I think the implication is that their moral compass was disregarded or non-existent until they gained their independence. Therefore not worthy of serious consideration.
People who don't ever consider or speak of morals or ethics are beside the point.
This kind of assumes that Google hasn't been progressively testing how far it can go to secure big contracts.
Over a 10+ year period it dropped the do no evil part, it implemented code siloes claiming it was because of Waymo's code being stolen, it prevented a union from being formed, it got into military and genocidal contracts.
I don't think it's the nice place to work at it was in the 2000s and early 2010s where the worst moral offence was advertising though a monopoly
"being financially independent" is a state and a "moral compass" is a function or tool. Two different concepts like red and tomato or yesterday and cold.
> Being financially independent is the moral compass of the financially independent.
I mean, I think you meant it somewhat derisively (if not, apologies), but it's absolutely true. I work for two reasons: it gives me a higher quality of living and it anchors my life by creating structure.
I could choose to not work and be very frugal and probably be ok. But I might have to re-enter the job market later in life due to rising costs after my skills have atrophied (been there, it's horrible; no one will consider you). Or I can make certain that when the day comes that I'm ready to be done, it's at a time when making it to death without financial hardship has a much higher probability. I can also afford to enjoy nice things rather than pinching pennies.
I also know that I have a tendency to spin out if I have too much free time and not enough going with routine and a sense of contributing. Combined with the above, this means I am free to work where I want to work, doing the absolute easiest thing I can find that I still consider rewarding. I don't have to chase money or promotions (I want as little responsibility as possible).
I can walk away tomorrow if my org does something I consider unethical. I can hold out for a position that meets the above criteria rather than taking the first job I see because of desperation. When my previous employer had layoffs, I was able to remain comfortable for six months while only applying to jobs I genuinely wanted.
There's no amount of money that a Meta, Google, OpenAI, etc could offer me because even though it'd be nice to own a house in the Bay Area, I'm satisfied renting until death and don't need more than the very nice spacious home I've already got. I hit the jackpot and I'm grateful every day.
However its the statement that "Google lost its moral compass" has never really been true.
Its pretty clear at this point that companies solely respond to economic tides, which are governed by what people truly want. And Id argue that people in general have lost their moral compass (in the sense of how they vote, in politics and with their wallet, not what they say)
Look I understand he didnt give up on every good thing in life following his principles. But how many people actually resigned and wrote their reasons why?
It at least gets circulated and discussed. Even at Google I'd assume people who have the privilege, seriously thought of leaving or way better if someone knows something really shady is going on, whistleblowing.
The thing is sure you are right, but if I started living my life "I cant ever say or have principles and act based on them, because about 25 years ago I broke one so now its not allowed" then, that surely, would ruin my life and if everybody did society and wouldn't these companies love that? When we all give up so easy? Aren't the companies the first that go on sexual harassment allegations with "if this was going on for years, why you coming out now, huh? Ncncnc".
So my point is, its still appreciated. Lets work with reality and not that idealistic version of society where only the perfect people can decide our ethical directions because they dont exist and we will fall into the dark.
Yeah, it's wild to be writing a post like this in June 2026. Even if he thought Google was somehow still salvageable, how did he justify staying there after Google immediately bent the knee to Trump with the $1 million bribe a year and a half ago?
I actually did this. And that's why I feel confident calling out people like the guy in the article who enjoyed the upside and then do this performative cringe.
I quit my job working for oil and gas companies, and taught myself how to code and then worked at a company that actually made non-asshole software that went on to IPO so things worked out.
I didn't choose to help oil and gas companies, the company I worked for had them as customers so the work I did helped oil and gas. I chose to give up the money and do something else.
So I don't give a fuck about downvotes. I actually lived it, and I don't give a fuck anymore either to call people out.
I mean, it is quite obvious for years that Google is now classical immoral tech corporation, which now means current administration servant. They changed their code of conduct in 2018 along with they “Don’t be evil” to “Do the right thing” because world is not "black and white". This obvious shift into moral ambiguity with then changed code of conduct should signal the shift in policy. Eight years ago. Not even mentioning their actions.
This is not about "believing in anything" other than a stable job and money. I respect the author that he felt this moral tradeoff was enough.
I'm afraid, we cannot expect anything else from every publicly owned company, because sadly, it's in human nature to be selfish if you are not the one who suffers from your actions.
"And remember... don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!"
Sorry this is one of those things that bugs me - but "don't be evil" was never removed from their code of conduct. It's placement was moved though from the start to the end, and you could argue whether it's less important because of that if you want.. but it is still there.