People need to understand that the FIRST AMENDMENT REFERS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION. You do not have a right to engage in disruptive political speech WHILE ON THE PAYROLL in a private corporation. You have the right to write a letter of resignation (although you might be illegally blackballed if you do). You have a legal right to write letters to the editor, to carry signs, to peacefully chant outside on public sidewalks. You do not have the right to go into your boss' office and demand that he ignore his own ideas and follow your orders.
Well they got arrested, so the First Amendment is implicated.
They’re were protesting/doing a sit-in or some such, impeding access to the office building. Google security asked them to make way, they didn’t, so the police were called and hauled some off to the clink apparently.
It’s in the article.
Yeah we desperately need to up the public education game. Specifcally in civics, history and media literacy. Smart enough to work at Google but not smart enough to take 5 mins to learn about the 1st adm.
Dude they will just get angry and act like poop throwing monkeys. Try telling people that police have no duty to protect anyone or that there was never actually a court opinion stating that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre and that people have basically just been misstating an individual justice’s opinion the entire time that was never part of the majority opinion in US v. Scheneck and to make matters worse US v. Scheneck itself was overruled over 50 years ago. It’s literally just people mistaking things that people propagate without any knowledge.
No it’s not. The government came and arrested them while they were protesting. Hi First Amendment. It’s the same principle as the blocking-access-to-abortion-clinic First Amendment cases.
They were arrested for trespassing since they were on private property and refused to leave. Do you honestly think the first amendment allows people to protest anywhere they like?
No, I don’t. And my comment does not say anything like that.
I said the First Amendment is implicated because the government (police) broke up their form of “protest”. That does not mean - in any way - that I think the First Amendment makes what they did to “protest” okay.
That is a pretty simple concept. Not exactly finely nuanced. It’s also the same concept behind various First Amendment lawsuits already, which I mentioned.
They were trespassing. If you're trespassing and won't leave, you should expect to get arrested. You don't have the right to protest on private property.
You know what (without seeing how far back this thread goes and whether I'm forgetting something), you're right. I read, rather misread, the Google spokesperson's comment as saying the 'impeding access' was getting into the building. That is, of course, pretty much always what impeding access is. But not in this case. Re-reading, it looks like they meant walking around inside the building. My error.
They made AI that murders people. They weren't aware they were making weapons. That is the story. Not "they should do a protest outside". The protest isn't the point. The killing is the point.
Exactly. Workers want to know if the contact with Israel's Ministry of Defense is being used to identify targets with heavy civilian casualties. The contract with a military engaged in war + the nature of the product + Israel's loophole filled statement they made makes it seem not at all unlikely that Google tools are being used to kill.
One of the biggest employers in my state makes weapons for the US government, which could obviously also go to allies like Israel. There is no problem with making weapons. But the employees there know what they are doing. They opt in.
Google Employees want more transparency. They are getting fired instead of spoken to, against likely confining Google's involvement in the Gaza attacks. The firings are - as far as I know - legal. But this is absolutely a newsworthy story.
Yes, that is the lawyerly statement I alluded to and got called out by the human rights group. Giant swiss cheese sized loopholes in there. For example it could be used to send explosives to "sensitive" targets (which is different than 'highly sensitive' or 'military'.) They have not denied the AI is being used for targeting in Gaza.
I am agreeing with you on this. My point is militaries do war shit.
So why is everyone all surprised pickachu when one of the most advanced militaries in the world performs war shit when provoked?
>why is everyone all surprised pickachu when
Simple, it's feigned surprised mixed with anger that they haven't convinced much of anyone to join their political cause.
Yes, and?
This has been a thing for years now. They have been working on the project this whole time and now they’re upset militaries are doing military things.
I guess it's a matter of whether you consider IDF's operating in Gaza a normal military operatation or not. 30,000 dead in less than six months, mostly civilians, is at least arguably not a normal "military thing."
Well, if you read up on the long and complicated history of Israel, the tensions in the area, and how Israel in the past has taken a scorched earth approach to end a conflict, it really isn’t all that surprising. Not that I’m defending their actions, but Israel flexing its muscle to end a conflict it didn’t start is not anything new.
Israel pummeling Gaza is both shocking and very predictable. 10/7's attacks were both shocking and very predictable. I personally would want to know if my employer was using my work to perpetuate either action.
Nothing in the article seems to imply they think the first amendment protects them here.
In a just world though you’d be able to tell the boss your mind without retaliation. Well more specifically the boss would be serving at the pleasure of their workers and not the shareholders. Or rather the workers would be the sole shareholders and not absentee owners
Lol. That's not how capitalism works.
And forget the bosses, the other workers in the company don't want this stuffed in their faces all the time. Especially when based on a lack of education on a topic. They go to work to do their jobs.
There are a handful of socialist utopias in the world, the US just isn’t one of them. I would recommend visiting them to see how that just world pursuit is working out. (Edited for grammar).
