for a westerner.

Minimal i18n, confusing visual design, payments that dont go throught, random network errors, total reliance on you having a mobile phone.

Yes, censhorship is bad, but I rather use censored service from a western company than a censored service from a chinese company.

<comment><USER86> It's not just about having a search engine that's fast and convenient albeit "censored."

It's very plausible that Dragonfly will be used to feed people in China flat out misinformation and lies, and then monitor them 24/7.

News that doesn't toe the party line will literally be deleted. Try and search for a controversial book or subject, and you'll be placed on a watchlist. Fake news and government created media will be the first and only result always. In other words, the Chinese government will have more access than ever into the minds of its people, and then it will try to either manipulate them or just repress the problematic ones.

This will happen whether Baidu or Google does it, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable for Google to join in. We don't get a free pass to do evil just because we're not the first.

In fact, it's worse for Google than Baidu. The people at Baidu don't have a choice, it's the country they were born in. But Google is one of the world's richest companies, and if they chose not to operate in China, it would just maintain the status quo, not actively hurt them.

There's no moral justification for this, even if now the search engine is faster and more polished.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> I can't find even one Chinese name on the signing list. These people have no idea what Chinese people really want and what they really need. Chinese people already lost all their privacy. They have nothing to lose by having Google operating in their country. But in contrast, I believe having Google operate again in China can actually help human rights in there. Why? Because currently the Chinese search market is monopolized by Baidu, and if you read the story behind Baidu and Putian Medical Group, or know about how Baidu is making money by abusing all kinds of human rights, even putting lives in real danger, you would understand how necessary it is for Chinese people to have a search engine, that at least doesn't direct you to a fake hospital.

If you search the word "Baidu" in the first page of HN comments, you will find 0 results (at least at the time I'm writing this). No one cares the reality in China, because that's different than their imagination, and they live in their arrogant imaginations.

These people are just hypocrites. They don't care about human rights, or Chinese people's well-beings as they already lost human rights. They don't even bother to think in others' shoes. They are just feared. They are afraid that one day their own government will utilize the same practice and steal their little privacy. Cut the bullsh*t. If you really care about human rights, try to make some changes in China, start by making a better and healthier search engine than Baidu. There are many more evil business practices in China, like in food delivery, bike share, P2P loans, etc. Try make some healthier alternatives in these business as well. This is the way you should help human rights, not just keep ranting about something they have already lost.

Just do me a favor: ask any Chinese people you know, or think about this as you were Chinese: would you prefer a censored Google as an alternative, or the monopoly of Baidu? Please do this before you leave any comment.

</comment><comment><USER88> It's nice to see a lot of signatures, 277 at the time of writing. Given the culture at Google I wouldn't call them brave (they aren't putting their jobs or future promo at risk, at least within Google), but certainly it's a powerful statement.

However, let's guesstimate 55k full-time staff. That's .5%. At that level, it's a gesture that will get addressed in corporate-speak if at all. It's a vocal minority. You will not hear from the 20% that are in favor and the 79.5% that don't care much either way.

Now if they would all commit to (say) a 6-12 month timeline to "divest" or they will leave, that's saying something that Google will have to listen to. Sure, there is an unlimited supply of equally capable others that will be thrilled to take their place, but it will be a cultural game-changer, a risk the powers-that-be probably don't want to see play out.

</comment><comment><USER89> I know I am going to get a lot of criticism, but hey freedom of speech:

First of all, I live outside of China and I am not against freedom of speech and human rights.

Let's take a look at it at another angle: if Google drops dragonfly, the Chinese netizens will end up using "Baidu", is it better or worse for the netizens of China? For the very least, dragonfly improves the situation from monopoly and gives much better/accurate/scam-free/spam-free search results. That is one way to improve their online experience.

I could be very wrong, but what I understand is these people oppose dragonfly because the government can restrict results, okay that's not very ideal, but at least the government cannot force it to give false search results, right?

</comment><comment><USER90> TBH I am so divided on this. I did a little thought experiment over this and came up with two possible outcomes Negative: We live in a strange world where valuing morals limits our career opportunities. If I am a Google employee and I walk out now where does it end? If I am not a hypocrite I cannot work at Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Uber or even Apple. I am limiting where I can work and hence will have to settle for lesser wage. This will discourage people from speaking against wrong practices.

Positive: OTOH this activism has a potential to let companies know that some very smart people will not join you if your moral compass is faulty.

</comment><comment><USER91> There are not many Chinese names in the signed letter, and I can fully understand. If you are a Chinese H1B or green card holder, and you signed this letter, it is almost certain the Chinese government will contact your family in China.

<comment><USER92> How many Chinese social credit points would the family members of the signer lose if a Googler were to sign this letter?

<comment><USER91> [https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/665597190/families-of-the- dis...](https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/665597190/families-of-the-disappeared- a-search-for-loved-ones-held-in-chinas-xinjiang-regi)

"If you are a Uighur, you automatically lose 10 points," recalls Seytoff. "If you pray? Another 10 points. You've been overseas? Another 10 points. You have relatives overseas? Another 10 points. If you're 50 or below, you're unsafe and you go to a camp."

By simply having relatives overseas, you lose 10 points. Now imagine how many points you will lose if you have a relative signed this letter.

<comment><USER93> I'm confused by these exact point values. My understanding that the social credit system is not yet implemented, and it's unlikely it will be a number, probably more a set of black lists for different purposes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> The number of participants in these efforts are so small and unrepresentative, to a point where it is not material and these companies should not change their direction. It is unclear to me why the media gives these stories so much attention. I have to think it starts with these activists secretly working with 1-2 journalists who are similarly politically-motivated, which then leads to the story being given prominence on a couple media outlets. And from there it makes the rounds, even though it is an undeserved amplification of a non- story.

