Workers at Google DeepMind Push Company to Drop Military Contracts (time.com) 143
Nearly 200 Google DeepMind workers signed a letter urging Google to cease its military contracts, expressing concerns that the AI technology they develop is being used in warfare, which they believe violates Google's own AI ethics principles. "The letter is a sign of a growing dispute within Google between at least some workers in its AI division -- which has pledged to never work on military technology -- and its Cloud business, which has contracts to sell Google services, including AI developed inside DeepMind, to several governments and militaries including those of Israel and the United States," reports TIME Magazine. "The signatures represent some 5% of DeepMind's overall headcount -- a small portion to be sure, but a significant level of worker unease for an industry where top machine learning talent is in high demand." From the report: The DeepMind letter, dated May 16 of this year, begins by stating that workers are "concerned by recent reports of Google's contracts with military organizations." It does not refer to any specific militaries by name -- saying "we emphasize that this letter is not about the geopolitics of any particular conflict." But it links out to an April report in TIME which revealed that Google has a direct contract to supply cloud computing and AI services to the Israeli Military Defense, under a wider contract with Israel called Project Nimbus. The letter also links to other stories alleging that the Israeli military uses AI to carry out mass surveillance and target selection for its bombing campaign in Gaza, and that Israeli weapons firms are required by the government to buy cloud services from Google and Amazon.
"Any involvement with military and weapon manufacturing impacts our position as leaders in ethical and responsible AI, and goes against our mission statement and stated AI Principles," the letter that circulated inside Google DeepMind says. (Those principles state the company will not pursue applications of AI that are likely to cause "overall harm," contribute to weapons or other technologies whose "principal purpose or implementation" is to cause injury, or build technologies "whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.") The letter says its signatories are concerned with "ensuring that Google's AI Principles are upheld," and adds: "We believe [DeepMind's] leadership shares our concerns." [...]
The letter calls on DeepMind's leaders to investigate allegations that militaries and weapons manufacturers are Google Cloud users; terminate access to DeepMind technology for military users; and set up a new governance body responsible for preventing DeepMind technology from being used by military clients in the future. Three months on from the letter's circulation, Google has done none of those things, according to four people with knowledge of the matter. "We have received no meaningful response from leadership," one said, "and we are growing increasingly frustrated."
"Any involvement with military and weapon manufacturing impacts our position as leaders in ethical and responsible AI, and goes against our mission statement and stated AI Principles," the letter that circulated inside Google DeepMind says. (Those principles state the company will not pursue applications of AI that are likely to cause "overall harm," contribute to weapons or other technologies whose "principal purpose or implementation" is to cause injury, or build technologies "whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.") The letter says its signatories are concerned with "ensuring that Google's AI Principles are upheld," and adds: "We believe [DeepMind's] leadership shares our concerns." [...]
The letter calls on DeepMind's leaders to investigate allegations that militaries and weapons manufacturers are Google Cloud users; terminate access to DeepMind technology for military users; and set up a new governance body responsible for preventing DeepMind technology from being used by military clients in the future. Three months on from the letter's circulation, Google has done none of those things, according to four people with knowledge of the matter. "We have received no meaningful response from leadership," one said, "and we are growing increasingly frustrated."
"Some" (Score:3)
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap. Available in a third world near you.
Next week's headline today! (Score:4, Informative)
Both businesses and employees need to learn to keep their politics at home.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:2, Informative)
Body count doesn't mean a damn thing. It's not Ukraine's fault that Russia decided to toss two thirds of their military into a meat grinder. That's Russia's own damn fault.
70% of Gazans believe Hamas was right to murder basically anybody they could find, no matter who they were, in Israel. This is the bed they made for themselves, so they've no right to complain when they lie in it.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
70% of Gazans believe Hamas was right to murder basically anybody they could find, no matter who they were, in Israel. This is the bed they made for themselves, so they've no right to complain when they lie in it.
