[zerobees]

Right. I have respect for Rene, but going by the "HN quitting manifestos" like this, Google has lost its moral compass at least 50 times at various points in the last 20 years.

The company is constantly changing, but also hasn't changed all that much. It always talked the talk and was eager to tell others how to behave, but was almost never willing to give up any real revenue to do the right thing. The usual justification was that if Google doesn't do it, someone else will (and that someone else is obviously not as moral as Googlers are).

If you're old enough, you might remember that they vocally opposed privacy-violating, disruptive display ads. That was their whole schtick. But that was before they realized there's a lot of money to be made by acquiring Doubleclick.

[pjjpo]

At this point I assume anyone with more than five years at Google is morally bankrupt to at least some degree. I don't want to paint them as bad people or anything but can't find better words for it - it's so obvious that if you stick around, you are accepting it and likely contributing to some degree. People I still talk to are generally honest about accepting it. I wonder if they will all reneg with this sort of quitting post when the time comes.

[mancerayder]

I think you're coming from a privileged position - finding a job is extremely hard*, and if someone stayed somewhere that paid well then it's a bit extreme to say they're "bankrupt" morally. Alternatives are finance, ad tech, big consulting, etc. Are YOU working for a non profit?

* For us, maybe not for you.

[rsync]

It is possible to work in technology and not contribute to the moral bankruptcy that your parent refers to.

[vlan0]

>Are YOU working for a non profit?

yes....it was the "least evil" choice

[allarm]

Are you seriously suggesting that someone with Google listed on their resume would have a hard time finding a job?? Pathetic.

[neves]

I when they thought it was unethical to disguise an ad as search result.

[hunterpayne]

Agreed, the Google the author described arriving at probably didn't exist in 2017 like stated. It probably was dead by then. But since the author agreed with the politics at the time, they ignored this. Now that things continued to degrade and political winds changed and they have to deal with the negative consequences of some of those decisions, they are taking their ball and going home.

Its really hard to take such articles seriously. Its borderline gaslighting and says a lot more about the author than Google or US politics. In fact, even though I have no idea who this person is, I don't have a good opinion of them after reading this. And that ironically was the exact opposite of the intended effect of writing this for the author.

[watwut]

> Now that things continued to degrade and political winds changed

It is not hypocrisy at all to change opinion on the company as the company politics changes. That is actually "being consistent".

Being ok with some things and being against other things is perfectly fine and valid.

[mempko]

Why do you have respect for Rene?

[GlacierFox]

He doesn't. People start off with that when they're scared of voicing their actual opinion and it softens whatever they have to say a touch.

[zerobees]

I do. I'm familiar with his research from the pre-Google era, and that's that.

[hunterpayne]

Or it could be that they want to give people they don't know the benefit of the doubt. I don't really consider it a sign of good character to not do this and the vast majority of people would too. That you didn't even consider it...

[ThunderSizzle]

Like a compliment sandwich or something.

[ryukoposting]

Welcome to Silicon Valley. We fuck up the environment, we tear apart the fabric of democracy to line shareholders' pockets, and we knowingly build the modern tools of fascist oppression. But look at us! We elected a progressive Democrat!