There are FAR more employees who either do not share these same views or are OK with the company pursuing its own profit-maximizing agenda independent of employees' personal political views. For example with workers not willing to build image recognition algorithms that assist/augment the capabilities of joystick-drone-operators, I bet there are a much larger number that are totally willing to work on it, and they are signaling that by not participating in employee activism even when it is socially/professionally safe to do so.

As for the others who are not just indifferent but are for the company's actions in pursuing new opportunities - they're just not screaming about it due to the intolerance exhibited by far-left progressives at these companies, especially with all the purposeful/malicious leaking,the Twitter outrage machine, and other vicious tactics used by the intolerant activists. And as a left progressive, I think that sort of behavior undermines all of us, and should not be tolerated.

<comment><USER95> At what point do you consider it acceptable to speak out against something you consider ethically wrong?

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> "We no longer believe the company places values over profits". Ehm... has it ever?

</comment><comment><USER97> The employees willfully obstructing potential revenues and profits, and hence styming Google's market cap should put their money where their mouth is.

These employees should be willing to accept a 50% reduction in compensation ( salary, bonus, stocks, etc). That would at least reduce costs for Google that's being actively blocked from revenue streams other American & European companies (Bing, Amazon, etc) are already participating in.

</comment><comment><USER98> No kidding?!?!

[https://www.cnet.com/news/google-files-for- unusual-2-7-billi...](https://www.cnet.com/news/google-files-for- unusual-2-7-billion-ipo/)

[http://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be- evil/](http://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be-evil/)

It's almost like the writing was on the wall but no one saw it...

</comment><comment><USER99> Ive been telling people, writing to people and complaining about google's increased censorship for years. The lack of transparency to webmasters and google search users is just as damaging as hiding content from people when the company spent years trying to develop trust, now many people believe what they find on google is truth - and they do not know how much of the internet has been filtered out, and ranked down by small groups of people with non- transparent agendas and algorithms.

For this reason is does not surprise me that this kind of thing was in the works and the ramifications to society being degraded in the name of big profits.

I wrote about some of these issues in comments here recently: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18546828](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18546828)

and if people started watching the pbs docu thing about the 2018 dilema of facebooks power and failures - and you started to watch part two at 43:11 till 45:30 ( [https://www.pbs.org/video/the-facebook-dilemma-part-two- iev1...](https://www.pbs.org/video/the-facebook-dilemma-part-two-iev1xh/) )- thinking it's about google - that sums way part of my feelings watching these things unfold over time on this side of the pond.

I am glad to see some people at google speaking outside the plex finally. These decisions have global consequences, and the culture of don't tell them so they can't use it against us, or steal our secret sauce, that omerta is part of the toxic culture that has created the faang monstrosities that are upon us today as they are.

To those that have chosen to speak out, thank you. I hope more open to the discussions occur.

</comment><comment><USER100> Let's assume that this event is Google officially jumping the shark (in terms of workplace desirability, which has decreased due to moral turpitude and a gradually lowering engineering bar).

Who's the new Google? Is there a company that can pick up the mantle of near- universal desirability to software engineers? I don't think it's any of the other FAANGs.

</comment><comment><USER101> Without stating an opinion on the topic itself, what does the community think about employees agitating against a company practice like this rather than just leaving and doing something else. Obviously they feel strongly about it and want to make sure it doesn't happen at all, while the company feels they have a huge untapped revenue source.

<comment><USER102> It's refreshing to see people deciding that things can be important enough to warrant taking some sort of action other than washing one's hands of the matter.

Recognizing that there are paths available other than "doing what the company says" or "walking away" is a good thing, and people should speak up if they feel their work is being used in unethical ways.

There's a view that employees are subservient to employer's wills, to the extent they agree to stay under their employ. While obviously true to some extent, it seems silly to extend this to carte blanche for what employees must agree to be complicit in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> I have mixed feelings about this... I fully support free information not filtered by nation states, but abandoning search in China means you abandon the chance to make it a better place :/ I think developers and engineers we often do assign enough value to "progress" vs perfection.

Rome didn't fall in a day, as they say.

<comment><USER104> I don't follow your logic. If the first step to entering the Chinese market requires bending to the government's will, what makes you think Google would have any leverage in the future to be able to "make it a better place"?

<comment><USER103> You inadvertently demonstrated exactly what I was talking about. You're thinking in absolutes, and I would point to the legalization of marijuana in Colorado to demonstrate the power of subtle resistance.

<comment><USER104> Can you point to a summary of the history of marijuana legalization in Colorado?

I imagine most non-US readers, such as myself, won't have any idea about that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER105> I don't see any Distinguished Fellows on that list. Please, distinguish yourselves! Put your clout behind a cause.

</comment><comment><USER106> I have a similar sentiment, but it's hard for me to put a finger on it. There is so many things happening over years. I'm wonder how much of this shift in Google could be attributed to Sundar Pichai and how much to just normal process of becoming soulless corporation.

Maybe they just have worse PR?

<comment><USER107> Only founder CEOs really have the luxury of putting values over profits, and that's because they can't really be fired. Once they put someone else in charge, that is over, though it doesn't become clear until much later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> One thing I've wondered about "don't be evil" is: what stories does the company tell itself about how that value gets put into practice?