"70%" is the type of number that doesn't take AI to make up and is obviously an incendiary claim. Much more importantly, this type of thinking leads to dehumanization and the justification for atrocities. There have been plenty of horrors inflicted by some on both sides, but the blanket dehumanization is a precursor to atrocity.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An earlier poll taken by the Washington Institute in July 2023, moreover, found that 62% of people in Gaza supported Hamas maintaining a ceasefire with Israel and 50% agreed that: “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.”
https://theconversation.com/ga... [theconversation.com]
Most people in Gaza don't seem to like their petty dictators who live luxurious lives in Qatar.
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that happened before they were apparently inspired by Hamas's terrorist attack.
The PCPSR found that, compared to pre-war polling, support for Hamas had risen in Gaza and more than tripled in the West Bank, which has seen the highest levels in violence in years, with repeated deadly clashes between Israeli troops and settlers and Palestinians.
See for yourself.
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
You'll have to excuse me if I don't see the humanity in people who are basically indistinguishable from and are in fact directly inspired by the original fucking German Nazi party. October 7th was basically another kristallnacht.
You know what else? The Nazis actually referred to themselves as progressive. Likely not at all a coincidence that not 10 miles from me at the UCLA
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:4, Informative)
There are many Jews who think Israel is in the wrong here, are these Jews antisemites as well? There are also Israeli citizens, living in Israel, who feel that Israel is in the wrong. Are these antisemites too?
More generally, according to you, is it possible to criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic? If yes, how can one do that? Asking because you seem to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and I want to be sure that I understood this right.
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:3)
Of course you can. But not for being inhbited by Jews. Then it is antisemtic.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of it has to do with the propaganda most of you consume without question.
LOL! Not even a hint of irony!
I see gullible morons who don't question any bullshit they're fed so long as it's what they want to hear
You must be looking in a mirror. What a joke!
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:2)
Hey I asked a simple question. Can we criticise Israel without being labelled as antisemite? If yes, how? If not, why?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Not even a hint of irony!
When claims sound incredible, even when they're claims that I like, the first thing I tend to do is look into the background of it. I've done this often, even here on slashdot, and even when it goes against the grain here. I already know you love digging through my posts, so go read my commentary when I defended Boeing over the Ethiopia incident, where it turns out the pilots themselves were in fact major contributors to the crash, which was a finding of both the NTSB and the BEA (French.) That was somethin
Re: (Score:2)
sed s/would me/would I/ (editing error)
Re: (Score:3)
You're spreading long-debunked bullshit right-wing propaganda. You're either incredibly stupid, a liar, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
How about instead of using weasel words you be more specific? Otherwise, the only purveyor of bullshit here is you. And I already know you love a good ol' wiff of shit on the bottom of the shoe kicking you in the face, so that's nothing new.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, most people don't like having their houses bombed, either.
Just like Russians.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.or... [atlanticcouncil.org]
Oh wait...But Russians didn't have their houses bombed, did they? Could it be, maybe, they're just a bunch of fucking assholes? Kinda like Palestinians?
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:2)
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given I'm a self-described internet troll, what do you think?
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:2)
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:3)
Nah. I'm an atheist. I don't go around suicide bombing Jews. What I do is far, far more reprehensible in the eyes of progressives.
Care to guess what it is?
Wait for it...
Draw Mohamed
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:2)
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:2)
What the fuck? I never changed the topic. Both of you were arguing that the number I provided was false. Only it turned out that it wasn't false, didn't it? In fact, I even understated it. Your "citations" didn't even run counter to what I said either, not only that, but they pre-dated October 7th, so there's no possible way they could have even run counter to my original assertion.
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:2)
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:2)
That's not changing the topic, that's exactly on topic. It's an analogy to lay your biases front and center. Exposing your selective reasoning hurts on account of cognitive dissonance, doesn't it? You created that sore spot, all I did was press my thumb on it.
Re: Next week's headline today! (Score:4, Informative)
Tell that to Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Seventy-two percent of respondents said they believed the Hamas decision to launch the cross-border rampage in southern Israel was "correct" given its outcome so far, while 22% said it was "incorrect". The remainder were undecided or gave no answer.
Oh I'm sorry, I was wrong, I said 70% but it was actually 72%. My bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly 200 Google DeepMind workers have been laid off by Google.
