However, I also think if you're employed somewhere there are reasonable expectations as far as workplace behavior goes that would prohibit the same "protest" or "civil disobedience" type behavior.

It is interesting that the protestor immediately declares that they don't wan to work for such a company. It sorta begs the question of "Then why do you?". It seems like their choice is obvious.

> One employee asked about Gemini's bias. Specifically, the person wrote that when asking Gemini, "Do women in Gaza deserve human rights?" the chatbot didn't have a response and directed the user to try Google search. But when the employee asked the same question of women in France, Gemini answered "Absolutely," followed by multiple bullet points backing up the assertion.

> CNBC replicated the search Thursday afternoon and found the same results.

Dreadful.

Works at Google and says he *refuses to build technology that enables surveillance*!? Who do you think you've been working for?

I find this viewpoint astonishing personally, but that might have to do with my upbringing and cultural background.

Bet you will find that clause, a clause often with no title but commonly referred to as the "moral clause" (or behavior code or morality clause or even "bad boy clause") that is embedded (often claimed by so-call-victims as "hidden") somewhere in the middle of your lengthy employment contract.

At any rate, you cannot say you weren't warned.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals_clause

There are some issues that are worth speaking up about. There are some issues that are worth being fired over.

I don't know what the answer is, and I appreciate the urgency of feeling that causes people to protest, but at this point I'm pretty sure most protest gestures do little other than feed the tribal vortex at the heart of the hurricane, especially the farther away from any actual leverage points on the dynamic that they are. And an Israeli tech exec existing and doing tech exec things is probably not close to a leverage point, nor is protesting them doing tech exec things doing anything worth levering.

Expecting a company to kowtow to your belief system betrays a conceited/pretentious view of the world around you. If you don't like the job, leave it.

Rightfully so. Name me the big tech company who wouldn't fire such an employee instantly.

Sometimes I get so frustrated by the one-sidedness of so much of our news. I try to read at least one article a day which opposes my worldview with an open mind, just to keep myself balanced.

Lately I feel like it's color war, with more details omitted on both sides than are written. I feel like I'm standing in the supermarket isle reading the tabloids, and that is all there is to read.

/endrant

Could anyone point me to a site that offers relatively short articles, lots of facts and minimal hyperbole, and which represents all sides of an issue - not necessarily the middle [since I don't think it is possible to truly be impartial], but something that will give fair representation to both sides [you could have a staff that includes, say, liberals and conservatives]?

While I was there, multiple Googlers actively reached out to me and other Arabs and asked them "Do you support Hamas?" These also weren't just low-level employees either. I had these experiences from software developers all the way to managers and HR people.

These employees that did that are still employed at Google despite the complaints. Multiple Arab and Palestianian coworkers of mine have also left Google since then.

Businesses that live and breathe billions do not care and any attempt to cave into employee demands, then the investors will move in and force it through their changes. (Especially public companies)

Seriously, it's as simple as that. We are here to work, not philosophize about politics and current events.

Write an open letter with signatures of many of your colleagues, or in extreme cases organize a walk-out or a strike in protest. Don't disrupt a meeting by yelling that you refuse to do your job, especially when it seems the meeting had nothing at all to do with the war and it was just that the presenter was Israeli and working in Israel... that's not so much a protest and more just racist.

You work in tech, probably in silicon valley. It was created by the department of defense.

What some employees haven't quite learned yet is how to read between the lines. They are certain topics which are ok to protest and be vocal about, but others, are not, like unions or this case. To be safe, it's better to think of "bring your whole self to work" as a gullibility trap. It may not be that, but effectively it will function as such. It catches the naive troublemakers so later on they can be filtered out.

I suspect, though, that in most companies the employees already know what would happen, and would not do things like that - first, because they don't feel entitled using the company's resources for personal goals, and second - because the consequences may be too heavy for them. But in Google, one probably can be both rich enough already to be fired and not sweat about it too much, and entitled enough to feel like something like this is the right thing to do.

Those who are educated are more able to clearly understand the consequences of their actions or inactions and understand lack of solidarity for others means lack of solidarity for yourself.

The purpose of liberal education is to teach people how to critically think and build a world that they themselves would like to live in, so when a liberally educated ambitious person realizes that they are contributing to building a lesser world it becomes problematic and they correctly feel a need to take responsibility for building a better future.

Add in a legacy of declaring that "don't be evil" is a founding principle and you are going to find people being pretty upset about being lured in with promises of social responsibility and like-minded peers, only to find an ethically devoid pursuit of next quarters profit that can be found at nearly any company in America.

