4 ms·

So... whatever happened to "Don't be Evil"? This incident depicts the US government asking for clandestine political cover from a multinational corporation, an

So... whatever happened to "Don't be Evil"? This incident depicts the US government asking for clandestine political cover from a multinational corporation, and receiving it. The State Department was the organ by which this unity of corporate and political power was achieved. A candidate currently running for election was at least in part responsible for the underhanded censorship of information from the public. These favors end up being repaid at some point, because that is how politics works. I doubt we will be informed about the nature of the favor that will be transacted from the US government to the credit of Google.

27182818284 11y ago
>So... whatever happened to "Don't be Evil"? They actually dropped it: http://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be-evil/ http://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be-evil/
cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
>The State Department was the organ by which this unity of corporate and political power was achieved. You can call this what it is: fascism.
brador 11y ago
> So... whatever happened to "Don't be Evil"? Google is a for profit corporation, not a person. It has a fiducary responsibility to maximise profit and investor returns within all legal bounds. Nothing else matters in the long term, no matter how much you might wish it.
- RodericDay 11y ago
  There Is No Effective Fiduciary Duty to Maximize Profits https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiduciary-duty-to-maximize-profits-939ae50d0572#.7xoi4zn44 https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia...
  - brador 11y ago
    It is implicit and accepted.
- koberstein 11y ago
  http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/a16995 http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/a16995
16bytes 11y ago
To be clear, here's the relevant text: "Sue just called back and theblockwill staythroughMonday" I don't get why this would be considered evil or even underhanded. It's normal operating procedure for various government organizations to ask media outlets to postpone publication due to time sensitive events. For example, say the NY Times is going to publish a piece on civilian causalities in Afghanistan by CIA operatives on the ground. The DOD might come in an ask for a couple of days to prepare deployed forces that there might be some sort of retaliation. This saves lives and isn't censorship--the piece is still published--but is a necessary interplay between media and government. In this case, where early reports say that violence and riots are being spurned on by the availability of a video online and you have local assets there, why is it wrong to block for a couple of days? I would argue that this is exactly what should have happened in the state department given the amount of knowledge they knew at the time. This isn't a partition issue. I would expect that every administration since WWII would have made similar requests to media organizations.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  >I don't get why this would be considered evil or even underhanded. It's normal operating procedure for various government organizations to ask media outlets to postpone publication due to time sensitive events. It's a form of censorship, so it's both evil and underhanded. The government does this kind of stuff all the time, and it's really just a tactic to prevent ugly things from coming out whatsoever, though they claim it's temporary. Certain reports have been "requested" to be delayed for well over a year. This is standard procedure, but it's illiberal and undemocratic because it presumes the public doesn't deserve to know what is going on during the time period in which it is possible to change course. In criminal court, we call this tactic "distancing", because it allows tempers to cool off due to the temporal distance between the offense and the trial. From your perspective, it's the US government looking out for itself-- but your perspective is not the only one. Consider that people were willing to riot over this information that was blocked. Do you think that they consider the blocking to be a beneficent act in order to save lives? No, they view it as an empire protecting itself by covering up things it doesn't want seen.
  - 11y ago
travmatt 11y ago
Julian Assange's book regarding his conversation with Eric Schmidt ('when google met wiki leaks') depicts google as a company becoming increasingly intertwined with the existing power structures of government, especially the state department.
- lallysingh 11y ago
  But the whole thing is a massive conspiracy theory based on ridiculous tainting inference. It's like seeing Bill Gates ask if Clinton is thirsty and then bringing her a drink, and concluding that Microsoft is an arm of the State Dept. Really, the whole thing reads a bit like Ancient Aliens. I can't be the only one who reads it this way.

27182818284 11y ago

>So... whatever happened to "Don't be Evil"? They actually dropped it: http://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be-evil/ http://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be-evil/

cuckcuckspruce 11y ago

>The State Department was the organ by which this unity of corporate and political power was achieved. You can call this what it is: fascism.

brador 11y ago

> So... whatever happened to "Don't be Evil"? Google is a for profit corporation, not a person. It has a fiducary responsibility to maximise profit and investor returns within all legal bounds. Nothing else matters in the long term, no matter how much you might wish it.

RodericDay 11y ago
There Is No Effective Fiduciary Duty to Maximize Profits https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiduciary-duty-to-maximize-profits-939ae50d0572#.7xoi4zn44 https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia...
- brador 11y ago
  It is implicit and accepted.
koberstein 11y ago
http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/a16995 http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/a16995

16bytes 11y ago

To be clear, here's the relevant text: "Sue just called back and theblockwill staythroughMonday" I don't get why this would be considered evil or even underhanded. It's normal operating procedure for various government organizations to ask media outlets to postpone publication due to time sensitive events. For example, say the NY Times is going to publish a piece on civilian causalities in Afghanistan by CIA operatives on the ground. The DOD might come in an ask for a couple of days to prepare deployed forces that there might be some sort of retaliation. This saves lives and isn't censorship--the piece is still published--but is a necessary interplay between media and government. In this case, where early reports say that violence and riots are being spurned on by the availability of a video online and you have local assets there, why is it wrong to block for a couple of days? I would argue that this is exactly what should have happened in the state department given the amount of knowledge they knew at the time. This isn't a partition issue. I would expect that every administration since WWII would have made similar requests to media organizations.

cryoshon 11y ago
>I don't get why this would be considered evil or even underhanded. It's normal operating procedure for various government organizations to ask media outlets to postpone publication due to time sensitive events. It's a form of censorship, so it's both evil and underhanded. The government does this kind of stuff all the time, and it's really just a tactic to prevent ugly things from coming out whatsoever, though they claim it's temporary. Certain reports have been "requested" to be delayed for well over a year. This is standard procedure, but it's illiberal and undemocratic because it presumes the public doesn't deserve to know what is going on during the time period in which it is possible to change course. In criminal court, we call this tactic "distancing", because it allows tempers to cool off due to the temporal distance between the offense and the trial. From your perspective, it's the US government looking out for itself-- but your perspective is not the only one. Consider that people were willing to riot over this information that was blocked. Do you think that they consider the blocking to be a beneficent act in order to save lives? No, they view it as an empire protecting itself by covering up things it doesn't want seen.
- 11y ago

travmatt 11y ago

Julian Assange's book regarding his conversation with Eric Schmidt ('when google met wiki leaks') depicts google as a company becoming increasingly intertwined with the existing power structures of government, especially the state department.

lallysingh 11y ago
But the whole thing is a massive conspiracy theory based on ridiculous tainting inference. It's like seeing Bill Gates ask if Clinton is thirsty and then bringing her a drink, and concluding that Microsoft is an arm of the State Dept. Really, the whole thing reads a bit like Ancient Aliens. I can't be the only one who reads it this way.