Any value which actually drives organizational behavior in the real world is going to be complex -- complex enough that it cannot be fully conveyed in a 3-word-phrase. This is especially true when the phrase includes such a not- agreed-upon word as "evil". So the ways that the organization expects individuals to apply the phrase need to be explained. From to Lexington the data structure that humans have historically used to store those explanations- of-values is the story. So what stories did Google employees used to tell each other about "don't be evil" and what stories do they tell each other now?

<comment><USER109> They have been walking back on the "don't be evil" motto recently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER110> Has anyone thought about the effects of NOT having google search product and services in China? I read a lot of negativity about how it is ruining the culture and personal beliefs about freedom. Has anyone balanced it with what is the upside to users (not money for Google)?

<comment><USER111> IMHO there isn't much effect of Google not being in China. Baidu works for Chinese uses. I've seen an argument that Google would be a better, freer experience, but Dragonfly shows that wouldn't really be the case.

<comment><USER110> If we can take "freer" out of the argument for a minute.. (because not everyone in the world places personal freedom on the same level of importance)

Better search results? Better quality of information for Chinese researchers and developers? Better road information? Or email? Cloud services?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> The painpoint is, they will do it anyways. Maybe not Google leadershipt but someone elses management. Google and Facebook have shown that we can execute power over datasizes that are too big for any group of humans to understand themselves, and they have shown that by manipulating these datasets they can manipulate human behaviour. This is too big a power to not fight over. That's bigger than the nuclear bomb. So the question is not whether or not it will happen, but who will be the first. The first might very well be the one deciding the new world order.

</comment><comment><USER113> What's wrong with that? US government already have that kind of under-the- table deal for years now and Chinese people wanted a similar project. Truth is, even a 10 years old kid knows how much an evil company like Google respect their users and how shamelessly they collectively spy everyone but if I was picked by Google I won't shouting out self-evident facts about the true nature of the company, instead I would be grateful that I got picked by thousands of other companies afterwards just for working at Google.

</comment><comment><USER114> If Google kills Dragonfly it will be because of financial reasons. But because of this, they'll be able to claim it was because they were responding to employees.

grumble, I think I'm getting jaded.

</comment><comment><USER115> I'm not going to hold my breath.

There's too much money to be made, and too many "journalists" willing to write puff pieces for Google and provide cover for this activity.

</comment><comment><USER116> I'm shocked.

</comment><comment><USER117> Or else what?

I appreciate you sending this letter, and your concerns have been duly noted. After careful deliberation however, we regret to inform you we have decided to proceed anyway.

Have a nice day.

</comment><comment><USER118> It's a trend -- Google employees raise voice more and more often. The Damore memo, the defense contracts, and now this. Clearly something is happening there.

</comment><comment><USER119> You cant support diversity and cultural differences and not support it at the same time. But at the end of the day business is business and cash is king.

</comment><comment><USER120> Ironically a censored search engine makes it easier to compare results from US google to Censored Google. Not sure how that's a bad thing for anyone.

</comment><comment><USER51> wild speculation here:

both the US and China want Dragonfly for different reasons. each thinks it will benefit from Google's presence in China.

China is confident it will control the flow of sensitive information Dragonfly might obtain, and, at the same time, gain valuable insights about how Google operates, paving the way to ultimate replacement of Google in China (and perhaps outside China). plus, in the mean time, Dragonfly gives China some new leverage over Google's current global operations (e.g. calling Taiwan "China", promoting positive news about China to the outside world, etc).

the US government intelligence agencies are confident they will gain valuable information about China's society, government, military, and economy through Dragonfly (somehow). they want any inside presence they can get.

google is lukewarm on Dragonfly but thinks of it as a necessity. google knows it won't be profitable, but also knows that running Dragonfly gives it leverage to keep the US government's regulatory and anti-monopoly enforcement at bay, protecting its leadership in its most valuable market: the US.

</comment><comment><USER121> I think it is good that these engineers are standing up for what they believe in. It will be an interesting litmus test for the leadership to see what type of company they want Google to become.

Also, I am interested how the tense China-US relationship will effect the broader tech investment strategy in East Asia. Are we going to see divestment in the next 18 months by US tech companies in China?

</comment><comment><USER122> I'm glad this exists, but a bit disappointed that I don't see a single name I recognize.

Brad Fitzpatrick, Rob Pike, Ken Thompson, Jeff Dean, Sanjay, etc etc plus a lot of less famous people I know who work there. None of them have signed this open letter.

\--

I recommend the author org add a call to action. There should be an easy way for other Google employees to add their name to the list!

</comment><comment><USER123> As a 'tech worker' myself these folks have my respect. Along with Dragonfly and some of the egregious privacy and sexual harassment issues at Google I have stopped using any Google products.

However, between this and the 20,000 Google employee/contractor walkout I have gained a lot of respect for what the individual employees are collectively doing.

</comment><comment><USER124> I find it troubling people take this to the political level -- China vs Taiwan. School me how is this related to the censorship? FYI, Chinese do not recognize Taiwan as independent, so there will not be censored comments here because Chinese has unified views on this historical problem.

</comment><comment><USER125> A protest against censored search could hold the door open for creative alternatives.

Hopefully this effort helps by encouraging search-oriented sneaker nets and decentralized content platforms. I think Google itself could provide the former, which would be very welcome in remote locations like Haiti.

</comment><comment><USER126> This is good for the ecosystem, as google's loss is a lot of other companies gain. If Google's employees don't want to help the Chinese people and their government, no problem. There are literally thousands of corporations that will be helping instead of Goog.

</comment><comment><USER127> Hypocrites. Have you considered the human rights of Chinese users?