Your power as an employee depends on both your employers and more importantly the markets determination of your value. Right now people in this field have a significant amount of power and if they want to spend it that's their business. Merely writing letters of concern is likely not going to get anyone in this space fired nor ruin their prospects for future employment.
Both businesses and employees need to learn to keep their politics at home.
The politics people should consider leaving home is the shit orthogonal to their jobs.
If your a pacifist then working for a defense contra
Re: (Score:3)
Not contributing to the genocide in Gaza
I love words like "genocide" and "fascism" because once someone uses them, I am free to ignore everything else they have to say.
They're a great way to shut down debate and keep conversations short.
Re: (Score:2)
I love words like "genocide" and "fascism" because once someone uses them, I am free to ignore everything else they have to say.
That's the dumbest thing I think you've ever posted.
Genocide and fascism are real things. Why are you pretending otherwise? Who are you trying to protect?
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
What's happening in Gaza is, without question, genocide. You know this. Why pretend otherwise?
so...wrong about everything then? (Score:2, Insightful)
First, I'm betting that you're not living in Israel, and therefore feel free and safe to complain about Netanyahu's efforts to end the never-ending Hamas attemps to wipe out the Jews in Israel.
Second, NOBODY from Israel is getting frog-marched into the Hague over this. The people in the Hague would not be free today had it not been for the Americans and Brits carpet-bombing Germany in WWII. Anybody in the Hague who says this is some sort of War Crime needs to be marched off and executed in some fashion he o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be conflating Hamas with Gaza
He knows. It's intentional. Don't expect honesty from these scumbags.
Call them out all you want, you'll always get the same bullshit excuse: "They had to brutally murder all those children because there might have been a Hamas hiding behind them!".
so you had no answer and resorted to name calling (Score:2)
Nobody is confusing Hamas with the population of Gaza. Hamas in Gaza is, however, composed of people from Gaza, it at least pretends to care about the people of Gaza while actually sacrificing them on the altar of Jihad, and many of the people of Gaza were very publicly supportive of the Hamas attack on Jewish civilians last October. When Hamas dragged hostages and the dead bodies of raped and brutalized Jewish civilians into the Gaza last October, the people of Gaza joined in the celebrations - no decent,
Re:Your question is way over my pay grade. (Score:4, Insightful)
Israel makes every effort to avoid civilian deaths
Bullshit.
They intentionally attacking known aid worker locations.
They intentionally bomb evacuation routes.
They are intentionally killing civilians. They are intentionally killing children.
You know this. That makes you a liar. You have to lie because the truth is devastating to your case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Israel is not dedicated to genocide. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're lying again. You have to lie because you can't defend your bullshit defense of Israel.
You are intentionally confusing Hamas with the Palestinian people. No on is buying that bullshit. Fuck off.
Re: Israel is not dedicated to genocide. (Score:2)
narcc is a big shit eating moron who once admitted (really, he did) that he's tired of getting kicked in the face, just after talking about licking boots. His arguments likewise never amount to anything other than "nuh-uh" followed by weasel words because he can't ever figure out how to form an argument about anything. Years of repeated incidents of head trauma will do that to a person, not to mention all of the narcs he's addicted to.
What? Me Worry? (Score:2)
The idea that a leading Corporate monolith would avoid US military contracts after losing anti-trust battles here and abroad is actually MAD. Even with the "Don't be evil" mantra, Alphabet no longer a business controlled by private owners. Its a Wall Street monster like King Kong. They are concerned about PR, but not that worried about it., Fixing bad press that will cost less than avoiding the deepest pockets in government spending. Not likely they will. They might just make it Top Secret and deny it,
Coordinate with China. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, cuz China and Russia are well known for keeping their treaty obligations. In public.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that before you have hope of negotiating a treaty against AI weapons on the battlefield, you first have to at least match the adversary's AI capabilities and preferably exceed them as greatly as you can, so that it will be they who desperately want to keep AI off the battlefield because your AI will annihilate their side far better than they can reciprocate. You just have to police your own side to "not be evil" in order to thwart the evil that is sure to come from their side.
