[rvz]

Right. So why haven't they gotten rid of Google as a sponsor then given that they also hold contracts with multiple governments, militaries and especially one contract with the Pentagon in the US on top of aiding their surveillance programmes?

[danpalmer]

(Biased, I work at Google), but I think there's a material difference between what Google does (as I understand it, from public info) – providing infrastructure services on Google Cloud, as all the major cloud providers do, or providing customer support for cloud workloads – and building defence related technology. To my knowledge Google and the other big tech companies aren't building application directly for offence/defence. It seems this company might be.

I would never work at a company that designs and builds missiles or fighter jets, but I would work at a cloud provider that provides infrastructure that is used to design missiles or fighter jets, in the same way that I would work at a telecoms company that provides the phone systems to a defence contractor.

Being one level removed, and providing "neutral" services, is a substantial difference for me, and I suspect for most people.

[skinkestek]

For what it is worth I would much rather work for parts of western defense industry than for Google.

I'd be overjoyed to help create the tools to drive the invaders out of Ukraine for example, but not so much to try to finally kill the rest of the browser market or to serve shady ads.

Yes, while I am not exaggerating I am probably a bit one sided here - I know there are parts of Google that I have nothing against like GCP - but I am serious: Much rather work for the military than Google.

[danpalmer]

Yeah we all have our own moral positions on these things. I wouldn't want to work for a hedge fund, but many people do. A friend of mine turned down a university project from a hedge fund, but went to work at a defence contractor after university. I personally disagree with your characterisation of Google, but again this is all based on opinion.

[olix0r]

> To my knowledge Google and the other big tech companies aren't building application directly for offence/defence.

Actually there was a big uproar about exactly this several years ago https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/07/google-ai...

[danpalmer]

From reading that article it pretty much aligns with what I was saying. The US DoD used a Google technology that is not defence specific or designed for defence applications, like them running their servers on Google Cloud, or using Microsoft for their email or something. I think that's materially different to designing missiles/etc.

[arthurcolle]

> To my knowledge Google and the other big tech companies aren't building application directly for offence/defence.

Project Maven? Dragonfly?

[delroth]

Both dropped after very significant internal outcry, even though they'd have objectively been very profitable ventures for Google.

[danpalmer]

Project Maven looks exactly like the cloud services thing I was talking about. I'm only going on what I can read in public online news sources though. Dragonfly looks a bit different, I'm not super familiar, but it seems it was shut down anyway?

[naasking]

Should they drop power companies and internet service providers too? How many hops away from direct responsibility is enough for moral purity? I think only one hop should do.