
Google employees: We no longer believe the company places values over profits - SirLJ
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/27/read-google-employees-open-letter-protesting-project-dragonfly.html
======
dang
Most comments moved to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18542830](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18542830).

------
Quemon
It is interesting to see the standard to which these big internet companies
are being held lately. The mere fact that Google debated and waited many years
before jumping into China with a censored search engine puts into the top of
the most ethical for-profit corporations to ever exist, in my book.

All this bad-will seems to come from their advertising business models, which
I find is loudly criticized with rather thin arguments, given that these
companies are often the only ones defending the users from the dirty tactics
of advertisers (who get none of the blame). I've neve seen criticism of coca-
cola for using Google's targeting abilities to its advantage and shove ads
down our throats for money without a moral concern.

And rightly so.

------
Apreche
It never did. Otherwise it would have incorporated as a non-profit or a PBC.
Since its inception, Google has always been a for-profit entity, which is
legally required to put shareholders profits as a higher priority than
everything else.

~~~
rosser
> _...which is legally required to put shareholders profits as a higher
> priority than everything else._

Please retire this egregiously broken misconstrual of fiduciary duty. I
promise you, this is _not_ the law, and you sound a fool for repeating it.

~~~
xena
Then what is?

~~~
tlholaday
The law obliges management of a publicly traded company to report fairly to
its shareholders its assets, liabilities, revenues, costs, and certain other
items such as the compensation of the five most highly compensated officers.

If a shareholder believes that management is not maximizing profits, the
shareholder is at liberty to take his or her money and go elsewhere, by
selling his or her shares.

~~~
rosser
If that shareholder elects instead to sue, they will almost certainly lose,
absent specific evidence of bad faith or of breaches of the duties of care or
loyalty, for example.

The "business judgement rule" [0] compels courts to defer to the judgement of
the executives of a business, on the basis that they have a _bona fide_
interest in that business and its activities, and understand them better than
either the court or J. Random Shareholder ever could.

"The business judgment rule is very difficult to overcome and courts will not
interfere with directors unless it is clear that they are guilty of fraud or
misappropriation of the corporate funds, etc." [1]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule)

[1] ibid.