IOW, building the be
Same as nukes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is how you start an arms-race. Which benefits nobody (except the weapon peddlers) and makes the world a lot less safe.
Re: (Score:2)
That is how you start an arms-race.
We're already in an arms race.
You can't stop an arms race with unilateral disarmament.
Mutual disarmament only works with verification. That worked with battleships (Washington Naval Treaty [wikipedia.org]) and nukes because they're big enough to be counted. It won't work with AI.
The question isn't if we have an arms race but if we want to lose the race we're already in.
Re: (Score:2)
You can stop an arms race by realizing you have enough weapons. For example, when you are able to destroy every major city on the planet 2x over, you really do not need any more nukes. Unfortunately, the weapons-fanatics are too stupid to see that.
Re: (Score:3)
You can stop an arms race by realizing you have enough weapons.
The AI arms race is not about having more weapons but having better weapons.
Google's military contracts are for R&D, not building cannons on an assembly line.
Our adversaries are progressing. Russia has far better drones and target acquisition today than in 2022. China is pouring money into weaponizing AI.
We either keep up, or we lose.
For example, when you are able to destroy every major city on the planet 2x over, you really do not need any more nukes.
Nuclear arms reduction didn't happen because we felt we had too many but because the weapons became so much better.
If you can target a city, you need a megaton.
If you can t
Re: (Score:2)
You can stop an arms race by realizing you have enough weapons.
The US military does not have enough weapons.
https://features.csis.org/prep... [csis.org]
For example, when you are able to destroy every major city on the planet 2x over, you really do not need any more nukes.
AI has no relevance to nukes and the US nuclear stockpile is less than half of what it was. The US MIB is but a shadow of its former self. AI is relevant to fighting conventionally by improving logistics, surveillance, decision support, targeting..etc.
Unfortunately, the weapons-fanatics are too stupid to see that.
What is there to see in statements that are merely a series of disjointed thoughts? Nukes != AI, Nukes != All weapons. Enough is a dynamic quantity that depends on the capabilit
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we need more weapons. Nuclear weapons have to many nasty side-affects. One, the nuclear fallout can be blown with the wind and affect all sorts of areas that were not the target. Second, completely wiping out an entire area is extremely wasteful.
That's not to say they don't have any uses but a more tactile approach is preferable.
Hence, we need to continue to develop new and improved weapon system or risk not being top dog.
You can hate US government all you want but I would still prefer it to China
So what are they referencing....? (Score:1)
Yet another luxury belief (Score:5, Insightful)
The luxury in question being the protection from the savagery beyond the wall by the very military that these knuckleheads refuse to support.
Turkeys (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain why AI killbot tech is necessary to defend America.
I see why we need the Coast Guard, DHS border guards and the Department of Energy, but the other branches of the military has not done anything to defend us since the end of WWII.
Re: (Score:3)
Please explain why AI killbot tech is necessary to defend America.
So you would prefer China to take the lead in this area?
Re: (Score:2)
And what if they do?
China does not threaten our existence. AI killbots do.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather deploy a machine to deal with my adversary then risk my own life. I'd prefer my military personnel fight from an advantageous position. I don't want a fair fight against our adversaries. I'd prefer other people die for their country then having my fellow citizens die for our country.
Let the adversaries do the dying while we work from a position of strength.
That's why we need AI killbot tech. It protects our citizens and military personnel at the expense of any foolhardy enough to attack us.
You do
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you want people to die at all? Just stop starting these pointless wars.
Re: (Score:2)
High stakes poker would be fine by me. No one need die then.
Re: Yet another luxury belief (Score:2)
Protection from which invader? The last time the US was invaded was by its current occupants.
Re: Yet another luxury belief (Score:2)
The last time the United States was attacked on its own soil by foreign actors was 23 years ago. How you keep an open border after that defies my ability to understand other people's mental gymnastics.
Re: Yet another luxury belief (Score:2)
The "foreign actor" you reference was assisted in its development by US taxpayer money via the CIA, "foreign actor" is a stretch. Also please explain hope a "closed border" (feel free to define it) would have made a difference.
