zlacker

>>tech-h+(OP)
I don't really understand why it's surprising to anyone that they would face "internal retaliation" after exposing their employer as evil and boycott worthy to the entire world. By publicizing it to the degree that they did and attaching their name to it, they were putting their interests over the company. If my company started doing business practices that I didn't approve of, I would try my hardest to change the direction from the inside out or I would leave and then criticize. I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them.

>>charli+Cf
I believe the strong term "evil" is only used because Google's motto is "don't be evil".

Not everyone has the freedom to instantly change jobs. The world might be a better place if employees had the right to whistle blow without being threatened with homelessness or fleeing to Russia.

Unions striking and protesting against their companies for better wages seems acceptable. Why is protesting for ethical reasons without quitting faux pas?

>>peteey+Lh
Google's motto was don't be evil. I believe it was removed.

Source: https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...

>>TheHyp+gj
Google doesn’t really have a “motto” or “corporate philosophy” publicly available anymore. It’s just the Code of Conduct now. “Don’t be evil” used to be in the preface, but it was moved to the end of their Code of Conduct. However, it does feel less salient and it kinda feels inconsequential now though.

> And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!

https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/