Thanks to the absence of Google, monopoly of Baidu has enabled them to sell ads of unlicensed hospital that literally kills people.

A censored version of Google in Chinese will undoubtedly improve the quality of life of Chinese Internet users.

<comment><USER128> Do you really think Google stepping in would prevent them from selling ads to unlicensed hospitals, etc.? If anything, this represents Google's willingness to violate the moral standards of their own employees (I'm talking about the majority, and leadership prior to being corrupted by greed) no matter what, so long as it means growing their revenue/profit.

It was clearly demonstrated that all Google cares about is money, when they canceled project Maven immediately after protest, yet refuse to back down on Dragonfly. The only difference? Dragonfly promises to be _immensely_ profitable, whereas Maven was small enough that the employees lost over it was assessed to cost more than the project's profit.

So you really think that Google would then suddenly develop the moral fortitude, out of thin air, to reject bad ads in China that are nonetheless profitable? Even if their policy is to do so now, don't expect that to stay — remember, their policy used to be _'we will not be complicit in censorship, because it is morally wrong, period.'_

And even if it did, many would argue that it's still a bad idea to seek a short term good at the expense of the long term. Enabling state censorship by giving the state more advanced censorship tech, could be seen as akin to enabling a heroin addict by giving them more heroin. Sure, they'll feel good and they won't suffer withdrawal. But overall it's going to lead to a very dark place that ultimately yields extreme suffering and often even death.

<comment><USER128> P.S. In fact, here is evidence that Google does absolutely _nothing_ about fraudulent directory listings and ads, like the one you seek to think will be solved by Google moving into China: [https://youtu.be/5c6AADI7Pb4](https://youtu.be/5c6AADI7Pb4)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER129> Wow. It's fascinating to watch this issue grow in realtime: When I started reading, I saw earlier comments indicating the letter had 139 signatories. Then I checked and noticed it was at 250 and it's now at 276. Curious to see what the tally will be by tomorrow.

</comment><comment><USER130> If this is immoral, it should also be illegal, no? Is anyone for also lobbying to create a law or executive order to that effect?

Otherwise, another company will simply step into Googles place, or they could be tempted later to try again. The market is too profitable to do otherwise.

<comment><USER131> Making everything that is immoral illegal is putting the government in charge of defining morality, it's a bad idea. It leaves little room for disagreement. Little room for nuance. Slows the ability to adapt to new situations or improved understanding. Opens up the process of deciding what is moral to abuse. Etc.

<comment><USER130> I am not for making everything illegal, just support of dictatorial governments.

Isn't that the sort of thing that diplomacy, and national policy is for?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER132> I hope they get somewhere. There's a tactic that has historically been quite effective. A strike. Sysadmins can't be replaced on a moments notice, taking weeks to get up to speed. If google.com 404s for a few minutes, management will talk to you.

</comment><comment><USER133> Google employee here through a throwaway.

To me the optics of refusing to work for the US government on maven but complying with censorship in China seem very bad in the US's politics climate. There is nonzero risk that the brand will be, for lack of a better word, fucked.

</comment><comment><USER134> I understand they want to hold the principles they value, but practically, I think it will do good to Chinese living there to have Google's presence in China, by providing a not-so-much-censored alternative/competitor to Baidu etc.

</comment><comment><USER135> What percentage of Google employees work for sectors in Google that actually make money?

</comment><comment><USER136> This from employees of the company that argued (successfully) in a United States court that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy when connecting to any Google service. Sorry, Googlers, you need to get your priorities straight.

<comment><USER137> Which Googlers are you talking to...the ones that wrote the blog post?

</comment></comment><comment><USER138> I recall 'dont be evil' was the motto, but it's removed a while ago, maybe it's removed because Google realized as far as company&profit goes, it is not different from any other companies.

<comment><USER139> It's there: [https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of- conduct/](https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/). Ctrl+f evil

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> Priceless gorilla-advertising for the Opera browser directly from Google.

Pretty cool.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Dragonfly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Dragonfly)

</comment><comment><USER141> Values are not about profits. They are about Innovation. Which fuels market share and has the intended result of increased profits.

The assumption that profits rule the world is a projection. Imo, Innovation rules the world.

<comment><USER142> "Innovation" is a buzzword. It's so context-dependent that the word by itself is almost meaningless.

Values as people understand them are usually about neither profit nor "innovation". It's about people, morality, and goals other than money.

<comment><USER141> It's a buzz word in marketing.

In strategy, there are 2 types of innovation

Incremental and Disruptive

Both types give organizations increased power over territory.

People are the blood of an organization. Ethics and people determine culture which determines goals.

Innovation is the strategic foothold for keeping an organization alive as it travels into the future.

EDIT: I want to add that all organizations (even non-business) need innovation. Civilizations, Empires, Protests, Support groups, Religious groups, etc... This is due to environments constantly changing. This is what Strategic Planners help with.

<comment><USER142> It's a buzzword in marketing, and it's a buzzword in corporate strategy. Or "soundbite", if you wish. It's not as if the latter was a hard science.

> _Incremental and Disruptive_

I'm guessing you're taking this from a particular philosophy, perhaps a particular known book. Even if the word makes sense in there, it's not necessarily how other people are using it.

For comparison, if you look at the first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on innovation, you'll find so much wiggle room in there that you could call every business "innovative".

<comment><USER141> Here's a book to introduce you to the domain "The Psychology of Innovation in Organizations"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER143> I don't see anyone above Staff level or many product/marketing/sales people in the signed letter. Are staff+ engineers, manageres and non-engineers at Google mostly supportive of Dragonfly?