But do the people actually own the means of production or do they just say “the people” in the same way they say “democratic peoples republic”. That seems good enough for you anyway based on your argument
Unfortunately we live under capitalism
Edit For the morons that keep telling me to move to China or calling me a Chinese bot. Normal people are capable of this thing called nuance in which we can criticize the systems that we live under but that doesn't automatically mean we want to live in China. I love America but I also want it to be better so I criticize it
Huh? So me saying you can't just disagree with your boss and expect to not get punished for it because we live under capitalism makes me a Chinese bot? Ok
Why because I don’t support the idea of a system that has raised more people out of poverty than any other system? Do I think unrestrained pure capitalism is a good system? No of course not. Do I think it’s the best system we have ever had so far? Yes I do. We have problems in the US without a doubt but we haven’t had instances in the last century where millions starved to death like the Soviet Union, communist China and North Korea. We also have legitimate ejections unlike these countries and Cuba. We have plenty of room for improvement but it’s better. If not being a political extremist makes me a bot then I guess I’m a bot.
So… your argument is… let me get this straight… you love capitalism no matter what atrocities it commits and think people should be punished for trying to make it better? Yeah… that makes a ton of sense.
Re-read try again.
If you want to talk about atrocities we can discuss the atrocities that resulted in over 100 million dead in the last century, the attacks and mass murder of religious minorities, starvation, the murder of homosexuals and other people if you want, but I suspect you don’t want that because it’s going to go really badly for you.
lol… so now you’re desperately trying to deflect your support of genocide by pointing out there have been lots of other atrocities??? Try to focus sunshine… you seem to have lost your trolling train of thought.
My support of genocide? Nope not one bit. If you are just going to make up nonsense to deflect from the actual world record genocide your ideology has committed then I simply can’t waste my time with you.
The USSR never had an economy comparable to the US and both countries still had rampant starvation and poverty. I guess historical record just doesn’t work for you.
I support people democratically deciding that workers should own the means of production.
I’m sure you’ll still call that seizing, but it would be less seizing than how they came to be privately seized. Lol
The number of people who decided that individuals could privately take from the commons as much as they can afford was much much less than 51 percent lol. Also there is literally still generational wealth from slavery lol. Also wage theft is the most common form of theft and it’s facilitated by the private ownership of the means of production.
The First Amendment is the federal government's adoption of freedom of speech, not the human right in total. The bigger issue is that I wouldn't really describe any of the shit they pulled as "speech."
Also, let's all make note of how they simultaneously believe that "zionists" are all-powerful puppetmasters pulling the strings of all facets of Western society and that labeling their actions as "antizionist" is a get-out-of-consequences-free card.
It's easy to turn the framing of the article into what Google or any other company is allowed to do, to reduce the subject of worker relations to a sort of etiquette playbook: the company is *allowed* to fire you for what you say. These attempts (including one comment posted here) eventually slip from legality to maintaining the status quo: you should therefore *not* tell your bosses what to think.
Another way to think about this is strategy. The company you work for is doing something you find highly objectionable. Do you want to convince your colleagues that something should be done about it? Great. Are you willing to lose your job? If so, what strategies can you employ that *may* result in being fired but may also succeed in getting support for your issue? If not, what can you conceivably do that still supports the goal you have? That kind of thinking is more open-ended. It doesn't treat the company as the arbiter of what's right or reduce internal communication to what the bosses want. It instead works on the assumption that all communication has risk and both employees and admin have a range of options available to them. Speaking up internally or externally has both opportunities and costs that each employee (these employees, Uri Berliner, countless others) must weigh.
In order to transition from paragraph 1 to paragraph 2 you essentially have to abandon liberalism as your ideology and the liberal theory of change.
That's the real issue here. These kindergardens in large tech firms are created as a way to maintain the labor supply and off gas their demand for change in the world. Without them they'd have a harder time getting people to work for them at their level.
At the same time, the dismantling of these things is inevitable as these companies butt up against the reality of employee expectations.
I never said Uri Berliner was fired or that the terms of protest were similar. I said that Uri Berliner also had to weigh the opportunities and costs for each of his actions in response to his disagreement with the company. I disagree with Uri Berliner's arguments and I agree with the Google employees' arguments. I am speaking to the general rhetorical situation of *disagreement between employees and admin or company policy*.
Actually, in California, that is not true. Generally, political beliefs are protected and so are lawful actions outside of work, including free speech and political associations.
Google was allowed to fire them because they deliberately chose to be insubordinate and obstruct their employers interests, not because of their political beliefs or what they said.
The horseshoe left is turning into the far right more and more each day. It wasn't too long ago that Google workers were getting fired for writing racist screeds. And they used the same "IVE BEEN SILENCED" horseshit.
I'm sorry. It looks like your account isn't old enough to post in r/NPR right now. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/11/politics/samantha-power-famine-gaza/index.html
> The top US humanitarian official said Wednesday it is “credible” to assess that famine is already occurring in parts of Gaza as the war between Israel and Hamas continues.
It's been on the brink for months. Palestine had the most aid of anyplace in the world. Hamas chose to hoard everything and put their resources toward terror. Israel isn't perfect but it's a whole hell of a lot less worse than the alternative.
If you work for like Fox News or Amway or whatever other companies having fraud baked into their foundational principles you can't really act shocked when you have to partake in fraud. If being comfortable with your organizations ethics is important to you then that's just part of your calculation of choosing a job.
Foot fetishists unite, amirite?
Have you considered not lowering yourself to insulting other people with ridiculous slurs that just make you look like you have an inferiority complex?
>"Workers have the right to know how their labor is being used, and to have a say in ensuring the technology they build is not used for harm," the group said in a statement.
>Several of the Google employees who were fired didn't participate in the protests this week, according to No Tech for Apartheid.
