> Yes, Trump was already president—my family and I had qualms—but he seemed contained, even ineffective.
I really can't read past the second sentence of this article. Sorry but after enough interaction with people who make such statements, I find this kind of sentiment indicative of high anxiety individuals who often virtue-signal for social standing. (e.g. spouting unprovoked remarks about Trump/politics as a way to show one's superiority.)
Combined with the subject of the article, I'm apathetic. Google was clearly turning by 2017, so I can't relate to the topic here.
The author made his money (arguably helped Google be "evil", but that might hurt his feelings..), felt burned out/conflicted after a few years, and found a new job. The last part is crucial, since I'm 100% sure if he didn't have something lined up, he wouldn't leave Google.
TLDR: it's all social grandstanding
The blog post is from June 19th. Google Doc from June 17th.
My guess? He shared the Google Doc link with his peers, but forgot that Google Docs links are public for anyone who knows the link, so someone just forwarded it to oblivion, and he was forced to publish that as blog post. The addendums kind of reflect that.
That's a great reminded that any Google Doc with a shareable link is basically a public document for all intents and purposes.
> That's a great reminded that any Google Doc with a shareable link is basically a public document for all intents and purposes.
As per design.
Google gives you sufficient control over access permissions. If you make it public, you have to know anyone anywhere can see it once they get the URL.
I frequently share Google docs and sheets links widely and to entirely unknown readers. That is part of the utility of the tool.
>That's a great reminded that any Google Doc with a shareable link is basically a public document for all intents and purposes.
There is also a great reminder next to the button you click to get a shareable link in Google Docs.
I think that article is rather a copy of the original Google Doc, judging by the included go link.
it's typical for googlers to leave a note like this in gdocs when they leave As thats the standard at google. i imagine its the original and google hasnt decided to turn off public sharing on it
> Google was a different company 9 years ago.
No it wasn’t.
yeah, looks like some history rewriting.
9 years ago was 2017-- and by that time Google was already doing sleazy SEO shit, scanning peoples emails to who them ads, trying to make ads seem like general search results etc etc
Google was *exactly* this company it is today
The "Don't be evil" motto was diluted in 2015 when alphabet was formed, and taken down in 2018, so yeah, things were brewing from before.
The author of this article disagrees:
> “Don’t Be Evil” wasn’t just a slogan of often-referenced Googliness—it was a north star for teams making hard calls.
It definitely counts for something that at least one senior leader felt the slogan was relevant for decision making.
Most people that one would describe as evil do not see themselves as evil, but rather see what they're doing as justified. Saying you're not going to be evil means literally nothing.
Don't be the bad guy, ok, but if you think your goals are noble enough then crossing lines becomes acceptable. Google sold everyone on the "we're going to change the world for good and improve everyone's lives and make all information accessible and free" line, and in doing so justified everything else they did - privacy invasion, monopolistic behavior, etc.
The fact that they said "don't be evil" should have been a massive red flag for everyone, not a green one.
The author is not cynical enough.
Do you going around telling people how virtuous you are? No, good people just try and be good.
The slogan was a red flag right from the start.
That sounds pithy, but a person doesn't need to remind themselves of their own values; a company of 200,000 people does.
Which isn't to say cynicism for these sorts of company charters isn't warranted, just not for that reason.
At the beginning of Google it meant "we will not be like Microsoft" and it was good marketing.
Morals only matter when they restrain someone from doing something beneficial to themselves.
Absent a stake in the outcome, it's just virtue signaling.
And when Google was forced to choose between juicing ad revenue and its morals, it chose the former.
And it was just something that some guy said in a meeting
That’s quite a bit different from helping to kill people.
Let’s not lump every ethical issue into one. And not conflate SEO sleaze with aiding murder.
Except Google works with the Pentagon and the Israeli government so yes they are helping kill people.
"Google was a different company n years ago" where n is how long they've been there + ~6 to 12 months
Truer words have never be told. It truly wasn't. Google had been rotten for a very long time.
actually it was. they were no angels. but a majority of devs wanted to do good. now everyone wanta to make a quick buck no matter what.
im surprised dave is still there too. probably can't let it go...
The employee experience was very different 9y ago.
There is an insatiable appetite here for “plucky European dramatically quits American company due to politics/capitalism”.
Maybe send it out like a leak to get more attraction?
moral clarity usually sharpens the moment the last RSU hits the brokerage account
Sometimes.
Sometimes not.
I left with more than 4 million in RSU's left.
Pretty much any Googler who leaves will be leaving lots of money on the table.
This is because they are usually 3/4 year grants, so it's pretty much impossible to leave without lots of unvested RSU.