</comment><comment><USER144> It is interesting to see the standard to which these big internet companies are being held lately. The mere fact that Google debated and waited many years before jumping into China with a censored search engine puts it into the top of the most ethical for-profit corporations to ever exist, in my book.

All this bad-will seems to come from their advertising business models, which I find is loudly criticized with rather thin arguments, given that these companies are often the only ones defending the users from the dirty tactics of advertisers (who get none of the blame). I've neve seen criticism of coca- cola for using Google's targeting abilities to its advantage and shove ads down our throats for money without a moral concern. And rightly so.

</comment><comment><USER64> While they're at it, why not protest the NSA dragnet? Somehow being compliant with China is terrible but monitoring millions of Americans through their searches doesn't call for any action?

</comment><comment><USER145> > Google's effort to create a censored search engine for the Chinese market > that enables state surveillance.

You mean Google's effort to break into a market that it's currently frozen out of.

<comment><USER146> I can't tell if you see that as a better or worse framing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER147> I find it ironic that these employees complain about an unethical search- engine project but have no issues stalking & violating the privacy of billions of people across the world.

<comment><USER148> Quite. For everyone who signed this I bet there are 100 salivating over what they could do in a country with no privacy concerns whatsoever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER149> You called us paranoid whacos when we blew the whistle on google and other tech companies becoming too big.

You made this bed. Now damn well lie in it, and think of England.

</comment><comment><USER150> Instead of comparing what chinese have to what westerns have today, try to compare what chinese have without Google to what chinese will have with Google.

</comment><comment><USER151> "This is why we're taking a stand."

By writing a Medium post? What about offering resignations?

I might be downvoted to hell but man... writing a post is not taking a stand.

</comment><comment><USER152> Do you Google Employees think that NSA isn't watching what we do? Mmm, it looks like China is evil so they can't do what USA can

</comment><comment><USER120> Uh, isn't a censored google the best way to do an A/B comparison to find the information China doesn't want its citizens to know?

</comment><comment><USER153> So 200 people signed, 50,000+ didn't sign...

</comment><comment><USER154> Why doesn't Google offer massive Tor services and related tools so the Chinese can use the regular version of Google search?

</comment><comment><USER155> Maybe engaging China is the first step to them opening up their society? Similar to the arguments against the Cuban embargo.

<comment><USER156> > Maybe engaging China is the first step to them opening up their society? > Similar to the arguments against the Cuban embargo.

No. Them "engaging China" will not open up Chinese society, because Google will have to implement the exact same censorship regime that all the other Chinese sites do.

The Chinese government doesn't give a shit about Google's prestige in the West. They'll kick it out the second it gives them a little lip or is non- compliant with their demands. Google has zero power to change anything for the better.

Also, China has discredited the idea that capitalist engagement will cause liberalization. They've shown that an autocratic regime can have its capitalist cake and eat it too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER157> First thing they will do is try to take the dialog "indoors" and it being Google that means some internal tool

</comment><comment><USER158> Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Google's leadership has a responsibility for doing what they think are best for the long term prospects of the company.

In the grand scheme of things, yet another censored search engine in China is not going to hurt anyone.

China can run their country however the hell they want. YOU may not agree with their values, but THEY might not agree with yours.

The irony is that Google is hardly known as a company that values free speech - look at what happened to James Damore.

</comment><comment><USER159> The market has to value values over profits for this to matter. For all the talk and hype, I don't see it (yet)...

</comment><comment><USER160> > *We will be updating this post with additional signatures as they come in.

As of a few moments ago the head count was 187 folks.

</comment><comment><USER161> And if it's created for China, it will sooner or later be used everywhere else. Like Cisco routers were.

</comment><comment><USER162> Are they really familiar with Chinese people? Really know what Chinese want? Cold-blooded Google SWEs.

</comment><comment><USER163> I think those Google enployees should take a step further and ask the US to stop trading with China.

</comment><comment><USER164> I presume they also don't use any chinese made electronics day to day in protest either

</comment><comment><USER165> I am also a Google employee. Dragonfly needs to happen, no matter what random SJWs say.

</comment><comment><USER166> So go work for someone else! :-)

OH, you're getting a huge salary from Google, you say? Aaaaaaaah.

</comment><comment><USER167> "Must" – or else? Will these employees quit & start a competitor?

</comment><comment><USER168> And this is why unionizing works. It's collective bargaining and it's not evil.

</comment><comment><USER52> I think it's about time for Google to change their 'mantra'.

</comment><comment><USER169> Ah, so /this/ is where these Googlers draw the line?

</comment><comment><USER170> Thank you, brave Google employees, for speaking out.

</comment><comment><USER171> Why choose Medium and not Blogger for this post?

</comment><comment><USER172> This is nonsense, they did not cry against PRISM like that. Ohwait, they did not know at all, until Snowden told everyone. So STFU Googlers, precentant has been set already.

</comment><comment><USER120> Why is having a censored google to easily compare with uncensored google a bad thing?

The danger isn't simply that censorship exists, it's that we won't be able to tell what was censored.

</comment><comment><USER173> phew, I thought it was referring to the BSD!

</comment><comment><USER174> 60 signatures, 88,000 employees :(

<comment><USER131> Now 91, > 0.1%.

I'd be curious to hear what people think a reasonable target is, 1%?

</comment></comment><comment><USER175> Only two directors signed this.

</comment><comment><USER176> No one from the business.

</comment><comment><USER177> Why not quit in protest?