In this example we have one person, that might be telling.

So while it might be a problem, I'm not sure how widespread it is.

He could have left quietly, but he decided to take a personal hit to bring awareness to the issue. That makes him a hero in my eyes.

At my previous company, at an offsite retreat, one of the guys got drunk and started chewing out the company's founders and the main office manager. Sure enough, he was fired by the time the retreat was over, and was never seen in the office again. A similar thing happened to someone who had a huge blowout argument and emailed the entire company his manifesto (of sorts).

I think this is important to reiterate. Because forces us to pay close attention to the details. There are extremely reasonable justifications for both sides because both sides have committed atrocities. This conflict goes a long way back and I'm in no position to claim who started it. But I can recognize that one atrocity does not justify another. I can recognize that justifying or dismissing the committing of an atrocity only further enables the conflict. Whichever side you land on, if you do not take a highly nuanced approach you are only further enabling conflict. For that's a key reason the conflict continues today. War always includes psychological warfare because you have to convince humans to do the inhumane. There is no such thing as a righteous war.

   War isn’t Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.
   There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them — little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.
   - [0] 

How can these two thoughts go together? Either its a horrible "ethnostate" or its a reasonable construct due to Jews special history.

Makes 0 sense for us to take sides in this conflict.

Hamas had twenty years to become a government. It was uninterested in doing so. Israel is not the genocidal agent here.

Why is one a humanitarian tragedy but the other an unnacceptable attack. You're trying to absolve Israel of its role in the killing of 30,000 civilians over 5 months, to the condemnation of the entire world.

Israel is not entitled to kill civilians under any circumstances, not even if Hamas makes it hard to attack Hamas directly. If you look at the statements of Israeli leaders, it is clear that the killing of Palestinians is intentional [1]. As has been the long policy of apartheid and annexation of the West bank (where, you might remember, there is no Hamas).

Finally, to be clear the protest is of a Google exec by a Google employee over a google policy/contract which is part of the IDF's murderous policy.

[1] https://isitgenocide.com/

I personally have felt a bit more optimistic about the long term future.

Coming of age in post 9/11 America and going from the warm embrace of playing my Nintendo 64 everyday to seeing regular people go full on hate for people like me was a depressing era that I thought would never end. It certainly shaped how I view myself as a human. I guess you can say the haters got to me. A lot of things I aspired to in middle school completely ended in high school because of this self-hate.

I felt renewed hope during the Obama years in college but never really shook off this feeling. After all long term damage was already done regarding the path I took in life.

When Trump got elected, I felt all depressed all over again because all those terrible people came right back out of the shadows yet again but I eventually realized (finally) that I cannot keep letting this affect me. I had to focus on how lucky I am to have what I have and do the best I can.

When this attack happened, I thought oh no not again. Overnight all those people came out of the shadows yet again. But this time I saw something amazing. I saw countless numbers of people organizing against the Israeli siege: all over the world including the US. My initial thought was this is just a temporary blip and people will get tired and move on. Nope: protests continued even in the US which I was sure would just move on from caring about Muslims. It sometimes feels like the US will not come to the defense of Muslims like they would other groups. We see it in the favorability polling. But these protests: I have seen first hand, how this has really scared a lot of those people that normally come out of the shadows. The first time I have seen this in my life.

Now the protests are being dismissed as if they are nothing. Attempts are being made to silence any avenue they use to communicate. Meta platforms were already blocking this stuff, they deployed the standard bucket of tricks to silent dissent on Youtube and Reddit(thank god for HN) and now the potential banning of the 400lb gorilla in the room: Tiktok. This tool of potential Chinese propaganda helped serve a useful purpose: it amplified conversations that are normally taboo in the US.

So going back to why I feel a bit optimistic? Well I believe this is a signature event for Millennials and especially Gen Z. Gen Z is a generation that grew up with so many problems thrown in their faces (the mental illness caused by smartphones, graduating into a terrible job market, no prospects of owning property, having to live to see climate change etc.)

As a result they started out of the gate super pessimistic about the powers that be. I saw the unbelievable boost in Bernie Sanders's candidacy thanks the the efforts of these people. We really could be seeing a future Gen Z president who is in one of these pro-Palestinian protests.

Lets not even get into Gen-Alpha. They are on track to be the first majority non-white generation in America. How will that affect their world views?

Meanwhile where is Israel? This country that has continually gotten the benefit of the doubt my entire life has severely damaged its reputation in the eyes of young people world wide. The people that are about to take power. At the same time, they can't even get their own house in order regarding their government. This attack has proven that despite their supposed brilliance in war technology (Unit 8200, Stuxnet, etc.) they can really mess up and look like a bunch of dopes shattering the image that they are invincible.

