Nonwhites are not actually underrepresented at tech companies like Google, and the fact that you casually claim they are in an aside should cast serious doubts on other arguments you make as well.

This entire article is already engaging in political and ideological battle - René Mayrhofer is explicitly saying that he's unwilling to work at Google because he has a political problem with some of the decisions Google is making, namely abandoning earlier stated carbon-neutrality goals and being willing to make deals with the US military.

My contention is that if he considers this to constitute Google losing its moral compass but not the James Damore incident, which happened the same year he started working at Google; then there's no particular reason to think that his notion of a "moral compass" is any different from object-level agreement or disagreement (or simply not caring), about any particular decision that Google makes. Someone similar to Mayrhofer might well be willing to work for Google because they make a different judgement than he does about the political importance of AI model energy usage; and throwing terms like "moral compass" around is exactly equivalent to having an object-level disagreement about a political issue.

Obviously, one salient example of this kind of thing is people who film nonwhite immigrants in Europe committing violent crimes. The anti-immigrant political agitation currently happening in Belfast was sparked by the viral promulgation of cell phone video of a Sudanese asylum-seeker slitting the throat of a random white person (video footage that is actually already difficult to find in its original form by searching); if a law existed that would allow the state to jail "online streamers of violent crimes and cruelty", I have no doubt that many people within European criminal justice systems would attempt to use that law against the bystanders who originally took the footage and/or promulgated the footage, in order to try to prevent the kind of public unrest that is currently happening in Belfast.

Whereas someone who has committed 30 petty thefts and then gets arrested, locked in a cage, and guarded by armed agents of the state, is extremely unlikely to commit another theft as long as he remains locked in the cage.

And he's also extremely unlikely to get shot to death by e.g. a store owner trying to protect his property from theft - another important function of the criminal justice system is protecting criminals from ordinary people using violence against criminals in order to protect their own lives or property.

In this respect there is very little difference between a NIMBY getting mad about a data center and getting mad about a new housing development that will make the area more crowded and use more water.

The only difference is that you yourself are mad about data centers. If you are a YIMBY generally-speaking try to see how the anger you feel about data centers is like the anger your opponents have about new housing, and let that empathy make you a more effective YIMBY.

There's no non-coercive way to treat a mentally ill person who doesn't want to be treated. I am in favor of treating some mentally ill people coercively regardless, in cases where the mental illness puts other people at risk of harm. But I don't claim that this is primarily for their benefit.