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 think it’s actually a very savvy strategy to protest from within. It’s too easy for Google to shrug off or ignore public criticism. They’ve done this for decades with virtually no repercussions because they hold a monopoly on their core business - very few people are going to ‘delete Google’ no matter how much you disagree with their policies.

They do not have a monopoly on talent and they are actually fearful of being no longer seen as the #1 workplace option for top candidates. Protesting as a Google employee gives you much more leverage than an outsider will ever have (unless you have the $$ to buy off a handful of senators).

>>303spa+Dm
It certainly helps that they've protected themselves from the ability to "delete Google" with an embrace, extend (or buy), extinguish[0] strategy when it comes to the technologies at the core of the modern web.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...