3 ms·

So what exactly does google do that justifies their our-shit-doesn't-stink reputation? It seems like they behave exactly like any other self-interested major co

by gamble 16y ago

So what exactly does google do that justifies their our-shit-doesn't-stink reputation? It seems like they behave exactly like any other self-interested major corporation when the chips are down. They were for censorship in China before they were against it. They were for net neutrality until Verizon offered to cut them a deal. Are there any cases where "don't be evil" made a bit of difference on a non-trivial issue?

nanairo 16y ago
I think back in the days there were a lot of cases. And also Google felt like the underdog taking on the hated Microsoft. Then one day we woke up and Google was massive, and doing just as much underhanded/questionable policies as the next guy.
tensafefrogs 16y ago
> They were for censorship in China before they were against it. No. Google tolerated it, but was never "for" censorship. > They were for net neutrality until Verizon offered to cut them a deal. What? Google has always been against net neutrality. In fact, this new policy proposal helps net neutrality. The main thing people seem to be mad about is that it doesn't go far enough. So how exactly does that make them evil again?
- dschobel 16y ago
  Your second point is patently wrong: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
- gamble 16y ago
  What is the difference between taking part in the scheme and being 'for it', exactly? Google was perfectly free not to participate, but they made the call that the growth potential of China was worth being in partnership with a repressive regime. As for your other point, Google was the most prominent company supporting net neutrality. Three years ago they were prepared to spend billions buying spectrum to prevent exactly the kind of deal they're pimping today.
- tensafefrogs 16y ago
  whoops, just realized that should say "Google has always been FOR net neutrality".
jsz0 16y ago
Add supporting Flash to the list. If both Apple and Google had took a hardline against Flash we'd be on the path to a better, more open, Internet. It might have been a little painful in the short term I admit. It seems to me they decided that it was a competitive advantage and that's all that really matters.

by gamble 16y ago

nanairo 16y ago

I think back in the days there were a lot of cases. And also Google felt like the underdog taking on the hated Microsoft. Then one day we woke up and Google was massive, and doing just as much underhanded/questionable policies as the next guy.

tensafefrogs 16y ago

> They were for censorship in China before they were against it. No. Google tolerated it, but was never "for" censorship. > They were for net neutrality until Verizon offered to cut them a deal. What? Google has always been against net neutrality. In fact, this new policy proposal helps net neutrality. The main thing people seem to be mad about is that it doesn't go far enough. So how exactly does that make them evil again?

dschobel 16y ago
Your second point is patently wrong: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
gamble 16y ago
What is the difference between taking part in the scheme and being 'for it', exactly? Google was perfectly free not to participate, but they made the call that the growth potential of China was worth being in partnership with a repressive regime. As for your other point, Google was the most prominent company supporting net neutrality. Three years ago they were prepared to spend billions buying spectrum to prevent exactly the kind of deal they're pimping today.
tensafefrogs 16y ago
whoops, just realized that should say "Google has always been FOR net neutrality".

jsz0 16y ago

Add supporting Flash to the list. If both Apple and Google had took a hardline against Flash we'd be on the path to a better, more open, Internet. It might have been a little painful in the short term I admit. It seems to me they decided that it was a competitive advantage and that's all that really matters.