In all Israel is trying to hold together by pushing back against "political" entropy, at some point given all the things that have transpired, entropy will win. How long will it take? Who knows. But I don't think you can make young people "unlearn" their views on Israel at this point and thats the challenge groups like AIPAC are going to have to face.

Now I do want to give an opposite view: That this is indeed a flash in the pan

Here is Noah Smith's recent article on how both the far right and far left are dying.

[1]: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/getting-past-the-2010s

>"I think this is part of the reason progressives are turning more and more toward Palestine as their single overarching cause. The extremist types who dominate progressive groups after “evaporative cooling” has removed the moderates are more likely to be leftist types, who see all political action as falling under one unifying anti-Western decolonial revolutionary struggle. And with general enthusiasm on the wane, activist groups are looking for something that can restore the free-flowing rage from which they drew their energy in the 2010s.

>And if you’re going to unite around a single cause, I suppose Palestine isn’t such a bad choice. Israel’s war in Gaza has been undeniably brutal — not a real genocide, but similar to Bashar al-Assad’s bloody indiscriminate crushing of rebellious provinces in Syria. Hamas is evil, but that doesn’t mean tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians need to die. And support for Palestine gets massive amounts of support and attention from foreigners on social media, boosting online engagement — which might encourage more Americans to be activists.

>The problem here is that as with every progressive activist cause, activist movements are embracing the most extreme possible position. Instead of simply calling for a cease-fire, many, like Aaron Bushnell, demand the destruction of Israel. Whereas a normal liberal might use the term “apartheid” to refer to Israel’s disgraceful treatment of West Bank Palestinians, progressives increasingly use the word to mean the very existence of the state of Israel. And when they call for “decolonization”, progressives increasingly mean the mass expulsion of Israelis from the region.

>That is not a position that the U.S. — or other powerful countries — are ever going to support. Staking out this extreme position might seem to reduce the risk that the issue will be solved anytime soon — even if Israel stops its war, progressive activists can keep on marching for Palestine as long as Israel continues to exist. But ultimately that will drain the moral force from the progressive position, causing the activist base to shrink even further."

Frankly I dont know really know how the wind will end up blowing but lets all see what happens.

When Nestle tries to hook babies to a baby formula in order to exploit their parents for profit, that's not Nestle doing it - it's the workers at Nestle doing it. The legal ecosystem might or might not hold these people responsible depending on the jurisdiction but that doesn't change who is actually choosing to do it or not.

It is also nothing wrong with attempting to influence the actions of these people and its also normal to get fired for this. Even if you fail to influence those people, in retrospect you elevate the chances for these people to be deeply ashamed of and insulated from the society because of their choices. You can at least deny them the privilege of going around, giving speeches and get applause at the age when they have all the money they need and crave for the recognition for their achievements, love of people and want to believe that their lives were not waisted. Even if you can't take away their penthouses, you can make them cry in these penthouses.

It is a good practice to shame people because it is one of the motivator for their actions.

You're own profile says "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." but clearly this only applies for the 8 hours of the day I am not at work (less if I work late)?

Meanwhile in your bio:

"I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

So which is it? Defend those who speak up or demand they leave and berate them as "conceited/pretentious"?

Flip the argument around. Rank-and-file employees believe they have the right to not shut the fuck up about issues that concern them. Emigrate to a more authoritarian country if you don't like it.

If we are going to go back to the good old days™ then at the very least the market needs to see elons companies crash and burn to show that his kind of management does not work long term. So far the opposite is happening.

Don't like not having your every whim kowtow'd to by people below you? Well, feel free to fire and incur the increased uninsurance premiums that will detract from your bottom line. And hey, there's other places to hire people in. But oh wait.... Everywhere else still recognizes the legotimacy of secondary strikes. Let me know how that works for ya.

Or... You know, listen to the people actually doing the hard work. Be a pity if something unfortunate were to happen to that all those cooperative people that make you making money possible.

If Google want to pretend their founding principal is "do the right thing", and put that front and center in their employee handbook - well, I'd say they have limited ability to complain when employees act on that, at least without being exposed for hypocrisy. Google can't have its cake and eat it too.

> Expecting a company to kowtow to your belief system betrays a conceited/pretentious view of the world around you.

I agree and I would call that delusional.

On the desparate side, the trust in government and faith in the democratic system are in shambles. I'm not even sure a frustrated Google Engineer can see the bottom of the despair issue. People do not believe their local, state, or federal governments can do a anything, particularly for the common good.

