"Google has stood up for what execs believed was right at various times in the past. They’ve made multiple major decisions based on idealistic ideas, and they’ve gone to court multiple times to defend such ideas. They know approximately how to do the right thing (even though they sometimes fail to do it). But in this instance, they’re deciding not to."

Maybe they agree? Like the majority of the voters?

> Its like vegans "quitting" meat. Not a cow was ever saved by this gesture

If adult men in the US eat something like 67 pounds of beef per year on the average, and cows average 430 pounds of meat, that's about 1 cow every 7 years. Of course there are likely other animals to account for.

> Its like vegans "quitting" meat. Not a cow was ever saved by this gesture. There are sufficient cow eaters to make such a gesture irrelevant

Oh? Do you vote? Because there's sufficient other voters that make your vote irrelevant

Absolutely correct !!

If voting is not coordinated and done in an effective manner its just a 3rd party protest vote "gesture" (in the US w a 2party system )

You’re almost certainly right. But what else can you do for a cause you believe in? They quit and posted a blog about it. At least three people (the commenters so far) have probably read it. Maybe it gains traction. All change starts with one person.

If there are 10 remote labor contractors waiting for every quitter (equivalent to a strike breaker "scab") how is google hurt at all?

There are many kinds of " strike" and they require planning and thought.

Here's a quick link I quacked:

https://lawbhoomi.com/types-of-strike/

Ineffective action doesn't multiply into effective action.

Gesture based political action has the same problem of terrorism, which is also ineffective, almost certainly for many of the same reasons

Effective action can be had but it requires coordination leadership, strategic thinking - one off or wildcat action may politicize people towards effective action but alone is (sorry to say) pointless

>Gesture based political action has the same problem of terrorism, which is also ineffective

You’re right, the USA didn’t dramatically change after 9/11. We citizens didn’t almost instantly lose tons of rights that still have not been returned and the world didn’t descend into a years long war.

The Unabomber wanted to end "technological society " but he did manage to improve postal safety standards. Mission accomplished?

If the goal of the 9/11 hijackers was to improve airport security then mission accomplished! But I think their goal was something else.

Clearly you don't read too well

>But I think their goal was something else.

What do you think it was? Because it did far far more negative than just “improve” airport security.

It doesn't matter- they failed to punish the US, stop supporting Israel, or withdraw from the middle east or whatever their goals were.

Terrorism fails but I never said it was "without effect". Vegans boycotting milk hasn't saved any " enslaved cows" but it has given birth to a robust soy and oatmilk industry

But no cows have been released from their oppression. Not a one

So just to be clear, it’s not effective, but you can’t say at what, but the world is a much different, much worse place, millions are dead as a direct result of terrorism, but it doesn’t matter?

I don’t think this is a fruitful thread.

Pichai needs to go.

People who work at Google may have an influence on that more than those who don't

And are likely to be more motivated anyway as they have skin in the game

Once you quit its not as compelling a problem