There are some 1 year grants, but those are much more uncommon (~1%)
Your total comp was ~1.2 mil/year?
same I left with approx that amount and when stock was still fairly low compared to today, so left life changing money.
no ragrets lol.
This must have been a long time ago? Because that's leaving over a billion dollars "on the table" at the current price.
"in RSUs", I think that meant $4M, not 4M shares.
You realize how insanely privileged that is?
Not just the facts but the frame. Amazing.
And? I value this as a forum where people can speak plainly and transparently (mostly).
While transparency is admirable, I don’t find the “why I left Google” blog posts to be particularly interesting content to be posted to HN.
They happen relatively frequently and there are a number of things about them that feel distasteful:
- The authors are in the literal 1%, so for the 99% of us who are doing far worse it feels a bit like a tiny violin exercise.
“Sorry you worked for an unethical company, my company is unethical, too, and I can’t quit over morals or else my family won’t eat.
- The people who quit Google are one of 100,000 employees, which dilutes the value of hearing an individual story from someone who is leaving the company.
I imagine many Google people are interested, and they get voted up.
You don’t have to read and engage with everything on the front page. And you certainly don’t have to come make snarky criticisms of others.
And yet it directly speaks to the comment it was replying to. It makes the point that RSUs are generally multi-year; so if you're getting them with _any_ frequency, you never get to the point of "the last RSU vests".
This is going to be different from company to company. I worked for a different FAANG company, and the RSUs I got on day one, with a 4 year vesting period, were the only ones I ever got. Obviously, I resigned at exactly 4 years.
It remains privileged.
I have my golden handcuffs too, probably most on HN do. That doesn’t change the reality expressed.
But does it matter that it is or isn't privileged? Thats the root question. What are you trying to highlight?
I have to assume you aren't trying to shame someone for moral opinion about talking about facts on the table - as that does 0 for any kind of public discourse.
Yes you’re right. I’m sure nothing good can come from recognizing privilege. Especially in a thread reeking of it with no one else mentioning it.
You’re right sir.
Nothing advanced here. I’ll get back to lashing myself for my insolence.
So you agree your comment provides no value to the conversation here except a kind of "check your privileges - shut down the conversation I am greater than thou perspective".
I am asking you what value are you trying to bring here to the thread with this comment? Does one have to have a qualifier statement "I have certain privileges ascribed to my life" and now make a comment? Should I be adding qualifying statements to this comment to make sure the morality police don't come finger wagging?
At this point I just think it’s extremely humorous that you’re pursuing this so aggressively.
Chord struck?
I’m sure you’re getting a nice adrenaline & dopamine hit and your ego feels amazing. Yay you!
But yes, very shameful of me to put these wordy words on these internets.
I mean you are the one reacting. I am curious what you are trying to achieve except casting shame (implied morality) and shutting down conversation.
I assume (maybe incorrectly) that you are just reacting without thinking about the deeper level of what you are trying to express.
I think the "last RSU" was more a figure of speech. At some point a person passes above an earnings level where they feel comfortable deactivating the "money making mode" and let their conscience speak.
almost like it's by design!
Alphabet dropped “don’t be evil” from its moto in 2015. This guy went in knowing how the sausage was being made.
Motto's, slogans, mission statements...
All of these things are 100% bullshit and always have been. It's tragic that Google actually had people believing them when they championed "don't be evil".
The slogan originated in Eng, and was honest at the time, and for many years after.
It obviously got promoted by marketing for external consumption as well.
> scroll to the bottom
that illustrates the point nicely...
"But the motto was on display..."
"Yes, it was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
That is not corporate motto.
the motto was always a part of the code of conduct (it was the preface), it just moved from google's to alphabet's when it became a subsidiary.
Maybe they should not have joined the company in the first place if they had "morals" or "principles". Yet they still joined in 2017 even after knowing that slogan was removed anyway.
Company mottos, principles, slogans and values are all fake fronts to lure in these sort of people alongside the free food with the carrots on those sticks.
Once that all runs out or the company goes south and stops being a daycare, then they start doing silly virtue signalling posts like this.
Now you are seeing who was there for the 'good vibes', free food, rest n' vest and who was there to keep the company alive.
...And finally we know that this is a love letter to get themselves hired at Anthropic. I think you might need more than that honestly.
Exactly.
<rant>
I am so tired of reading these stupid "why I am leaving my job after making millions". One thing I can say about myself: I work for money. That's it. Lots of things the companies that I work for (normally 25,000+ employees) do immoral and unethical things. Still, I stay, earn money, and I don't write stupid fucking self-righteous blog posts after I leave. At this point, blog posts like this look like an "own goal".