Take my hometown, of ~20K, that once had a fully functioning clinic and hospital. About ten years ago, the hospital was rebuilt, much nicer building but only 2 ER rooms and no critical long-term care. I suggested to my brother the town ought to have made approval of the construction dependent on providing essential services. He is smart but that idea didn't even register as a legitimate political concern. He doesn't think the government can do anything, least of all for the public good.

That sentiment is building and it's a vicious, reinforcing cycle. I dearly hope something will change before there is only the faintest hope of change.

"Unsurprisingly so" I can get behind. But "rightfully" is a stretch I wouldn't agree with.

Who in their right mind who says “I refuse to build technology that ____” wouldn’t already be planning to quit barring outrageous hypocrisy? Who in their right mind screams it out in the middle of a presentation without expecting to be dragged out?

The chickens are coming home to roost and they don't like it so much anymore.

Just because something is done by most companies doesn't make it okay. Are mass layoffs "rightful" in any sense of that word?

It's not possible to be a consumer brand and support Israel. The world is too divided and it's not getting any less so.

No politics for you. The corporate strategy, governance, hiring, dealmaking, etc... will all be politically informed. All your work will contribute to the political beliefs of leadership. It's such a strange abstraction to believe that you're somehow separate from that.

It's like hiring a bunch of Christians because the "Jesus loves you" PR angle was hot at the time, and now almost a decade later your company struggles to acknowledge the existence of gay people. Don't hire ideologues, especially en masse.

The faster google can get these people out the door, the better. Focus on the tech, not social issues.

Its just a job they lost, its not like they are 5 years old, watched their parents slowly bleed out after bombardments while starving to death - mkay?

Its arguably a good way to get fired. Even said they want no part in it.

Management works to serve those corporate interests, so it is in their interest to convey the message that the appropriate thing to do is be silent and comply.

Supporting a state, that is actively committing a genocide, with cloud services is a political choice.

Even among those who see its behavior as a driver of the conflicts it is embroiled in -- even among those who may see Israel as an oppressor -- there doesn't seem to be anything like a coalition around any specific plan for its outright elimination, let alone one that could get traction.

There are some substantial academic criticisms of Israel's behavior or even status as a colonizing oppressor and I think what happens is that when those enter the popular discourse, they get conscripted into simple sympathies and boiled down side-taking (which mostly feeds the conflict dynamic).

One thing I think systems thinkers (hackers, academics, intellectual elites, whatever) do tend to understand is this:

As long as Israel exists in a form where outgroup rights & dignity & lives are disposable, it will be contributing to the conflict.

That's a dynamic-descriptive statement, not a singular prescription. It implies several possible paths: Israel could be dissolved/replaced, Israel could grow into accepting the responsibility of materially valuing outgroup rights & dignity & lives itself even when it's inconveniently in tension with other immediate pressures, Israel could cede some control (and territory) to a larger system that will take on that responsibility for it, or we could accept the status quo.

It's a bit less common to hold that understanding at the same time as another systems reality:

As long as Israel and its ingroup are under existential threat, judging outgroup rights & dignity to be disposable will have broader internal appeal, consolidating the power of those who choose that as their pitch or hold it as part of a fundamental worldview.

This probably is the location of the mistake you have a feeling some in the West are making. When we use rhetoric or steer towards policy whose end seems like Israel's dissolution, we're not just dealing with a question about whether our sympathies are most appropriately placed with Israeli/Jewish people or dispossessed Palestinians, we are exerting force on a lever of the conflict system and the likely outcome is an equal and opposite reaction or a transfer of angular momentum into the circular conflict rotation. It encourages Israeli perspectives like "we're right to aggressively do whatever it takes to fend for ourselves because nobody else is really on our side." It might even tells actor like Hamas that their plan works, that they really can drive a wedge between Israel and the rest of the world by merely provoking Israel into treating tens of thousands Palestinian civilians as collateral damage (basically turning people Hamas hadn't converted into actual soldiers yet into a kind of conscript after the fact, to say nothing of the survivors that might be radicalized).

Why do we do it? I don't know. Maybe thinking in terms of sympathies instead of systems does require more effort. Maybe human nature to simplify. Maybe many of us have the luxury of little actual skin in the game, so we can choose sympathies and symbolic values over the substance and mechanics of the system (though on the other hand, skin in the game also often makes sympathy more immediate).

I kinda hope that in the software era / information age that modestly trains more people to think about some specific systems at least, maybe we can figure out how to do better, but OTOH all the decreased friction of discourse has had mixed results.