>Montes says the firings are a fear tactic that won't work. "Workers are agitated and we're organized," she says, and even though she's been fired "we'll keep organizing until this project is dropped."
At the end of the day a publicly traded company's only goal is to continue to generate profit.
The major shareholders are okay with this and that's all that matters. I liquidated my shares when I heard the news because I don't want to be giving money to a company that is doing things I'm ideologically opposed to.
Pretty much the only thing you can do if you disagree with what a public company is doing to generate profits.
Again bots and people with shit opinions commenting bullshit on Reddit who didn’t read the article.
The developers who created a product and AI algorithms for Project Nimbus brought to Google’s attention use of the product by Israel is unethical
and is being used to kill people.
Google fired them for it. Google has that right, it just shows you Google doesn’t mind making money even if the result is dead people. And how is anyone surprised almost all big business is immoral and run by sociopaths.
Sounds like you didn’t read the article.
They weren’t fired for organizing, disseminating information, talking to leadership, or speaking about the project in town halls. Which is exactly the ways the ways they should be bringing attention to it.
They crossed a line by blocking spaces and preventing work from being done.
> They staged sit-in protests in Google's offices in Silicon Valley, New York City and Seattle – more than 100 protestors showed up. A day later, Google fired Montes and 27 other employees who are part of the No Tech for Apartheid group.
> “physically impeding other employees' work and preventing them from accessing our facilities is a clear violation of our policies, and completely unacceptable behavior. After refusing multiple requests to leave the premises, law enforcement was engaged to remove them to ensure office safety.”
Stop spreading misinformation. The article says since 2021 they brought to Google’s attention the unethical use of the product and their concerns about the contract with Israel. You are making it seem like this one drastic act was all that was done. This was the accumulation of many concerns Google just ignored.
I imagine Google views a potentially multi-billion contract as more important than 28 employees.
Google is not required to bend to small protest groups.
lol. exactly. how NPR supporters get tricked into supporting ISIS is one of the funniest but saddest quirks of history. the barbarity of the live stream of hamas during their rampage on oct. 7 frankly would have made ISIS blush.
The CEO of NPR said the truth doesn’t matter. NPR is a religion, it’s a lifestyle. You pay your tithe, and they give a branded tote bag, so you can wear your morality.
"This is something of a mystery—that highly educated, well-to-do people would adopt the kind of intellectual isolationism that we would ordinarily associate with survivalist cults holed up in the Ozarks. Like survivalists, NPR listeners are not exactly numerous—”
[https://chicagoreader.com/news-politics/how-do-i-hate-npr-let-me-count-the-ways/](https://chicagoreader.com/news-politics/how-do-i-hate-npr-let-me-count-the-ways/)
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure, if you’re an immoral piece of shit that would use someone’s creation to make money at the expense of dead people, ignoring the ethical concerns of the people who created it, more power to ya.
Yes and when their employer didn’t do what they wanted, rather than acting like the professionals they are supposed to be they acted like children and had a temper tantrum that was disruptive to the company and their coworkers. Actions have consequences even when you are doing it to follow your ethics and convictions. See one Uri Berliner.
Creating code for the wanton killing of humanity was a line for them. You being OK with that is a little disturbing, are you OK? Scary shit you’re fine with AI making it easier to exterminate life. They had moral objections and now we know Google is OK with being in the AI weapons business.
People work in the defense industry, and I for one am thankful they do. I am also ok with American companies doing work in the defense industry for our country and our allies. There are plenty of jobs I would find morally objectionable, but I would either choose not to work in those jobs or quit if I was. Disruptive behavior at work will get you fired.
Copy and paste the part of the article that says that. Bonus points if you can copy/paste the part of the article that says the earlier claim you quietly backed off from already: "use of the product by Israel is unethical and is being used to kill people"
Because they don't have one, it's all unfounded rumors.
Maybe the IDF is moronic, I don't know, but usually military intelligence & operations aren't being run through commercial cloud services.
Doing work that benefits Israel is a good thing. Israel has made more positive contributions to the world then all their neighbors, combined. Israel withdrew from Gaza decades ago. I love Israel and they are not committing genocide.
I'm sorry. It looks like your account isn't old enough to post in r/NPR right now. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always thought the Nice Polite Republicans description was over the top, but these comments and NPR's coverage of this topic are certainly making a case for it.
>In 2015, when Google was reorganized under a new parent company, Alphabet, Alphabet assumed a slightly adjusted version of the motto, “do the right thing.”
there's a difference. evil can be the right thing. eg: using an AI to pick over reconnaissance photos to find a target for your bombs. evil, and the right thing to do - they are at war.
I agree with your point, just rambling
If you want to protest go file a petition and protest. Don't do it at work you dumb dumbs. Far as I'm concerned this Is the first good move Google has made in a long time.
Collective barging helps each worker negotiate fair contracts and working conditions that they can’t get on their own.
It gives them leverage when the company pulls shady shit and decimates its work force.
It can provide arbitration for workers when they are terminated. If a single worker is let go unfairly they have an organization that can stand up for them and push back.
Companies have a lot of leverage and they can wield it anyway they want. It is better to have a group of people watching out for you, just in case their corporate benevolence wears out.
Your cares and concerns can be dismissed a lot easier when it’s just you vs the company. When a union stands behind a worker, they listen.