</rant>
Also his complaints about morale compass failure are largely activism goals. Hard to make money when you waste it.
I tell employers I’m clearly a mercenary and I am only here for the money. I do great work, but I’ve been compensated well.
>*"You cannot explain something to somebody whose livelihood depends upon [others] not understanding..."
Something. $omething. something. $teinbeck?
Yes, that is correct:
>>"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." –Upton Sinclair
yep, and happy to make everyone around them feel guilty when they got theirs. i strongly dislike people who do this performative crap while unfortunately believing in their right to say it.
Google: We're not evil.
Also, Google, later: No comment.
Like a slap in the face from a psychopath. It's not about "good", "bad", "honest", etc. It's literally the world EVIL that they no longer want to swear off. Astronomically monumentally fucked up psycho shit.
Dictionary:
*EVIL*
: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
an evil impulse
an evil tyrant
evil deeds
the evil institution of slavery
: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
a person of evil reputation
Google: no comment.
Whilst I appreciate the commitment to their values, I wonder where they stand on the 'safety' of their users as it relates to the Android Developer Verification update (currently top of HN, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48755965).
"Security" vs Openness
> “make things so secure that we ourselves can’t break them, whether the device costs $1000 or $100, or the user is a celebrity or a refugee“
That can mean different things to different people in different contexts. Could easily mean building a software platform with security features that banks will build their apps to require.
That is wasn't even covered says enough for me.
> Google Management Has Lost Its Moral Compass
This needs a "2004" date.
Google never had a moral compass. They went in, got their money, and left when it was easy and barely affected them. They still profited.
he resigned because of... "politics"? and not because of the path Google has chosen for Android security?
The only stated reason for his resignation is that Google is no longer adhering to their promise to not use AI for weapons. I was surprised that the reasoning was so one-dimensional.
While I don't agree with the author exactly, I do admire someone sticking to their guns (no pun intended). Like Oscar Wild said, "Morality, like art requires drawing a line somewhere".
One of my favorite 80's movies was Real Genius with Val Kilmer. He accidentally helps develop a weapon and then goes to extreme measures to prevent its use. For some people creating weapons is a line they wont cross and that's not a bad thing.
The actual reason is right at the top: he's a director who was "promoted" to IC.
i know right. i imagine they were other reasons and this one sounded nice to share on a public doc tbh.
They are one and the same.
I came to Google via acquisition end of 2011 and left end of 2021. Google bought my employer so it could further cement its display ads monopoly. They never had a moral compass, they just wore one in a costume so that nobody would dig too closely into their business practices.
We got to wave pitchforks and ask tough questions at TGIF for a while, and march in pride parades under a Google banner, and get fed nice treats and the like but under it all was still just an old fashioned railway monopoly.
A huge fire hose of cash that let it play in all sorts of domains and espouse some vaguely California Ideology liberal/libertarian ideals while doing it.
But the moment that monopoly came under threat and the moment they felt they no longer needed the costume, it came off.
Google never had a moral compass. Anybody who thought it did was naive. It's not possible for a corporate entity to have one.
> It's not possible for a corporate entity to have one.
Is it really not possible? Lots of corps are controlled by one or two people. They can decide what the company espouses, no?
I could see some of that in 2011 (I started before the ipo), but it was almost all from ads. People in other parts of the company had a very different experience.
A typical case of false nostalgia for something that never existed .
Why is this a Google doc and not just an HTML page? I was super-confused when the links didn't behave like normal links. This is like when people post a screenshot of an Apple note.
This mirrors my own experience as a European that worked at FAANG in the Bay Area.
It used to be a dream job. Now I've relocated back to Europe and want nothing to do with American Big Tech. It's become toxic and completely counter to my values.
America has become a much darker place that has a very different place in the world. American tech companies have not just accepted, but actively embraced this transition. I am not interested in joining them and being complicit.
European companies aren’t much different so just be sure to check where you stand first before you’re SURE you’ve actually escaped.
I don't think there's a big risk the European startup I work for now is involved in bombing brown people in the Middle East, actively accelerating climate change or dividing society for engagement.
Seems like a much better bet for my values, at least.
Darker than what other point in America’s history?
Perhaps darker than the initial mild optimism of the early internet.
It is easy to forget US history as the vast majority of us have only been exposed to the 1960s to 2000s era which in retrospect seem like an anomaly.
It's an interesting time window you chose. Why would there be an anomaly during that window (if there is one)?
Perhaps it is due to the outward-facing, civic-oriented values coming out of WW2?
There was a lot of reflection in America on what went wrong in German pre-war thinking and culture coming out of that period.