Re:Yet another luxury belief (Score:4, Insightful)
Immigrants by themselves are one thing. I would recommend you visit the border areas of Texas, like Laredo, and you will revise your thinking. It doesn't much to have a saboteur sleeper cell, and the US is one big soft target, where an incursion can happen at any time. At the minimum, we need to have borders sturdy enough so we at least know who is coming across. Immigration is important, but so is national sovereignty. Jordan and Lebanon learned those lessons the hard way, and Europe and Egypt barely averted similar fates.
Right now, "joy in our hearts" isn't something we can offer. Have you seen the current administration providing another H-1B lottery meaning tens to hundreds of thousands of people, each of them replacing an American, because the visa workers are cheaper and are deported when fired? 45 wasn't great, and definitely not known for singing too loudly in church, but he did get American jobs back when he all but shut the H-1B program down, which resulted in an insanely prosperous time where many people could get a decent job just by knowing how a few things worked. Now the H-1Bs are back, and in large numbers, people are out of work again. If H-1B visa holders are so valuable, they need to be given "green card" visas, so they are not thralls to corporate masters.
Save "joy in our hearts" for a time when we don't have enemies trying to open as many theaters of war as they can, when we have another pandemic (mpox) coming our way, where we may be facing lockdowns and businesses forced to close as the big guys get loans, the small businesses don't, and can't make it for 6-12 months with no customers. Save "joy in our hearts" for when the US can actually pay off the debt it owes, which, only will be a matter of time before the dollar turns into a hyper-inflating currency like Zimbabwe. Save "joy in our hearts" when enemy/rogue nations are not funneling billions of dollars for psy-ops, sowing discord, and influencing elections.
This is the angriest I've seen people in an election year cycle. We don't need "joy in our hearts". We need someone that can chart a course other than for the nearest whirlpool or iceberg. We need adults in office who can repair things, and make decisions that are right and not just popular.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't much to have a saboteur sleeper cell, and the US is one big soft target
Why would immigrants target the USA? They have enough domestic terrorists as it is. Oh wait sorry we call them "good people on both sides" when they are white and waving a flag.
Re: Yet another luxury belief (Score:2)
How about some joy in our hearts instead?
Joyfully ignoring the dangers that might bite us in the ass is how how we spent the 1990s, Secure in our superiority, and certain that nothing could get us, because we were happy and we spoke English.
We were rewarded for our complacency with two decades of overseas wars, a lost decade of economic growth, a hollowing out of our industrial base.
How about "joy" over actual accomplishments, not merely the superficial accidents of birth and inappropriate laughter of your candidate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how both parties (Democrats and Republican) have extremist that support genocide. You have the neo-nazis on the right and the hamas supporters on the left.
Good thing neither wing of either party gets to call any real shots.
Re: (Score:2)
the hamas supporters on the left.
False. Some people on the left support Palestinians, not Hamas. If you can't tell the difference, you're not qualified for this discussion.
Re: Ironic. You seem to be supporting an antisemit (Score:2)
"There is only one solution! Intifada Revolution!"
--Almost every campus/leftist protest march over the past 10 months.
Totally not Hamas supporters. Totally not.
Re: Ironic. You seem to be supporting an antisemi (Score:2)
I've got all Jew blood in me.
And a gun in the house in case the Intifada Revolution(TM) comes marching down my street.
Good thing I wasn't gay. Mike Pence would have shipped me off on a cattle car long ago. Or so I was told.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes, profiteering off of global free trade at the expense of our industrial base is bad because it's bad, not bad because some of the guys doing it are shomer fuckin' shabbos.
There are some words (Score:3)
that simply do not belong together in the same sentence.
Google + ethics are great examples of two of them . . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Brand identity? (Score:1)
People are replying with politics here, but isn't the thing they're skipping over Google's brand identity originally built around not doing this kind of thing?
Is it normal for a company to change every core factor of what it is and survive? Is this kind of thing a factor in a bear case for GOOG?
Re: (Score:3)
Is it normal for a company to change every core factor of what it is and survive?
Yes, it is normal for companies to start with idealism and then later abandon their founding principles to maximize profit.