</comment><comment><USER178> It might be interesting to hear the answer Eric Schmidt himself gave to the question: "Is Google willing to accept internet censorship to enter China?" here: [https://youtu.be/3tNpYpcU5s4?t=4296](https://youtu.be/3tNpYpcU5s4?t=4296).

TL;DR: He said no.

<comment><USER179> Actions speak, words don't.

(I find I had to update the old aphorism for the late 20th and 21st century. After centuries of studies on how to use words to manipulate people, words are now simply nearly useless and while I'm human and I can't claim total success, I try to just ignore them now. )

<comment><USER178> Sure, mine wasn't an attempt at refuting what's happening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER180> This would be more credible coming from shareholders rather than employees.

</comment><comment><USER181> I morally judge (not condemn) people who work at Google. If you can get a job at Google, you can get a job almost anywhere. There is tons of great work out there for you. People who work at Google are choosing to aid in the suppression of human freedom.

<comment><USER52> >> People who work at Google are choosing to aid in the suppression of human freedom.

The fact that there's a large number of employees who signed this document provides great evidence to contradict this claim.

It's kind of a blanket statement - I'm sure a bunch of the folks here on HN work at Google and are trying to do exactly the opposite.

Heck, some of the people who signed off on this document could be HN'ers!

You can sometimes change a corrupt system from the inside. It takes a lot of work and dedication and it certainly doesn't always work out - but it's a choice some people make. It certainly isn't mine! :)

<comment><USER182> I would also like to add that companies encouraging freedom of speech internally to a level that makes such protests possible are exceedingly rare.

In most companies employees have no freedom of speech unless unionized and not even then. And protesting against projects based on moral principles publicly is a sure way to get you fired.

<comment><USER142> Don't forget the Damore case. Regardless of people's views on content of his memo, this was a case of Google essentially baiting an employee to express their honest views _on internal forum_ , and then firing them for not agreeing with the prescribed party line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER120> But when the state was the US and the data it was trying to censor was from Wikileaks, Google (Schmidt) adopted a right wing stance and offered no help, and openly criticized Wikileaks like one would expect a defense contractor to do.

This absurd righteous indignation about China censorship is unbelievably hypocritical considering that nobody at Google tried to help Wikileaks shed light on US Government crimes.

</comment><comment><USER183> > MRAP's are for combat, not police work

While they were designed for combat, they are effectively the same thing that Brinks uses to transport money. They are meant to stop bad things from killing the people inside. They have 0 offensive weapons.

They are entirely defensive vehicles that have been used to rescue downed officers, civilians in harms way (gunfire), and multiple times in natural disasters where other vehicles would have gotten stuck.

While I get that they "look scary" to some people, they do have utility and come very cheap from the federal government that is trying to get them off their books. Local police pick them up because when there is a gunfight/hostage situation/disaster it's better to have one 5 mins away than an hour away.

I honestly don't get the outrage about them.

<comment><USER184> They are not the same thing as a standard armored truck. The name itself gives that away (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected). Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles.

MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs. The simple fact that they are former military vehicles contributes to the military mindset of many police depts, something that should be avoided. Militarization of police forces is bad for citizens.

<comment><USER183> > Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles.

Serious eye roll here. You're discarding all of the other capabilities and suggesting that because it is ALSO mine resistant it must be bad.

> MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs.

That's assuming they are used all the time. Most departments have them parked at their HQs and only use them for call outs or training. Regular maintenance wouldn't reach the same levels of cost as buying a bearcat + maintaining that. Also as more depts get them, the maintenance costs will go down (excluding the OP comment here's area).

> contributes to the military mindset of many police depts

While I generally agree with that notion, I would much rather them buy the cheaper milsurp vehicle with more capability than buy one from Lenco, or not buy one at all and have to wait an hour during an active shooter.

<comment><USER185> Why do Americans seem to do everything they can about people with guns, except take away their guns?

<comment><USER183> Because we have a constitutional right to said guns so we don't take removing them lightly. That said if someone has any history of violence, crime, or mental disorder I'm 100% in favor of removing access to weapons.

<comment><USER186> There was no Constitutional right to carry a gun- or to own a gun- until 2005, and the 2005 Heller decision only covered keeping handguns in the home. Exactly how far the right extends beyond that is very much not settled law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER170> If you think that denying information to Chinese people because their Orwellian government demands it is the same as the stone you use to grind your obviously conservative axe on, you may need to pause and think a bit more on it.

<comment><USER94> Labeling someone's thoughtful arguments ('conservative') serves only to invalidate those arguments via an appeal to emotion or an association fallacy.

<comment><USER187> What's especially funny is that in 2018, the red scare is 'liberal' and wanting to work with the Chinese is 'conservative'.

<comment><USER188> The more things change the more things stay the same

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER189> More comment traction at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18542597](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18542597) that links to a story that adds more context around the Medium posted letter.

</comment><comment><USER190> Obviously Google doesn't place values over profits. Let's be brutally honest here. Nor do the employees.

Are the employees that make $200,000/year donating the extra income to those in need or are they buying things to engage in lifestyle inflation like most people? Are they going to quit Google and work for a non-profit?

</comment><comment><USER191> I deleted Youtube, maps, chrome, hangouts, sheets, docs, drive, Authenticator and nearly every other G app from my phone, fuck this shit.... working on migrating gmail. That's a hassle tbh, but I've only raised my Google alert status from "Don't be evil"

To "Experimenting with Evil", so we're not full blown Orwell yet.

</comment><comment><USER192> I say google should go for it. If they don't build it, someone else will. If a lot of people start using the tool, google will have a lot of influence to actually make change happen.