The WW2 men in their 20s in 1940 were in their 40s in 1960s and their political power would have kept growing through peer older politicians into the 90s.
You're not gonna like it when you find out where, exactly, America learned those values from.
Luckily, we've gone through that phase around ninety years ago in Europe. We've been trying to avoid it happening again ever since, though right now is a dangerous time here as well. But hey, at least Europe hasn't fallen yet.
If you think you've "gone through that phase", you're not paying much attention.
European companies exist to extract profit without regard to decency, same as American companies. BP filling up the Gulf of Mexico with oil? European. Wirecard's fraud? European. HSBC money laundering? European. Dieselgate? European.
I'm sure I could find more.
Hell, Sergey Brin was born in Moscow and raised by Soviet parents.
The US was founded mainly as an experiment in European mercantile colonialism. This is just a continuation of that.
The downside of there not being any American exceptionalism is that everything you see in America is not an exception.
"Don't be evil" was just a diversion from a path that was laid out from the beginning.
And it worked --- for a while. Until the path became impossible to deny.
Yeah, I'm sure the "don't be evil" charade was good marketing from the get-go or else they would've never taken In-Q-Tel funding.
"Enough of my equity has vested, virtue signal engage."
There is some weird psychology going where the most morality posting is from people quitting Google or being unemployed.
That’s not really how RSUs work in that situation. The number outstanding and vested each year stays pretty steady.
Yeah what he means is he got enough money over a decade and then waited until a vest day to decide it was immoral.
Oh, sure. But with monthly vesting it kind of a wash.
Biting the hand that fed you... on your way out.
While I can understand the concerns, I wouldn't use a google doc to air my grievances though
It's a systemic issue unfortunately. When some of these unethical CEOs say that they feel like they have no control and that if they didn't do it, someone else would, I believe them and it makes sense. That's why they should try to reform the system.
Can anyone in this industry really say goodbye without posting it? We act like artists, believing our ideals will illuminate the world with our moral compass.
This is surreal.
Not until tech companies stop pretending tech jobs are special. It’s part of the entire industry culture at this point that you join certain positions to “make a big difference.”
Yet most startups are just b2b AI sass or whatever.
This was a post to colleagues.
Someone else shared it out. Now, calm down. Your acting emotional. Maybe try smiling.
>" I still believe in Android as the (currently) best end-user facing operating system for mobile devices, with its balance between openness, flexibility, and security."
I do not give a shit whether it is the best. If one can be cut off instantly by whims of some algo with no recourse - thank you but I'll pass. Yes I still use Android phone but mostly as phone, GPS and camera all of which can be replaced.
I do not develop for Android or iOS exactly for the reason of not being in control. Stick to desktops, servers and browsers as deployment platforms
Uh, its a company. It never had a "moral compass". And if companies had any attributes at all, it would be a Psychopath.
Maaaaaybe when Dunbar's lower number was 13, the people working did. When Dunbar's 150 was hit, sure they had " do no evil" but that was just marketing spiel.
When they bought Doubleclick, that coffin was welded shut and thrown in the ocean. Only the rubes believed the adtech marketing shit.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
This dude only now thinks Google has lost its moral compass? In 2026?
Bruh.
"I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy"
> When Google offered me the job of Director of Android Platform Security in 2017, it was impossible to refuse. Yes, Trump was already president—my family and I had qualms—but he seemed contained, even ineffective.
Why make this about trump and politics. It’s just a job.
> Why make this about trump and politics.
They go on to explain exactly why in the fifth paragraph.
> It’s just a job.
Nobody operates in a vacuum.
> Why make this about trump and politics
Because that's who and what you empower when you work for a company that works with said administration.
> It’s just a job.
So was being a concentration camp guard.
> So was being a concentration camp guard.
What the hell. We are talking about ads on the computer.
Your comments are full of nonsense hyperbole. The comparison isn’t remotely close. I’m glad this guy left Google - dragging down his company and teammates with his insufferable leftist politics.
These tech-bro public resignations are so tedious. Ostensibly he seems fine with the existence of AI mass surveillance and AI powered murderbots but he just never envisioned a scenario where they would get used that wasn't congruent with his politics.
Ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land and he's pointing out "all lawful uses" isn't what the admin says it is.
That doesn't appear to be stopping the current administration. That's why I think you should be more concerned about the tools of oppression existing rather than the laws that govern them.
Pathetic whining. He's upset that Google abandoned their carbon-neutral goal? Welcome to the real world, adults deal in trade-offs, and Google must play in AI or resign itself from the future of technology. And similarly, America has military interests that demand the involvement of the private sector. You'd think that after four years of war a few hundred miles from Austria's borders, this man would start to get it. But he's still living in the ivory tower of luxury beliefs.