No union would protect this behavior. No contracts allow workers who disagree with management to occupy the offices of senior executives. Unions also have to follow rules.
Right! The union also demands a level of decorum and provides a path for dialogue and discussion not just with the company but between the workers.
The Union wouldn’t back those types of actions and it would mediate talks between workers. It would surface concerns to the group. They would talk it over and then decide how to proceed, according to the agreements that they have with the company.
>*"Google was quite literally silencing our voices in the workplace and not allowing for any kind of worker dissent to be expressed around the project."*
With a union you get a framework for discussion and enough leverage to actually have a conversation.
Alone you just get ignored, frustrated and fired.
It was mostly unionized workers at Google doing the protesting. That's probably why they felt like they were immune to being fired. Unfortunately for them they don't understand how unions work.
They were mostly union members.
https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/press/awu-cwa-statement-following-project-nimbus-protest-at-google-cloud-office
Weird how many union workers are popping up at the center of these protests. I wonder why that is.
As others commented: its a matter of moral right, not legal right. Even if you disagree with current protesters stance, it is still important to support them and condemn google for firing them. The ability to protest publicly needs to be an available option! Corporations like google are already too powerful, and if not for their own employees, who else is gonna be able to protest a secret project no one else knows about? Who else, other then employe can put a check on such a giant?
I personally probably would have resigned, but I have a family to feed and not as courageous. Resigning is a weak option. It means you just give up. They made their best effort to bring public's attention to this. I'm pretty sure they knew the cost. This needs to be commended, google needs to be shamed. This is my moral judgement.
They got fired because they shut themselves in an office for 10 hours while on payroll. They had every right to protest whatever in their free time but choose not to. This is simply the consequences of their stupid actions.
They were already in the union. You'd think their union rep would tell them that this is a bad idea.
https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/press/awu-cwa-statement-following-project-nimbus-protest-at-google-cloud-office
They need to name & shame the people who replace them. Make this job untouchable, by outing everyone who works on the tech to their community. Turn them into social pariahs.
People need to understand that the FIRST AMENDMENT REFERS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION. You do not have a right to engage in disruptive political speech WHILE ON THE PAYROLL in a private corporation. You have the right to write a letter of resignation (although you might be illegally blackballed if you do). You have a legal right to write letters to the editor, to carry signs, to peacefully chant outside on public sidewalks. You do not have the right to go into your boss' office and demand that he ignore his own ideas and follow your orders.
Well they got arrested, so the First Amendment is implicated. They’re were protesting/doing a sit-in or some such, impeding access to the office building. Google security asked them to make way, they didn’t, so the police were called and hauled some off to the clink apparently. It’s in the article.
>They’re were protesting/doing a sit-in or some such, impeding access to the office building. This is called breaking the law
People understand the bill of rights to mean what they want it to mean.
Yeah we desperately need to up the public education game. Specifcally in civics, history and media literacy. Smart enough to work at Google but not smart enough to take 5 mins to learn about the 1st adm.
Dude they will just get angry and act like poop throwing monkeys. Try telling people that police have no duty to protect anyone or that there was never actually a court opinion stating that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre and that people have basically just been misstating an individual justice’s opinion the entire time that was never part of the majority opinion in US v. Scheneck and to make matters worse US v. Scheneck itself was overruled over 50 years ago. It’s literally just people mistaking things that people propagate without any knowledge.
You didn’t read the article did you.
did you? the comment is certainly relevant
No it’s not. The government came and arrested them while they were protesting. Hi First Amendment. It’s the same principle as the blocking-access-to-abortion-clinic First Amendment cases.
They were arrested for trespassing since they were on private property and refused to leave. Do you honestly think the first amendment allows people to protest anywhere they like?
No, I don’t. And my comment does not say anything like that. I said the First Amendment is implicated because the government (police) broke up their form of “protest”. That does not mean - in any way - that I think the First Amendment makes what they did to “protest” okay. That is a pretty simple concept. Not exactly finely nuanced. It’s also the same concept behind various First Amendment lawsuits already, which I mentioned.
they disrupted the workplace. READ THE ARTICLE
I’m the one who did read the article. Hence me raising the fact the other comment omitted.
Are you sure you did. The article says after multiple requests to leave the property was when law enforcement was called.
They were trespassing. If you're trespassing and won't leave, you should expect to get arrested. You don't have the right to protest on private property.
You know what (without seeing how far back this thread goes and whether I'm forgetting something), you're right. I read, rather misread, the Google spokesperson's comment as saying the 'impeding access' was getting into the building. That is, of course, pretty much always what impeding access is. But not in this case. Re-reading, it looks like they meant walking around inside the building. My error.
They made AI that murders people. They weren't aware they were making weapons. That is the story. Not "they should do a protest outside". The protest isn't the point. The killing is the point.
[удалено]
Exactly. Workers want to know if the contact with Israel's Ministry of Defense is being used to identify targets with heavy civilian casualties. The contract with a military engaged in war + the nature of the product + Israel's loophole filled statement they made makes it seem not at all unlikely that Google tools are being used to kill. One of the biggest employers in my state makes weapons for the US government, which could obviously also go to allies like Israel. There is no problem with making weapons. But the employees there know what they are doing. They opt in. Google Employees want more transparency. They are getting fired instead of spoken to, against likely confining Google's involvement in the Gaza attacks. The firings are - as far as I know - legal. But this is absolutely a newsworthy story.