</comment><comment><USER193> Why was this purged from HN's front page?

</comment><comment><USER194> Its nice to see so many opening in high level positions

</comment><comment><USER57> Censorship has its uses. I often open these China threads on HN just to add users to my cosmetic filter.

<comment><USER195> Can you provide more details regarding your cosmetic filter and why posters from a post on China would be good candidates? It's not clear to me from your post.

<comment><USER57> I'm not a programmer, I'm an academic. Topics in my academic specialty routinely get posted on HN. When they do, I browse the comments section, look for users who exhibit many signs of lacking rigor and/or intellectual honesty, and add to my filter accordingly, on the grounds that their opinions on programming topics are probably not worth reading either.

I'm also a Chinese person. China matters is like an extra AOS for me and so I apply cosmetic filters for the same reasons

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER196> I also feel like they've changed search so much for profit purposes that it's impossible to find certain things without receiving pages of irrelevance. I've been using Google since the early 2000's and it's so easy to tell Search has dropped in quality. Certain words & phrases I know would produce legitimate useful search results in 2008 will now just pull pages of unrelated ads.

It's still the best, but the profit motive is harming the amazing work that Google once did.

<comment><USER197> examples please

<comment><USER198> Not OP, and not sure this is what OP's talking about, but I have examples.

First, anything piracy related. Previously you could search something like "albumname zip rar torrent" and get vast lists of downloads. It's unclear whether the presence of scam links or the illegality of filesharing prompted the removal of valid results for this class of searches, but it's nonetheless true that this type of search returned useful results in the past and is now fully, intentionally, and obviously nerfed.

Second, the filtering GUI for searches has degraded over time. Timeboxing and verbatim searches will negate one another when trying to build some queries. I brought this to the team's attention [1] and received a response last June, and it's still broken as of last week. Attempting to bypass the GUI by combining the desired URL params from two searches also yielded broken results, IIRC.

Google's search is in many ways improved since 2008, but it's also worse in some ways. Subjectively, it feels that in the last decade, search has transitioned from "show me what is on the internet, limited by the power of our algorithms" into something more like "show me what is on the internet, limited by the overton window[2] of our legal, PR, and advertiser-relations departments".

I liken google's transition, in search and elsewhere, to apple's. As they've grown, their customer base has changed from "small number of hackers" to "large number of laymen" and the preferences and tolerances of those groups shifts in a way that causes these products to be less useful for the HN crowd. One of the core shifts is away from "build abstractions to wrangle reality in custom ways" to "build abstractions that obscure reality in convenient ways".

I don't have the answers here. It seems that if you want your reality to be unbounded by such filters, you're doomed to be some kind of hacker/pirate/outlaw/non-normie.

[1] [https://twitter.com/riiiiiiiikk/status/1012859335095959552](https://twitter.com/riiiiiiiikk/status/1012859335095959552)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)

<comment><USER199> >search has transitioned from "show me what is on the internet, limited by the power of our algorithms" into something more like "show me what is on the internet, limited by the overton window[2] of our legal, PR, and advertiser- relations departments".

I'd say it has gone full; "Show me what your advertisers and other sources of income, would like someone like me to find on the internet."

<comment><USER200> I've realized the same thing. Do you have any google search alternatives?

<comment><USER199> Using bookmarks to record useful list sites, same as I did before search engines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER201> Google has been the equivalent of an IT Gulag for a long time. I always pitied the poor souls working there thinking they've racked up some sort of prestige. Not worth the 7000 days in Siberia.

<comment><USER202> And the funny thing, it's not easy to get in there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER203> I know it at least since the 2008 crisis. Google made a choice, manipulate search results /display on page to stop sending as less visitors as possible to non-Google sites.

<comment><USER204> I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, but as someone who's used Google since back when it had a bunch of serious competitors, I'd also pick 2008-2010 as about the time they stopped even appearing to match words with actions and became just another company, from an outside perspective, at least. It surprises me that people are just now forming this opinion about them.