It isn't always like that. For instance, Microsoft never had any idealism. Oracle is another example of primordial slime.
The big difference with Google is that Larry and Sergey made their idealism public, pithy, and explicit, so people noticed when they ditched it.
too late (Score:1)
Awww (Score:2)
You kept working/signed up for the company that explicitly took "not being evil" out of its mission statement. You knew what you were doing by working there for this long.
Military contracts are not necessarily evil (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're Employees. (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but as employees of a company, unionized or not, the only say you have in the company policies are those that affect your pay/benefits and working hours/conditions. What the company produces and who it sells to are issues for the management and shareholders of the company. If the company produces something or sells to someone you don't agree with, you are free to 1) not accept the position if these policies are in effect when you apply, or 2) resign/quit and go work somewhere else if the policies are implemented after you start working there.
Well, there is one other option -- you can buy stock. If enough employees purchase enough stock, you can easily start nudging the company in the direction you would like it to go. In this case, however, you will still be working for a company whose policies do not align with your views during the long process of change through this method. This option is something I don't understand why most unions don't invest heavily in corporations whose employees they represent, and/or encourage their members to purchase stock.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect most unions are more in bed with management then they want to let on to their union members. Having been a part of a union for the past 24 years, it really feels like that after a point. I've been through enough contract negotiations and labor disputes to see that it's 90% a bunch of posturing from both sides, where most of the stuff is already decided and the last 10% is both sides trying to present their results with a positive to spin to their constituency.
The union gets to tell it's members, y
Re: (Score:2)
Having been a part of a union for the past 24 years
I'm not buying that or your old and busted anti-union propaganda.
The facts are in: Unions deliver for their members [axios.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Shrugs, believe what you will but I've been working for a southern California grocery store as part of the UFCW 135 for the past 24 years. I've picketed back during the strike in 2003, I think it was) and we've had numerous close calls.
It was definitely more adversarial back then as our dick of a CEO Steve Bird wanted to kill the union. After 5 and half months, we took the terrible contract and returned to work. That contract really hurt the company with regards to keeping old timers and retaining new hires
That is where the money is (Score:2)
So obviously, Google will sell to the military. Whoever though they would not is completely disconnected from reality.
I am the only one to find it really sad and scary (Score:2)
that the only thing standing between a gigantic monopolistic company happily agreeing to help warmongers do more warmongering is a small posse of employees that still have morals and decency?
huh? (Score:2)
I'm sorry to have to ask it, but who the hell established that these whiney obnoxious employees are the ones with "morals and decency"????
In some potential future struggle between the reasonably-free West, and some Russo-China alliance where these military contracts might make the difference, just which side is the "good" side? If the "good" side is the somewhat democratic West, and these employees worked to prevent the West from having these capabilities, then these employees are fundamentally evil and are
All technologies are going to be used for warfare (Score:3)
So stupid (Score:2)
Google's major flaw (besides the fact that it hates its customers) is that it's got this happy-go-lucky consumer facing side, and then it wants to get its hands dirty making weapons. The happy-go-lucky employees don't want to make weapons. Apple figured this out early, when they leaned in heavily to their consumer-facing side, privacy, etc. They don't make weapons, because they know people would reject it from their brand.
Google should just make an entirely new business (call it "Spear") whose sole purpose
Re: (Score:2)
You think Google hates it's customers? You mean the ones they sell advertising space to? I bet they love those customers.
The users, on the other hand, are not customers. Try and remember that if you aren't buying from Google, then you are the product they are selling. They are an advertisement company.
haha good one, morons (Score:2)
I wonder if those 200 are aware that the internet itself was 99.9% created by military contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Not this shit again. (Score:2)
200 signed, so 2000 agreed. (Score:3)
Remember that for every one person who is secure enough financially to take the risk of signing a letter that argues against the upper management's wishes, there are ten who can't afford to sign, but still agree with the letter. And remember that when you lay off the 200 in retaliation, the other 1800 start looking for work at other companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Labor that's a drain on the bottom line, making an argument for losing more money. So much for being smart people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)