This applies regardless of whether you think this specific example is immoral.

Also Google is a global organization. I don’t believe that corporations should primarily serve the interests of their government, they should serve their users and reflect the attitudes of their employees.

Google may have offices all over the world, but it's an American company, and like people (Corporations are like people, no?), it must be held responsible for its actions.

I would argue that the public should be especially wary of 'global' corporations such as these (Facebook is another one) that suddenly grow a conscience when it suits them.

Surely a company with such high morals and ethics should easily withstand regulation and public scrutiny that protects the national interests of the country that's responsible for the majority of its profits, and provided the fertile ground from which it sprang to life.

That sounds antithetical to a lot of freedoms that we hold dear as Americans.

>I would argue that the public should be especially wary of 'global' corporations such as these (Facebook is another one) that suddenly grow a conscience when it suits them.

How do you mean? To paint this in a very cynical light, the sequence of events here was

Google does a thing. Then, many Google employees threaten to quit over that thing (among a bunch of other potential downsides). So, Google agrees to stop doing the thing

Is "Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce" something that you should be wary of? That seems like reasonable corporate governance.

On the other hand, you can paint this in a much less cynical light, where the sequence was

Google does something that is potentially antithetical to its values. Employees object to this thing, claiming that it really is antithetical to those values. As a result, Google reaffirms its values and makes them more explicit, promising not to do the thing.

In other words, a very anti-google view sees this as a move for retention, and a pro-google view sees this as a reaffirmation of the "conscience" (read: values) that Google already had. I don't see how your worries apply here.

(Am a Googler, but that isn't particularly relevant to this post)

Google, specifically, like Facebook, should be invited to explain itself and generally describe its activities a bit more transparently for the public to see. At this point Google is effectively a utility, so there's plenty of good reasons to regulate it like one. Right now, it has benefited from almost no oversight and has grown a bit too cocky and self-righteous. Silicon Valley CEOs need to be cut down to size. Almost no other industry has this level of smugness and self-righteous belief in their superiority over the American people.

Here is a quote by Louis Brandeis, an erstwhile Justice of the Supreme Court, that pretty much captures what I have to say: Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.

I'm honestly confused as to how those two concepts are connected.

If not, what exactly are you suggesting?

I'm still confused as to how "we don't want to work on systems that kill people" is in any way "superiority".

In fact, reading your comments you seem to suggest that any entity (any individual even!) who has a moral objection to working on military technology, but who uses any modern technology believes themselves superior to the public. But that description describes a large minority (or perhaps a majority!) of the population.

You appear to say that Google's sense of superiority stems from its objection to working on military technology. But I think that description applies to much of the public.

That is to say, I find it likely that most of the public would object to working on AI for drones. Yet you're arguing that the objection to working on AI for drones makes one believe them-self superior to the public. In other words, most of the public believes themselves to be superior to...themselves.

Hence my continued confusion.

> In fact, reading your comments you seem to suggest that any entity (any individual even!) who has a moral objection to working on military technology, but who uses any modern technology believes themselves superior to the public. But that description describes a large minority (or perhaps a majority!) of the population.

I do not know how one could read that into my comments. At this point, I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse. Google doesn't just use this technology like you or me, it benefits, i.e., enriches itself immensely to the tune of billions of dollars every quarter! It also becomes much more powerful and further embeds itself into the lives of ordinary people in this process.

> You appear to say that Google's sense of superiority stems from its objection to working on military technology. But I think that description applies to much of the public.

I do not think that description applies to much of the public, which lives outside the SV bubble. But I will concede that this is something that's debatable.

> That is to say, I find it likely that most of the public would object to working on AI for drones. Yet you're arguing that the objection to working on AI for drones makes one believe them-self superior to the public. In other words, most of the public believes themselves to be superior to...themselves.

Here, again, you are twisting my words and ascribing meaning that simply doesn't follow from what I have said.

I am definitely saying that Google the corporation and leadership in Silicon Valley suffers from the hubris that they can simultaneously benefit (i.e., make billions of dollars) off the fruits of research that's quite explicitly geared toward military technology, and they can rebuff those very same benefactors without consequences (and while holding the moral high ground). These benefactors are Government agencies, that exist to carry out the will of the people (nominally, at least).

Except that much of what you're saying implies that you do think these companies should be regulated in a way that forces them to do this. Or at least, if that's not what you're saying, then you seem to be insinuating a whole lot for no apparent purpose. This is why I'm confused. Your stated words and actions (ie the rest of your words) don't appear to match up.

>Google doesn't just use this technology like you or me, it benefits,

Are you suggesting that you and I don't benefit immensely from the internet?

If I'm understand you correctly, you're saying that it is unethical for an entity to benefit from another entity without supporting it. That is to say, its unethical for Google to benefit from the military's technology without also supporting the military.