This comment make a couple assumptions I don't agree with:
1. That technological development and a "carbon neutral goal" are incompatible. Carbon neutrality is precisely a problem of technological development, with green energy, battery technology, and improving the grid all on the vanguard of modern technological development. The problems caused by global warming will only get more severe (even if they don't cause the apocalypse) and these technological issues will be correspondingly more important for the survival of any other tech that depends on energy.
2. That America's military interests and private sector involvement are inevitable. I think that Google could influence an overly militaristic policy precisely by withholding support. We are _not_ a dictatorship where everyone and every institution must bend their will to the leader, and changes are in fact sometimes made through a show of resistance. This may be a somewhat naive view, but I think it's more correct than one that sees US politics as so inevitable that even Google has no choice but to fall in line. Sure, it would probably cost them to resist, but as another commenter pointed out: ethical decisions typically have a cost.
The last time I worked for someone else was 1992 so one didn't really use personal sites like this where one would whine about why they left their job for all the world to see. We all have our reasons for quitting but something like this just gathers the "Yeah!!" crowd but no one gains anything from it and it's quickly forgotten.
You've already forgotten the content of his post now. Right?
> The last time I worked for someone else was 1992
Sometimes it’s fine to see a topic and tell yourself “I have no relevant knowledge in this area so I won’t comment”.
1992 is actually insane, this is before common commercial email.
>but no one gains anything from it
venting can be helpful mentally/emotionally.
readers can feel solidarity, comfort in a shared experience, etc.
Good for you, just try to remember those old days when you complained about bosses and "whine" about things to your friends and some work colleges about day to day stuff. Now think what you would say about a situation when you were fed up and had to quit because you couldn't take it anymore and every day you had these tasks going against your values ( doesn't matter if they are "right" or "wrong", they are yours ).
Also, Google is a multi-billion dreadnought with hundreds of millions of dollars for PR, lawyers and lobbying every year. I'm sure they can take a post about someone "whining" and quitting their job in disagreement. Something tells me Google be fine...
This was a post shared with colleagues. Apparently, reaching out to colleagues and friends is verboten now?
You are getting emotional. Maybe try calming down?
everyone _works for someone else_, it's entirely about what the structure of that relationship is.
You don't make your own food do you? Build your own car? Make your own git repos?
Seems like you might want to have a better view about who you work for.
Your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote.
I cannot imagine allowing identity politics to drive your career decisions.
I can't imagine ignoring personal ethics in career decisions. I also find it troubling when personal ethics are inaccurately dismissed as "identity politics". Supporting carbon-neutrality and rejecting military applications are clearly matters of personal ethics.
I think very often people are not looking and cause and effect (impact on those issues you care about), but rather brand identification. How does the image of this job match with my stated values? In that sense it does seem shallow, as it’s really a concern for your own PR and not harm reduction.
For example I know people in mining who 1. Work on safety for people in mines. 2. Work on reducing environmental impact. But many of their friends say “I could never work for mining”. And what I hear is “I don’t want that brand”.
That probably does happen, but I don't feel like it's happening here.
Personal ethics is personal which means other people won't likely understand it nor truly think it's really ethical.
They're resigning because Google is complicit in killing people. How is that "identity politics"? Do you just throw the word "identity" in there for no reason?
Then, I'm sorry to say, you have no spine
You sound like someone who has never been poor. Or whose family has never been poor. Easy to have “spine” when you can depend on someone else for money.
I cannot imagine actively working towards what one believes would be a worse world.
It's just regular politics, no identity involved. Everything is political - including our careers.
Adding data centers and killing bad guys is what makes the world better - too bad leftists don’t understand this.
"identity politics" is such a lame way of saying "having a conscience".
identity pol: "people organize and advocate based on shared demographic characteristics"
What in this post is possibly identity politics? It sounds like personal ethics to me. I don't appreciate identity politics, and when you muddy the term with having a spine and anything you don't like you make it harder to debate the actual problems the term is normally associated with.
The person youre replying to also employed the term TDS in recent comments, which I believe refers to Trump Devotion Syndrome.
Muddying waters and making debate impossible are his goals. He hoped to antagonize everyone with his trigger word.
When you have no morals to speak of, it doesn't come up much.
When did m'lord permit you to use that serf mind to imagine? Ethics are for brains but your lot are for grains.
When you view someone's choices for purpose & ethical boundaries through a lens that presents as identity politics, you are revealing your alienation from civilization. Talent with basic freedoms can be selective about their pursuits. If you hold a idea that you are a mercenary or machinery, consider how useful that is to ambitious sociopaths that have abandoned civilization.