Perhaps not coincidentally that's about when the fundamentally-a-bad-idea service of Facebook started to get huge as it grew past college campuses, and showed it was really easy—like, incredibly easy—to convince all these new Internet users to give strangers tons of information about themselves, in gross violation of previous Internet norms of avoiding posting personal info anywhere, and that one could make stupid amounts of money by facilitating these poor choices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER205> Is it not inevitable that where the ethical Code sees Injustice the corporate bottom line sees a dollar sign? I believe the correct avenue of approach for this type of issue is to offer an alternative. Simply telling your higher-ups to stay out of the market is not going to be sustainable. And given that you all work at Google, I expect there are many alternatives you could come up with. Such as banking on Google scholar to help bridge misunderstandings with China. Google is an advertising company and asking Google to not show ads to billions of Chinese people is like asking a shark to go vegan. The ethical imperative is not a part of the reward system that the corporate algorithm known as Google optimizes for. If you really want to change Google's core mission you must change what is positively reinforced. However it seems like any capitalist endeavor aimed at the Chinese market must first be subservient to that bright red flag. China is well aware of this and doesn't care if Google doesn't have a market share. Google, seen as a foreign company, also doesn't get any special perks or connections in China. At any rate, there are plenty of untaken letters in the alphabet, I'm sure the higher-ups will find one that will suit the purpose of a censored search engine. I'm sorry to seem dismal in my analysis but a Google employee who is fed by advertising dollars must also understand that the party wants to control entirely what people see hear and think. Google doesn't have to provide this functionality, plenty of other firms will and are already. I think what would make a bigger difference is asking Google to acquire Chinese companies and slowly unfold them from the inside out. I would be cautious about mixing volatile compounds such as Chinese information technology and a global tech giant, and I think efforts of both the higher-ups and the upset employees would be better aimed at ending censorship, instead of asking the bear to avoid some incredibly tempting honey. Currently the big G believes that doing the right thing must involve a dollar sign. However the argument can be made that the purity of the franchise is at stake. Of course like most big companies, you can always make two versions of something and sell the upgrade. For example that could be a censored version in China but magically with a certain USB key other results get through. But even with something that sly and sleuthy, I don't understand why Google would want to control opinion in China. The party is in the business of controlling opinion. It's like the Jesuits going to Japan and greeting the shogunate with the Bible, explaining that the character of the Bible was even higher than the Shogun. Naturally this did not sit well with the Shogun. So began a long period of ostracization and casting out of Christians in Japan. Google makes hardware, it's not like Google isn't in China, but if Google wants to get into the rich multimedia aspects of a Chinese person's everyday life, it will either be through government certified hardware, or otherwise attained hardware and software. the biggest challenge is that the network is entirely controlled by the party. Honestly though, de- censorship of a large area of China for a long enough period of time would probably have real life sociodynamic consequences. In short instead of chanting "Chinese money is no good here" how about you start chanting "mesh networks that circumvent centralized data storage for all"? As long as the party controls the network you must play by their rules. So why don't we have a fully mesh distributed decentralized internet yet? It is almost 2019, do you know where your bits are?

</comment><comment><USER206> They (google employees) enable capitalization and market of leaky personal data made more leaky through browser and protocol but put a brave face on something overt like this?

</comment><comment><USER120> It's shameful that google employees supported google's attacks on Wikileaks but now find so much righteous indignation when the state that doesn't want secrets out is China. Wow.

</comment><comment><USER207> That's nice that the kids are standing up for something (that's unlikely to affect them, of course). But I would be far more impressed if they stood up against something closer to home, like personalized search results, dark patterns to make sure they monitor you, or monitoring whether you agreed to it or not, misuse of private data, creation of filter bubbles etc. etc. But that might actually affect their paychecks, so no, can't have that.

</comment><comment><USER208> So, 36 people (at present, anyway) sign a letter. What in the flying frig is that actually supposed to accomplish? There's nothing really actionable here; you've got the nothingness of "that leadership commit to transparency, clear communication, and real accountability."

Are these people going to actually do anything - quit in protest, sabotage, what? No, they are going to whine, and keep drawing their very lucrative salaries and benefits. Put up or shut up.

<comment><USER209> "So friggin what? One black lady refuses to give her seat up on a bus to a white person? Is she really actually going to do anything?"

<comment><USER208> She did actually _do_ something, and engage in an act of civil disobedience, and get arrested. Not sign a mildly written letter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER166> OH these fresh young naive minds, who think censorship never happens. Censorship happens ALL THE TIME. The Radio, TV, and Film industries in the USA - they have all been censored, from the very beginning.[1] So it was self- censorship at the behest of the government. What's the difference? Censorship is all around us.

Americans self-censor tits and genitals, Europeans self-censor violence. Censorship is everywhere.

I think this whole discussion is extremely naive.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Rise-Information- Empire...](https://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Rise-Information- Empires/dp/0307390993)

<comment><USER209> I find the way you phrase this super-alienating. If anything, it pushes me away from your cause.

1\. Comes across as ad-hominem

2\. Comes across as emotional/pedantic

3\. For example, yes "pornography" is censored on broadcast TV, but many other things aren't. There are obviously degrees of censorship.

4\. If your goal is to convince people that things are more censored than they realize you might want to cite some real world examples of political censorship that happened in America that support that point.

5\. Your whole comment is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Regardless of whether censorship is common or uncommon in the US, it's still meaningful to take a stance against creating a politically-censored search in China.

<comment><USER57> I don't think the user you are responding intends his comment to be putting forward some watertight argument. It sounds light-hearted to me. It's puzzling to me that you'd pick on this one particular comment to produce a detailed, five-point rebuttal in a thread like this one where there are so many other more important targets to go after.

<comment><USER209> I think I understand where you're coming from.

Here's my motivation - I think there are actually some pretty scary problems out there. However, I think it is possible to talk about an important issue in a way so emotional that it actually backfires and creates a negative impression of those who care about an issue.

For example, Alex Jones is right to lament the pesticide atrazine that changes frogs sexes [1], but by virtue of being Alex Jones actually may look a wider swath of environmentally-conscious look somewhat unreliable by association.

Another example is Al Gore: even though he had an important message on climate change his manner was so distasteful that it's hard to argue he helped the cause.

When I see someone who agrees with my beliefs but comes across as hysterical I try to metaphorically "hold a mirror up" so they can learn to phrase their message in a way that won't drive people away.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians)

<comment><USER57> Ah! My bad for not realizing that. I would only add that those who give so much weight to tone/delivery heuristics are also to blame. But I see your point, I feel similarly frustrated sometimes and I can definitely imagine myself acting the same way you did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER210> They should volunteer to give up some of their generous benefits to offset the lost revenue from Dragonfly.

<comment><USER205> If only giving up salary was equivalent to serving more ads. I get paid by serving ads so by actively not serving ads they actively not get paid. On top of that offering some of what you do get paid to make up the difference leads to zero quickly. I do agree with you in principle, more alternatives should have been offered if they really wanted to catch someone's ear in upper management</comment></comment>