3 ms·

I'm getting tired of hypocrisy being held up as the ultimate sin. The world is more complex than that. Humans cannot fully logically integrate EVERYTHING they

I'm getting tired of hypocrisy being held up as the ultimate sin. The world is more complex than that. Humans cannot fully logically integrate EVERYTHING they believe at the same time, it's just biologically impossible. Expecting people to be 100% consistent 100% of the time is ultimately silly. And for companies, well they are ultimately just groups of people. So the same issue. Also, open and tolerant doesn't mean unlimited anything goes. This applies even to the parent-child relationship. If you disagree, think about the parents who had to deal with children who steal, use violence and destroy stuff. You ultimately have to draw a line at self preservation! Same thing for a company and culture. You have to preserve the culture, and if that means ejecting people who mean to do it harm, then how is that a horrible thing? The author himself would eject counter-revolutionaries from his revolutionary party, so in principle he agrees with this sentiment. As for the 'Don't Be Evil' - lots of people at Google still believe in this. The problem is once you go global, life gets very very hard and you are forced to make difficult decisions. And sometimes you get them wrong. And you try again. But to harp on bad decisions is like a husband who won't EVER let his wife forget THAT ONE TIME. That's hardly constructive.

rdtsc 10y ago
> I'm getting tired of hypocrisy being held up as the ultimate sin. I didn't say it is the ultimate sin. So should it not be criticized and pointed out? It is like saying "well murder is worse than theft, so don't talk about theft". That's not how it works. I think every culture and society has a strong bias against hypocrisy and it is a popular topic in folk stories and culture (say making fun or criticizing hypocrites). Just like many pointed out at a core character flaw in the author -- he was stealing food and not abiding by the NDA, implying they probably would not want to be friends them or work wit, because there is an integrity issue (which I agree with), hypocrisy is the same way -- it points to a flaw deeper issue at the core. If it is of a company, it points to a structural or culture issue. > Expecting people to be 100% consistent 100% of the time is ultimately silly. Just like people in power are watched, criticized and held to a higher standard, so are companies. With people say, you might care if US president is doing cocaine or likes stealing from department stores, but you might not care as much if someone you never heard across town does it. Why? Because those in power, when they corrupt, they can cause a lot of damage. I was a bit extreme in the sample, but think about this one as well -- someone who holds nuclear launch codes should not believe that the world was created 4000 years ago. This can happen in US and is worrisome right? And it is the same with companies. A company like Google which control, manages, stores and handle a large amount of world's internet and data traffic, having "minor" integrity issues is a huge deal. Some 2 person company who is spamming everyone with Viagra emails, is doing a lot worse, but nobody cares about that, because they don't have any power or influence. > This applies even to the parent-child relationship Agree on principle, in general here. But that is a bit odd case, mostly because it turn the "company is a family and is like careful watchful father, looking after its children". There is something very jarring about that to me. > Same thing for a company and culture. You have to preserve the culture, and if that means ejecting people who mean to do it harm I think the debate is about culture and the artist pointed towards what the culture might be. I think they are trying to say there is a problem with it. > As for the 'Don't Be Evil' - lots of people at Google still believe in this. Of course. The best PR is the one that is bought internally. Assigning high ethical standards and morality to companies is the problem here isn't it. The fact that many seemingly bright, analytically minded people bought into it is a bit worrying.
- ryanobjc 10y ago
  See, the problem here is you're just too cynical. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Regarding hypocrisy, the problem isn't that people are distrustful of thieves, the problem is its a capital sin that is used to find the slightest of problems with your opponents then based on literally doing nothing wrong, attempt to destroy them. It's about giving people space to change their mind. Unless you think the whole 'flip flopper' development was positive and we should prize people who hold on to opinions regardless of how incorrect they become. As for personality, this article popped up today and I think it's relevant: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/24/481859662/invisibilia-is-your-personality-fixed-or-can-you-change-who-you-are http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/24/48185966... Finally, as for Google's data I can say without a doubt that we have one of the best internal IT and security policies I have seen anywhere. Not only are the polices solid, the implementation is vastly superior to any other security system in the civilian area, and possibly some military ones. The google privacy and security teams (yup, multiple) are passionate about this and are extremely proactive. There is a lot of people working on this area. I fully trust Google with my data.

rdtsc 10y ago

> I'm getting tired of hypocrisy being held up as the ultimate sin. I didn't say it is the ultimate sin. So should it not be criticized and pointed out? It is like saying "well murder is worse than theft, so don't talk about theft". That's not how it works. I think every culture and society has a strong bias against hypocrisy and it is a popular topic in folk stories and culture (say making fun or criticizing hypocrites). Just like many pointed out at a core character flaw in the author -- he was stealing food and not abiding by the NDA, implying they probably would not want to be friends them or work wit, because there is an integrity issue (which I agree with), hypocrisy is the same way -- it points to a flaw deeper issue at the core. If it is of a company, it points to a structural or culture issue. > Expecting people to be 100% consistent 100% of the time is ultimately silly. Just like people in power are watched, criticized and held to a higher standard, so are companies. With people say, you might care if US president is doing cocaine or likes stealing from department stores, but you might not care as much if someone you never heard across town does it. Why? Because those in power, when they corrupt, they can cause a lot of damage. I was a bit extreme in the sample, but think about this one as well -- someone who holds nuclear launch codes should not believe that the world was created 4000 years ago. This can happen in US and is worrisome right? And it is the same with companies. A company like Google which control, manages, stores and handle a large amount of world's internet and data traffic, having "minor" integrity issues is a huge deal. Some 2 person company who is spamming everyone with Viagra emails, is doing a lot worse, but nobody cares about that, because they don't have any power or influence. > This applies even to the parent-child relationship Agree on principle, in general here. But that is a bit odd case, mostly because it turn the "company is a family and is like careful watchful father, looking after its children". There is something very jarring about that to me. > Same thing for a company and culture. You have to preserve the culture, and if that means ejecting people who mean to do it harm I think the debate is about culture and the artist pointed towards what the culture might be. I think they are trying to say there is a problem with it. > As for the 'Don't Be Evil' - lots of people at Google still believe in this. Of course. The best PR is the one that is bought internally. Assigning high ethical standards and morality to companies is the problem here isn't it. The fact that many seemingly bright, analytically minded people bought into it is a bit worrying.

ryanobjc 10y ago
See, the problem here is you're just too cynical. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Regarding hypocrisy, the problem isn't that people are distrustful of thieves, the problem is its a capital sin that is used to find the slightest of problems with your opponents then based on literally doing nothing wrong, attempt to destroy them. It's about giving people space to change their mind. Unless you think the whole 'flip flopper' development was positive and we should prize people who hold on to opinions regardless of how incorrect they become. As for personality, this article popped up today and I think it's relevant: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/24/481859662/invisibilia-is-your-personality-fixed-or-can-you-change-who-you-are http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/24/48185966... Finally, as for Google's data I can say without a doubt that we have one of the best internal IT and security policies I have seen anywhere. Not only are the polices solid, the implementation is vastly superior to any other security system in the civilian area, and possibly some military ones. The google privacy and security teams (yup, multiple) are passionate about this and are extremely proactive. There is a lot of people working on this area. I fully trust Google with my data.