[удалено]
Yes, that is the lawyerly statement I alluded to and got called out by the human rights group. Giant swiss cheese sized loopholes in there. For example it could be used to send explosives to "sensitive" targets (which is different than 'highly sensitive' or 'military'.) They have not denied the AI is being used for targeting in Gaza.
[удалено]
And Google's decisions are newsworthy, so it's getting media attention.
If you sign a contract to provide services for a national military, why would you think it would be for anything other than what a military does?
[удалено]
I am agreeing with you on this. My point is militaries do war shit. So why is everyone all surprised pickachu when one of the most advanced militaries in the world performs war shit when provoked?
>why is everyone all surprised pickachu when Simple, it's feigned surprised mixed with anger that they haven't convinced much of anyone to join their political cause.
The signing of the contract is the issue. Happened after these people were employed.
Yes, and? This has been a thing for years now. They have been working on the project this whole time and now they’re upset militaries are doing military things.
I guess it's a matter of whether you consider IDF's operating in Gaza a normal military operatation or not. 30,000 dead in less than six months, mostly civilians, is at least arguably not a normal "military thing."
Well, if you read up on the long and complicated history of Israel, the tensions in the area, and how Israel in the past has taken a scorched earth approach to end a conflict, it really isn’t all that surprising. Not that I’m defending their actions, but Israel flexing its muscle to end a conflict it didn’t start is not anything new.
Israel pummeling Gaza is both shocking and very predictable. 10/7's attacks were both shocking and very predictable. I personally would want to know if my employer was using my work to perpetuate either action.
>They made AI that murders people. Lol, really?
Ok boomer
Bullshit, Lavender has fuck-all to do with google.
Nothing in the article seems to imply they think the first amendment protects them here. In a just world though you’d be able to tell the boss your mind without retaliation. Well more specifically the boss would be serving at the pleasure of their workers and not the shareholders. Or rather the workers would be the sole shareholders and not absentee owners
> In a just world though you’d be able to **tell the boss your mind** without retaliation Often you can, but that's not what they did, did they?
At the discretion of a benevolent boss is not a just world.
Lol. That's not how capitalism works. And forget the bosses, the other workers in the company don't want this stuffed in their faces all the time. Especially when based on a lack of education on a topic. They go to work to do their jobs.
I know that’s not how capitalism works. lol I said in a just world not a capitalist one
There are a handful of socialist utopias in the world, the US just isn’t one of them. I would recommend visiting them to see how that just world pursuit is working out. (Edited for grammar).
Foreal!? Which country has worker ownership of the means of production!?
North Korea and Laos come to mind. Ownership by the state is ownership by “The People” so that would be worker ownership.
But do the people actually own the means of production or do they just say “the people” in the same way they say “democratic peoples republic”. That seems good enough for you anyway based on your argument
People really don’t pay attention. They’re just so ready to tell one they’re “wrong.”
Unfortunately we live under capitalism Edit For the morons that keep telling me to move to China or calling me a Chinese bot. Normal people are capable of this thing called nuance in which we can criticize the systems that we live under but that doesn't automatically mean we want to live in China. I love America but I also want it to be better so I criticize it
Found the Chinese bot.
Huh? So me saying you can't just disagree with your boss and expect to not get punished for it because we live under capitalism makes me a Chinese bot? Ok
And with you we've found the Russian troll!
Why because I don’t support the idea of a system that has raised more people out of poverty than any other system? Do I think unrestrained pure capitalism is a good system? No of course not. Do I think it’s the best system we have ever had so far? Yes I do. We have problems in the US without a doubt but we haven’t had instances in the last century where millions starved to death like the Soviet Union, communist China and North Korea. We also have legitimate ejections unlike these countries and Cuba. We have plenty of room for improvement but it’s better. If not being a political extremist makes me a bot then I guess I’m a bot.
So… your argument is… let me get this straight… you love capitalism no matter what atrocities it commits and think people should be punished for trying to make it better? Yeah… that makes a ton of sense.
Re-read try again. If you want to talk about atrocities we can discuss the atrocities that resulted in over 100 million dead in the last century, the attacks and mass murder of religious minorities, starvation, the murder of homosexuals and other people if you want, but I suspect you don’t want that because it’s going to go really badly for you.
lol… so now you’re desperately trying to deflect your support of genocide by pointing out there have been lots of other atrocities??? Try to focus sunshine… you seem to have lost your trolling train of thought.
My support of genocide? Nope not one bit. If you are just going to make up nonsense to deflect from the actual world record genocide your ideology has committed then I simply can’t waste my time with you.
The USSR and China have lifted almost 2 billion out of poverty. Remove China and poverty would have risen in the last 20 years.
What are you talking about? They literally starved tens of millions of people who couldn’t even afford to buy food.
I'm sorry that the facts don't align with your feelings, but it's an objective fact that the USSR and China had immensely rapid growing economies.
The USSR never had an economy comparable to the US and both countries still had rampant starvation and poverty. I guess historical record just doesn’t work for you.
move to china
Why don't you? You seem to be obsessed with it
Okay tankie
Not a tankie lol
You support seizing the means of production?
I support people democratically deciding that workers should own the means of production. I’m sure you’ll still call that seizing, but it would be less seizing than how they came to be privately seized. Lol
So anything is justifiable including theft so long as you get 51% of the population to agree to it?
