Dunno about the menace, but perhaps "amoral" is exactly the right word: "being neither moral nor immoral; specifically: lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral, W. S. Thompson> (From the online Merriam Webster Dictionary)
I used to work for a very large vendor of ICs and one of its erstwhile CEO's famously said: "With respect to technology, if it can be done, it will be done."
I agree and so given that, I think any discussion of morals is only applicable to the person who has to decide whether to associate with the company or project in question for paid labor or in the use of their product(s).
It's not whether the bomb, say, is moral or not as an abstract concept, but instead, given all the information available on the impact of nuclear weapons, whether you decide to design the beryllium reflector for the secondary or not...
Google is not amoral in that sense; it's an ideologically-driven organization consisting of people, led by leaders who are also people. Those people make moral judgments, and, contrary to the claims in the article, a great deal of Google's path has been shaped by those moral decisions, including the decision to engage in China. (I think they made the wrong decision there, but I might be wrong, and in any case the moral calculus figured quite explicitly in their discussions.)
You forgot one of the major parties to the organization--the shareholders, who are, as far as I understand economics, incapable for some reason of being "ideologically driven." The shareholders pushed for China. I'm not sure Google could have said no.
You may not be familiar with Google's unusual share class structure, but it insulates them from pressure from outside shareholders to a very unusual extent.
"2.) Menace: who or what are they menacing? If you feel threatened, don't use their products."
Well, apparently they are "menacing" content producers on YouTube by [!shock!] deciding that rather than renegotiate higher payments per view they would prefer to stop purchasing the content.
I mean, how DARE Google stop buying the right to distribute someone's creations when the seller raises the price to a point where it's no longer profitable to be involved with the deal? That's evil if I've ever seen it...
I used to work for a very large vendor of ICs and one of its erstwhile CEO's famously said: "With respect to technology, if it can be done, it will be done."
I agree and so given that, I think any discussion of morals is only applicable to the person who has to decide whether to associate with the company or project in question for paid labor or in the use of their product(s).
It's not whether the bomb, say, is moral or not as an abstract concept, but instead, given all the information available on the impact of nuclear weapons, whether you decide to design the beryllium reflector for the secondary or not...