Senior Google Scientist Resigns Over 'Forfeiture of Our Values' in China (theintercept.com)

A senior Google research scientist has quit the company in protest over its plan to launch a censored version of its search engine in China. The Intercept: Jack Poulson worked for Google's research and machine intelligence department, where he was focused on improving the accuracy of the company's search systems. In early August, Poulson raised concerns with his managers at Google after The Intercept revealed that the internet giant was secretly developing a Chinese search app for Android devices. The search system, code-named Dragonfly, was designed to remove content that China's authoritarian government views as sensitive, such as information about political dissidents, free speech, democracy, human rights, and peaceful protest. After entering into discussions with his bosses, Poulson decided in mid-August that he could no longer work for Google. He tendered his resignation and his last day at the company was August 31. He told The Intercept in an interview that he believes he is one of about five of the company's employees to resign over Dragonfly. He felt it was his "ethical responsibility to resign in protest of the forfeiture of our public human rights commitments," he said.

Comments

Why is this uncommon?

[jellomizer]

I have quit jobs that I felt has turned me into a bad person, and I would look in the mirror and realized I wasn't happy with what I had became.

Sure we all have jobs that we may not like or disagree with, but if you have a moral objection to it, you should quit your job. If you are Senior Data scientist, Google may have a harder time replacing your job. But I am sure they will find someone to fill the gap. But the thing is, we can't always change the world, but at least we can feel good about our current place in it.

Re:Why is this uncommon?

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I despise virtue signalling, this, refreshingly, is not an example of it. The employee in question chose to quit his job rather than continue on in his position. He deliberately chose personal sacrifice/inconvenience in favor of his pet issue. Whether I agree or disagree with an activist on any particular issue, I can at least show some amount of respect to a person who is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Virtue signalling, in contrast, is the act of shouting very loudly about an issue without actually doing anything about it. Look at me, I'm one of the Good Guys! I care soooooo deeply about Issue X! Those Bad Guys would never care as deeply as me! And so on.

Re:devil's advocate?

[drinkypoo]

If I were to take a contrarian view of this, I would ask: "What is the difference between Google censoring search results based on the public security laws of China, versus Google censoring search results based on the copyright laws of the USA and EU?"

The difference is that in the USA it's legal to include as much of a copyrighted work as necessary for criticism or to otherwise make a point, but in China if you include information that the government doesn't want you to share, you get broken up for parts and your organs are sold to the highest bidder.