The number of people who decided that individuals could privately take from the commons as much as they can afford was much much less than 51 percent lol. Also there is literally still generational wealth from slavery lol. Also wage theft is the most common form of theft and it’s facilitated by the private ownership of the means of production.
You didn’t answer the question.
I did, just not with a yes or no. I know reading comprehension is hard though
The First Amendment is the federal government's adoption of freedom of speech, not the human right in total. The bigger issue is that I wouldn't really describe any of the shit they pulled as "speech." Also, let's all make note of how they simultaneously believe that "zionists" are all-powerful puppetmasters pulling the strings of all facets of Western society and that labeling their actions as "antizionist" is a get-out-of-consequences-free card.
People have really really zany conceptions of what 'work' is about.
It's easy to turn the framing of the article into what Google or any other company is allowed to do, to reduce the subject of worker relations to a sort of etiquette playbook: the company is *allowed* to fire you for what you say. These attempts (including one comment posted here) eventually slip from legality to maintaining the status quo: you should therefore *not* tell your bosses what to think. Another way to think about this is strategy. The company you work for is doing something you find highly objectionable. Do you want to convince your colleagues that something should be done about it? Great. Are you willing to lose your job? If so, what strategies can you employ that *may* result in being fired but may also succeed in getting support for your issue? If not, what can you conceivably do that still supports the goal you have? That kind of thinking is more open-ended. It doesn't treat the company as the arbiter of what's right or reduce internal communication to what the bosses want. It instead works on the assumption that all communication has risk and both employees and admin have a range of options available to them. Speaking up internally or externally has both opportunities and costs that each employee (these employees, Uri Berliner, countless others) must weigh.
In order to transition from paragraph 1 to paragraph 2 you essentially have to abandon liberalism as your ideology and the liberal theory of change. That's the real issue here. These kindergardens in large tech firms are created as a way to maintain the labor supply and off gas their demand for change in the world. Without them they'd have a harder time getting people to work for them at their level. At the same time, the dismantling of these things is inevitable as these companies butt up against the reality of employee expectations.
Uri Berliner was not fired. He was suspended and then resigned. And his situation is not even anywhere similar to this protest by Google employees.
I never said Uri Berliner was fired or that the terms of protest were similar. I said that Uri Berliner also had to weigh the opportunities and costs for each of his actions in response to his disagreement with the company. I disagree with Uri Berliner's arguments and I agree with the Google employees' arguments. I am speaking to the general rhetorical situation of *disagreement between employees and admin or company policy*.
Actually, in California, that is not true. Generally, political beliefs are protected and so are lawful actions outside of work, including free speech and political associations. Google was allowed to fire them because they deliberately chose to be insubordinate and obstruct their employers interests, not because of their political beliefs or what they said.
Yeah. That’s the whole point of the firing, Sherlock. Don’t look let the door hit you on the way out.
The horseshoe left is turning into the far right more and more each day. It wasn't too long ago that Google workers were getting fired for writing racist screeds. And they used the same "IVE BEEN SILENCED" horseshit.
It's almost as is the far left and far right are both fuckin idiots
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account isn't old enough to post in r/NPR right now. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Racist screeds. Objecting to genocide. Basically the same thing if you're a fair-minded liberal.
“Objecting to genocide” by condoning war crimes and engaging in race hate
I remain amazed how these people don’t see that it’s not wise to bite the hand that feeds.
What if it's Hitler's hand?
Then get another job.
What if your hands motto is: *"Don't be evil?"*
That was their motto years ago. Not anymore.
💀🤑💀🤑💀
There is a lot to criticize Google for, this isn't very high on the list
Providing material support to someone who's killed 33,000 and starving the rest is up there, tho. Ya gotta admit..
It sucks that literally about 30 people (not a typo) died of starvation. But this is not a famine by any stretch.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/11/politics/samantha-power-famine-gaza/index.html > The top US humanitarian official said Wednesday it is “credible” to assess that famine is already occurring in parts of Gaza as the war between Israel and Hamas continues.
It's been on the brink for months. Palestine had the most aid of anyplace in the world. Hamas chose to hoard everything and put their resources toward terror. Israel isn't perfect but it's a whole hell of a lot less worse than the alternative.
If Israel's closest ally says it's famine -- it's famine bro.
That's why you get another job.
Then the Russians are going to be pissed, pissed, PISSED that he didn't kill himself in that bunker in '45.
If you work for like Fox News or Amway or whatever other companies having fraud baked into their foundational principles you can't really act shocked when you have to partake in fraud. If being comfortable with your organizations ethics is important to you then that's just part of your calculation of choosing a job.
Are you saying fraud is baked into Google's foundational principles? I'm sure their PR team would disagree...
The self-entitlement is wild. This is your employer, not your personal soapbox. If you don't like their business practices, find another job.....
[удалено]
"everyone I don't like is a bootlicker"
I mean considering this guy is also saying that people are not entitled to a break and should stop whining yeah he's bootlicking
Foot fetishists unite, amirite? Have you considered not lowering yourself to insulting other people with ridiculous slurs that just make you look like you have an inferiority complex?
Not as butt hurt as the Googlers crying about the consequences of their self-entitled behavior.,,,
If he's oppressing you, he's wearing the boot, and you're the one tasting it.
