@fabrice I'm saying that implications you'd naturally draw of 4 webkit.org, or mozilla.org, folks doing something similar are absolutely not what you can expect here, in large part because the process is both more open (by design) and more responsive to input (by design).

Blink is used to adjudicating risks from leadership, so the usual "go fever" of other projects, rather than a public exploratory phase, aren't comprable.

@ocdtrekkie
> If Google wants to portray this as a rogue proposal, Google should clearly indicate that by firing everyone involved

The old 'if your hand offends thee, cut if off' argument. This is the nuclear option, and in any sensible country, would be illegal under laws protecting workers' rights. Goggle could simply make a public statement repudiating the WEI proposal, and committing to doing nothing of the sort.

@slightlyoff @fabrice

@strypey @slightlyoff @fabrice Commitments mean nothing. Google committed to keeping DoubleClick data separate from Google Ads.

Legally binding contracts, maybe, but what would the terms be and to who?

But again, this is far from the first distinctly unethical work out of this team. And considering the fact it likely primarily serves to ensure ads are authentically served... I think it's far more likely that this is indeed entirely endorsed by Google.

@ocdtrekkie
> I think it's far more likely that this is indeed entirely endorsed by Google

This I agree with. But all the more reason not to demand they shoot the messengers doing their dirty work.

I don't know where you live, but AFAICT the US has no functioning social welfare system. Nor any other social safety net that isn't mostly holes. Getting fired can be Very Bad, not only for the fired, but for their family. Advocating for this is a failure of solidarity.

@slightlyoff @fabrice

@strypey @slightlyoff @fabrice I disagree strongly: The people doing this work are both *not good people* and extremely hireable as senior Googlers. They are very white collar people who have an express goal to make the Internet harm the rest of us more.

That being said, I agree if their work is not rogue, firing them would be wrong. That would be scapegoating. But if they are doing bad things without Google's approval, Google should dismiss them.

@ocdtrekkie
> I share no solidarity with people who voluntarily work to make the world worse for at least five times my salary, and you shouldn't either

I don't discriminate against other workers for any reason. Nor do I encourage their employers to do it for me. The sophistry you engage in here doesn't change anything. Making common cause with employers against their employees is scabbing.

As Florence Reece asked in 1931 "which side are you on?"

https://piped.video/watch?v=5KUsQjuV5fk

@slightlyoff @fabrice

@strypey @slightlyoff @fabrice I think we're veering deeply off topic, but if you expect me to support everyone who works in any field of work in the name of solidarity, hard pass from me. I can absolutely hope people who work to support Donald Trump get fired and struggle to pay rent because of it.

People trying to build the torment nexus at Google can go in the same bucket.

@ocdtrekkie
> People trying to build the torment nexus at Google can go in the same bucket

Highly paid developers at companies like Goggle have been unionising, *with* the more precarious employees (cleaners etc) so their working conditions improve.

> you expect me to support everyone who works in any field of work in the name of solidarity, hard pass from me

"Don't scab for the bosses,
Don't listen to their lies
Us poor folks haven't got a chance
Unless we organise."

@slightlyoff @fabrice

@ocdtrekkie
I've been organising to replace (and abolish) corporations as a fulltime (unpaid) career since I left high school. I'll tell you this for free. You don't beat them by playing into the hands of their divide-and-rule strategies. Anyone who is not one of them (the 0.1%) is one of us, whether they know it yet or not.

@slightlyoff @fabrice

@strypey @slightlyoff @fabrice You are assuming these Googlers are not in that 0.1%. And your arguments are so deeply flawed as to be ridiculous. Opposing anyone getting fired who is or could one day be in a union is, frankly, ridiculous.

Shall we take a look at police unions, and some firings they have strongly opposed?

@ocdtrekkie
> You are assuming these Googlers are not in that 0.1%

Anyone who is employed at Goggle, rather than being an owner of Goggle is definitely not in the top 1%, let alone the 0.1%.

> Opposing anyone getting fired who is or could one day be in a union is, frankly, ridiculous

Do you know these workers whose bosses you are siding with are not already union members?

> Shall we take a look at police unions, and some firings they have strongly opposed?

Strawman.

@slightlyoff @fabrice

@strypey @slightlyoff @fabrice
> Strawman

I don't think it is. But let me give you a chance to clarify: What unions and union members am I not required to unconditionally support in your worldview?