Ignoring, for a moment that there's a whole host of debate on whether or not that's even true to begin with, such an objection applies equally to any individual as well as Google. I, personally, benefit greatly from military technology. Is it unethical for me to refuse to work on drone warfare? It seems odd for you to say yes to that, but on the other hand, that's basically what you're saying about Google.

>I do not think that description applies to much of the public, which lives outside the SV bubble. But I will concede that this is something that's debatable.

I would consider more than a third of the US population to be "much of" [1].

> suffers from the hubris that they can simultaneously benefit (i.e., make billions of dollars) off the fruits of research that's quite explicitly geared toward military technology, and they can rebuff those very same benefactors without consequences

But again, except perhaps in terms of scale, this applies to anyone. You and I both benefit, significantly, from military technology, both in terms of safety and quality of life. Yet you've stated that we should not be compelled to give back.

Why should Google (or any other corporation, which again, is really just a set of individuals) be treated differently?

[1]: https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/poll-support-drone-st...

I do think that the level of freedom and lack of accountability (vis-a-vis individuals and governments) corporations enjoy in the United States has reached insane levels. One the other hand, I do prefer it to the situation in China, where any corporation is likely to become a tool of the State. I believe corporations can and should contribute back to the Military if they have benefited financially from military technology. Perhaps not as much as would have been the case in a Socialist/Communist country, but definitely at some level higher than the present.

Do you also believe corporations should contribute to Experimental Particle Physics at CERN if they have benefited financially from the world wide web?

https://home.cern/topics/birth-web

I don't think what I'm saying depends on corporate personhood. My point is, if you claim that corporations have a responsibility to contribute back to the military, you are claiming that someone at the company should do that.

Further, in your post that started this subthread, you stated

>It's high time these companies are regulated and their malfeasance reined in by the United States.

That, at least to me, reads as though you think that the US should regulate these companies in ways that require them to give back to the military. Which again, which employees should do that? How can you compel a company without, at some level, compelling the individuals within the company? Which you've at least claimed you don't want to do?

It does. A corporation can easily set up a division or a separate subsidiary or sub entity and staff it with willing individuals to do this sort of thing. There is no direct conflict with individuals' rights. So sure, Google the corporation can be compelled to do this without affecting individuals. It's quite common in other industries, but of course, for SV, it's all about the hubris, optics and innate sense of superiority.

In what other industries does the government require companies to develop military technology?

>A corporation can easily set up a division or a separate subsidiary or sub entity and staff it with willing individuals to do this sort of thing.

So you're saying that if I found a company that is based on internet-related technologies, it is reasonable to at some point in the future compel me (or compel me to pay for someone else) to work on military drones?

The canonical example is the early days of aerospace, where for all practical purposes you were developing military technology.

> So you're saying that if I found a company that is based on internet-related technologies, it is reasonable to at some point in the future compel me (or compel me to pay for someone else) to work on military drones?

The government can already compel you to license your work via eminent domain. There's an established process for this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_patent_use_(United_...

At any point of time there are always a slew of 'sensitive technologies' whose use and development will be closely monitored and companies are incentivized, severely restricted, or outright barred from freely trafficking in them. It's not a giant leap of the imagination that they will be forced to do the federal govt's bidding if they already do a large amount of business with them or have started out with military IP.

'Internet-related technologies' is not one of them. There was a time when supercomputers were in this category, then it was cryptography, and now it's looking like AI.

BTW, Cisco and a few others have been forced to develop 'lawful intercept' technologies on their routers for the three-letter agencies for years, I think. There was a big controversy about this a few years ago.

I'm arguing that it's not a cut-and-dry thing. Clearly it's susceptible to abuse, but on the other hand it is vital to the long-term security interests of the United States. In any case, there is more accountability than Google or Cisco 'self-regulating' themselves. These companies can't massively leverage military research and then turn back and say they have no obligation whatsoever. They can choose to do no business with the federal government, but that's clearly not the case. In fact, the opposite is true.

I can tell you see it differently, but I hope you see that not all people see promoting “US government interests” as an automatically good thing, given what that phrase has meant historically.

I can't for the life of me see why Sundar Pichai should be beholden to his (significantly foreign) employees and privilege their interest over that of the nation (his nation). Remember that Google itself is tainted, being complicit in spying over Americans (PRISM, anyone?). Why shouldn't such an entity be regulated?

He's beholden to his shareholders and every move they have made is all about that. They knew it would be bad PR but they wanted to make money so they took the contract initially and tried to keep it quite. Then, all the leaks happened causing it to backfire, tons of employees and users got upset, and so they reversed directions as they think the good reputation for attracting employees and users will pay off more than military contracts in the long term.