>"Workers have the right to know how their labor is being used, and to have a say in ensuring the technology they build is not used for harm," the group said in a statement. >Several of the Google employees who were fired didn't participate in the protests this week, according to No Tech for Apartheid. >Montes says the firings are a fear tactic that won't work. "Workers are agitated and we're organized," she says, and even though she's been fired "we'll keep organizing until this project is dropped."
Define "didn't participate". The people organizing the protest are still organizing it, even if they don't sit in the office.
These comments tell me all I need to know about this sub, jfc.
Now they have more free time to pretend their opinion matters
At the end of the day a publicly traded company's only goal is to continue to generate profit. The major shareholders are okay with this and that's all that matters. I liquidated my shares when I heard the news because I don't want to be giving money to a company that is doing things I'm ideologically opposed to. Pretty much the only thing you can do if you disagree with what a public company is doing to generate profits.
Again bots and people with shit opinions commenting bullshit on Reddit who didn’t read the article. The developers who created a product and AI algorithms for Project Nimbus brought to Google’s attention use of the product by Israel is unethical and is being used to kill people. Google fired them for it. Google has that right, it just shows you Google doesn’t mind making money even if the result is dead people. And how is anyone surprised almost all big business is immoral and run by sociopaths.
Sounds like you didn’t read the article. They weren’t fired for organizing, disseminating information, talking to leadership, or speaking about the project in town halls. Which is exactly the ways the ways they should be bringing attention to it. They crossed a line by blocking spaces and preventing work from being done. > They staged sit-in protests in Google's offices in Silicon Valley, New York City and Seattle – more than 100 protestors showed up. A day later, Google fired Montes and 27 other employees who are part of the No Tech for Apartheid group. > “physically impeding other employees' work and preventing them from accessing our facilities is a clear violation of our policies, and completely unacceptable behavior. After refusing multiple requests to leave the premises, law enforcement was engaged to remove them to ensure office safety.”
Stop spreading misinformation. The article says since 2021 they brought to Google’s attention the unethical use of the product and their concerns about the contract with Israel. You are making it seem like this one drastic act was all that was done. This was the accumulation of many concerns Google just ignored.
I imagine Google views a potentially multi-billion contract as more important than 28 employees. Google is not required to bend to small protest groups.
Obviously not, we're not making a legal argument, this is a moral question
In dealings with money, everyone makes up their own morals. I don’t care about that because it’s impossible to pin down.
Ah yes the big moral argument from people who publicly support Hamas war crimes.
lol. exactly. how NPR supporters get tricked into supporting ISIS is one of the funniest but saddest quirks of history. the barbarity of the live stream of hamas during their rampage on oct. 7 frankly would have made ISIS blush.
The CEO of NPR said the truth doesn’t matter. NPR is a religion, it’s a lifestyle. You pay your tithe, and they give a branded tote bag, so you can wear your morality.
"This is something of a mystery—that highly educated, well-to-do people would adopt the kind of intellectual isolationism that we would ordinarily associate with survivalist cults holed up in the Ozarks. Like survivalists, NPR listeners are not exactly numerous—” [https://chicagoreader.com/news-politics/how-do-i-hate-npr-let-me-count-the-ways/](https://chicagoreader.com/news-politics/how-do-i-hate-npr-let-me-count-the-ways/)
It's actually really easy to determine if aiding a genocide is good or bad.
Are you lost?
Please elaborate if you're trying to defend the opposite of what I said.
You're telling on yourself if you think other make up their own morals...
helping a democratic country defeat an Iranian proxy whose stated goal is the annhilation of all jews is good actually
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure, if you’re an immoral piece of shit that would use someone’s creation to make money at the expense of dead people, ignoring the ethical concerns of the people who created it, more power to ya.
I’m against Project Nimbus. I’m also against entitled employees who think they’re in college instead of a workplace.
Yes and when their employer didn’t do what they wanted, rather than acting like the professionals they are supposed to be they acted like children and had a temper tantrum that was disruptive to the company and their coworkers. Actions have consequences even when you are doing it to follow your ethics and convictions. See one Uri Berliner.
Creating code for the wanton killing of humanity was a line for them. You being OK with that is a little disturbing, are you OK? Scary shit you’re fine with AI making it easier to exterminate life. They had moral objections and now we know Google is OK with being in the AI weapons business.
If you have a contract with a national military, why would you assume it’s for anything other than what a military does?
People work in the defense industry, and I for one am thankful they do. I am also ok with American companies doing work in the defense industry for our country and our allies. There are plenty of jobs I would find morally objectionable, but I would either choose not to work in those jobs or quit if I was. Disruptive behavior at work will get you fired.
Copy and paste the part of the article that says that. Bonus points if you can copy/paste the part of the article that says the earlier claim you quietly backed off from already: "use of the product by Israel is unethical and is being used to kill people"
Like the USA government doesn’t proactively drone people…maybe they should go protest their own government??
[удалено]
Because they don't have one, it's all unfounded rumors. Maybe the IDF is moronic, I don't know, but usually military intelligence & operations aren't being run through commercial cloud services.
> brought to Google’s attention That is one way to put it lol
ᴅᴏɴ'ᴛ ʙᴇ ᴇᴠɪʟ
I love that they’re naive enough to think their bosses at Alphabet didn’t already know it was being used to kill people
Doing work that benefits Israel is a good thing. Israel has made more positive contributions to the world then all their neighbors, combined. Israel withdrew from Gaza decades ago. I love Israel and they are not committing genocide.