> Remember that Google itself is tainted, being complicit in spying over Americans (PRISM, anyone?). Why shouldn't such an entity be regulated?

It wasn't just Google that had to comply with prism. They as long with every other company that wants to operate in the US had to comply with it because every company has to comply with the laws of each country they operate in.

That's the real nub. I'd posit that this is also about keeping a small but vocal group of employees happy. However, why did Google effectively disavow all cooperation with the military to appease this group? They could have easily set up a division and staffed it with willing people. Or Alphabet the parent company could have started something else up (how costly is it to incorporate, really?). Looks like none of these things was even given serious consideration.

Did you even read up on this story because that is essentially what they tried to do and it backfired?

I read that the 'contract was routed through' some front-company. I don't think that was separate company staffed with people to adapt google AI to this purpose.

Ha. Ha ha. Hahahah.

Please, keep drinking that Kool-Aid of American exceptionalism. Apart from the British, which other country has contributed to more invasions in foreign countries for the sake of purely economic interests?

Your position is laughable, and the classic, pathetic opinion of the sort of American who hasn't traveled around the world to see that their system of values is not qualitatively different from that of most other developed Western nations.

The "purely economic interests" qualifier makes your question difficult to answer, but France has likely been involved in more invasions in foreign countries.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/7ax7g1/all_countri...

I will!

Which country came to the aid of Britain, and all those Western European nations when they were faced with the existential threat of Nazism? Which country has provided refuge and solace to more oppressed and exiled peoples in the world than the US? Which country fought a violent war to rid itself of slavery? Surely not the Western European nations you speak of.

America has done a lot of damage in this world, but I can't think of any other nation that has done so much good either.

Slavery died out pretty much everywhere else in the world without bloodshed so it's pretty safe to assume the US wouldn't have been different in that regard, the freeing of the slaves was more of a punitive action against the seceding states than anything else.

Anyhoo, my point being that it isn't a grand example of American exceptionalism. Much better to just link to Kevin Kline's A Fish Called Wanda rant...

And why doesn't my iPhone know how to spellcheck "slavery", are we trying to remove it from the language double-plus fast?

In the long-view, the whole American Experiment may not have been a net positive for slaves and their descendants relative to a hypothetical alternate history where the Revolutionary War failed and the US was just more British Empire. Nearly impossible to say with certainty, of course, because a Britain that included the US may have had different incentives to push it away from ending slavery.

I couldn't resist :)

Russia mainly, from where an estimated 24 million people died. American also didn't wade into a war through purely selfless means either, if Germany managed to invade Britain and western Europe, America would have been at significant threat.

The reasons every country got into the war were complex. But it is also largely true that America spilled blood and treasure out of a sense of obligation to fight Nazism, despite having a significant immigrant German population (who fought against their brethren on the other side), going so far as to impose a draft in the later stages of the war.

You sound like a young kid who has never actually read about history and geopolitics.

Please dude, actually read up on the involvement of the US in the secret wars in Cambodia by Kissinger, the School of the Americas, instrumental in teaching South American militaries repressive strategies that killed tens of thousands of innocents with the full support of the American government, the Iran-Contra affair, the ridiculous involvement in Vietnam.

There is an innumerably long list of atrocities commited purposely by the American government and with the silent consent of the American majority.

Seriously bro, Irak happened less than 15 years ago in a completely manufactured war and you're actually so stupid to believe that there's anything particularly worthy of American Imperalism?

You should try to be on the receiving end of the American business interests that have fueled these conflicts, lest we see what your opinion on the matter would be.

Kissinger was just pure evil. Apart from his involvement in the things above, he also actively supported dictators in Pakistan, and indirectly did nothing to stop the slaughter of civilians in (then) East Pakistan.

But, I still stand by my point: Americans have strived to right the wrongs (and there have been many and monumental ones). Eventually all these 'secret' activities have come out and the public has ensured that the people responsible were shamed or held accountable, to some extent (it never is a full reckoning, unfortunately). I can't think of that happening in China, for instance. Name any other great power that hasn't had stuff like this?

Did I miss something? Was the Selective Service Act amended to extend to corporations, too? Was Google drafted?

Last I checked, cooperation with the United States military has been purely on a volunteer basis since Vietnam.

don’t worry, The DoD will get their AI weapons, image recognition with machine learning is a commodity now, and some other company will end up doing it.

My point is, where there is a will, there is a way. Individual rights are sacrosanct, corporations', not so much (or at least, they need to be incentivized to work in the national interest).

Sure, it'd be nice if Google tightened up their rhetoric a bit, or proposed concrete ways they intend to act deliberately and publicly to enforce these bylaws.

But this is a start, and reveals a willingness to speak out both to their employees and the public at large that company policy disallows some future lines of business, especially building weapons and surveillance tech.

IMHO, this is a positive step in the right direction.