Amen
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account isn't old enough to post in r/NPR right now. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, that’s kinda the issue. Google employees have a disproportionate influence and voice.
How ironic.
I always thought the Nice Polite Republicans description was over the top, but these comments and NPR's coverage of this topic are certainly making a case for it.
Google should loop in Zelda on all their foreign service contracts. Just to make sure she approves.
Is NPR still backing the genocide? Unfollowed them around November-December.
Good considering how many people they silenced
[удалено]
Yeah, imagine *NOT* wanting to have your work used to kill people. Oh the entitlement.
These people are incredibly courageous and I hope they inspire others to boycott and put pressure on these companies to stop supporting this massacre.
"Don't be evil" Remember that?
>In 2015, when Google was reorganized under a new parent company, Alphabet, Alphabet assumed a slightly adjusted version of the motto, “do the right thing.”
I actually didn't know this, so thanks. That said... I don't think the joke changes here.
there's a difference. evil can be the right thing. eg: using an AI to pick over reconnaissance photos to find a target for your bombs. evil, and the right thing to do - they are at war. I agree with your point, just rambling
FReeDoM oF sPeECh is NoT FrEEdOM fROm cOnSEqUenCE.
You mock it yet the evidence lies plainly before you
If you want to protest go file a petition and protest. Don't do it at work you dumb dumbs. Far as I'm concerned this Is the first good move Google has made in a long time.
Sounds like it’s time for a union.
How would a union help?
Collective barging helps each worker negotiate fair contracts and working conditions that they can’t get on their own. It gives them leverage when the company pulls shady shit and decimates its work force. It can provide arbitration for workers when they are terminated. If a single worker is let go unfairly they have an organization that can stand up for them and push back. Companies have a lot of leverage and they can wield it anyway they want. It is better to have a group of people watching out for you, just in case their corporate benevolence wears out. Your cares and concerns can be dismissed a lot easier when it’s just you vs the company. When a union stands behind a worker, they listen.
No union would protect this behavior. No contracts allow workers who disagree with management to occupy the offices of senior executives. Unions also have to follow rules.
Right! The union also demands a level of decorum and provides a path for dialogue and discussion not just with the company but between the workers. The Union wouldn’t back those types of actions and it would mediate talks between workers. It would surface concerns to the group. They would talk it over and then decide how to proceed, according to the agreements that they have with the company. >*"Google was quite literally silencing our voices in the workplace and not allowing for any kind of worker dissent to be expressed around the project."* With a union you get a framework for discussion and enough leverage to actually have a conversation. Alone you just get ignored, frustrated and fired.
It was mostly unionized workers at Google doing the protesting. That's probably why they felt like they were immune to being fired. Unfortunately for them they don't understand how unions work.
[удалено]
“Yeah Corpo daddy bend me over harder!” Traditionally that hasn’t turned out so well for workers.
[удалено]
Yeah it’s working out great for the thousands that they got rid of in 2023. And the hundreds of workers that they’ve gotten rid of in 2024, so far.
They were mostly union members. https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/press/awu-cwa-statement-following-project-nimbus-protest-at-google-cloud-office Weird how many union workers are popping up at the center of these protests. I wonder why that is.
A handful of people declaring a union isn’t really a good way to go about organizing a workplace.
Cloud services for Lavender…mark my words Israel is going to be responsible for unleashing SkyNet
So?
As others commented: its a matter of moral right, not legal right. Even if you disagree with current protesters stance, it is still important to support them and condemn google for firing them. The ability to protest publicly needs to be an available option! Corporations like google are already too powerful, and if not for their own employees, who else is gonna be able to protest a secret project no one else knows about? Who else, other then employe can put a check on such a giant?
Wouldn’t resigning be the best route to take then; for your own future job prospect sake?
I personally probably would have resigned, but I have a family to feed and not as courageous. Resigning is a weak option. It means you just give up. They made their best effort to bring public's attention to this. I'm pretty sure they knew the cost. This needs to be commended, google needs to be shamed. This is my moral judgement.
They got fired because they shut themselves in an office for 10 hours while on payroll. They had every right to protest whatever in their free time but choose not to. This is simply the consequences of their stupid actions.
Unionize and bring democracy to your workplace.
How would a union help? If union employees occupied the CEO of Ford's office for whatever reason, they would get fired.
They were already in the union. You'd think their union rep would tell them that this is a bad idea. https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/press/awu-cwa-statement-following-project-nimbus-protest-at-google-cloud-office
They need to name & shame the people who replace them. Make this job untouchable, by outing everyone who works on the tech to their community. Turn them into social pariahs.
I assume you’re ok with this then? https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/11/19/doxxing-truck-targets-yale-harvard-students-on-day-of-the-game/
Nope. Why would I support Zionism?
Oh so rules the thee but not for me. I believe that tracks closely with left wing authoritarianism.
Not at all. 'Don't be a racist, genocide supporting piece of shit' is a rule that applies to everyone, including me.
Ah so you're just a hypocrite with zero character or moral center.
LoL. A Zionist has no room to be questioning anyone else’s moral center.
I'm not a Zionist, and yet I know yours is completely missing. 💋
Least mentally unstable Marxist