5 ms·

Google's always done what's in its best interest - it's not like they were some pure entity that was contaminated by evil talent they acquired from somewhere el

Google's always done what's in its best interest - it's not like they were some pure entity that was contaminated by evil talent they acquired from somewhere else.

scorpion032 16y ago
It's easy to dismiss any good deed as "Everybody acts in their own interest" "Organizing the world's information for _everybody_ to access" seems as benevolent as it can get. Taking care of your employees by providing facilities only confirms the point of view. PS: I am not commenting about, how Google is now. I liked what someone else said it yesterday, "Creating a new successful social network is like starting a new night club"
- anamax 16y ago
  > "Organizing the world's information for _everybody_ to access" seems as benevolent as it can get. Except that Google doesn't claim to organize the world's information - there's plenty of stuff that they intentionally avoid. Also, Google doesn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Would you think that a company that charged you $1 for each search was benevolent? If not, Google's benevolence is due to either charging less or charging someone else - which is it? I don't place much value on benevolence - most of the world's horror stories are due to folks claiming that they were trying to "do good", but Google is not benevolent.
  - scorpion032 16y ago
    "benevolence" does not mean "doing it for the sake of some one else". It is more like, "doing what is right; right for me and right for others"
    - anamax 16y ago
      > "benevolence" does not mean "doing it for the sake of some one else". It is more like, "doing what is right; right for me and right for others" My sources, which include http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benevolence http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benevolence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolence disagree. What are your sources?
- shadowfox 16y ago
  It also did help a lot with their revenue stream
barrkel 16y ago
It's not as simple as that. There are short-term interests and long-term interests, and which is best depends on both the pressures on the company and how far sighted its leadership is.
ajju 16y ago
Actually, most of the criticism aimed at Google for this issue stems from the fact that they do claim to be a pure entity by trumpeting "Don't be evil". Most people are resigned to large corporations always acting in their self interest, but when you be claim to be non-evil and imply that you will do this regardless of self interest, any infarction, however minor, will be met with criticism.
- werrett 16y ago
  infarct - an area of dead tissue caused by a loss of blood supply; a localized necrosis. infarction - the process which causes an infarct. [1] I think you meant infraction but infarction works too. :) [1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infarct http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infarct
  - ajju 16y ago
    Good catch. Firefox's auto-correct is still not smart enough to catch misused words :)
- rickmb 16y ago
  Except, this isn't just "any infraction". This is the Big One(TM). This is Google turning against the open internet. I challenge you to find an example of any company making such a major, fundamental u-turn.
dschobel 16y ago
You'll have to forgive some of us for believing that Google was a principled company when it came to fundamental issues such as carrier control of content and services. "Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success...A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny." - Vint Cerf Google Chief Internet Evangelist and Co-Developer of the Internet Protocol http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Makes you wonder what will happen next. Will a high placed Google exec resign out of principle? Will there be any public statements by people such as Vint Cerf about what they believe that conflict with other statements by google execs? I'd be really interested to know where he stands, he seems to be a very ethical person.
  - dschobel 16y ago
    This is what I would like to know as well. Google employees some of the most respected and seminal names in the history of the internet and I imagine their reputations and principles are worth more than whatever Google pays them. I'm dying to hear the first comments from Vint, et al.
    - alecco 16y ago
      Yeah, I bet Cerf is considering resignation. http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/08/network_neutral.php http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/08/netw...
  - grandalf 16y ago
    Uh, why would they resign now when they were OK with Google flaunting its previous (anti net neutrality) stance for the same nakedly selfish reasons? Anyone naive enough to think Google was sacrificing Billions in revenue in order to pursue net neutrality was seriously out of touch with reality. Google was attempting to "innovate through legislation". What better way to stop Bing from making a deal with Verizon or Comcast than to make such a deal illegal!

Google's always done what's in its best interest - it's not like they were some pure entity that was contaminated by evil talent they acquired from somewhere else.

scorpion032 16y ago

It's easy to dismiss any good deed as "Everybody acts in their own interest" "Organizing the world's information for _everybody_ to access" seems as benevolent as it can get. Taking care of your employees by providing facilities only confirms the point of view. PS: I am not commenting about, how Google is now. I liked what someone else said it yesterday, "Creating a new successful social network is like starting a new night club"

anamax 16y ago
> "Organizing the world's information for _everybody_ to access" seems as benevolent as it can get. Except that Google doesn't claim to organize the world's information - there's plenty of stuff that they intentionally avoid. Also, Google doesn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Would you think that a company that charged you $1 for each search was benevolent? If not, Google's benevolence is due to either charging less or charging someone else - which is it? I don't place much value on benevolence - most of the world's horror stories are due to folks claiming that they were trying to "do good", but Google is not benevolent.
- scorpion032 16y ago
  "benevolence" does not mean "doing it for the sake of some one else". It is more like, "doing what is right; right for me and right for others"
  - anamax 16y ago
    > "benevolence" does not mean "doing it for the sake of some one else". It is more like, "doing what is right; right for me and right for others" My sources, which include http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benevolence http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benevolence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolence disagree. What are your sources?
shadowfox 16y ago
It also did help a lot with their revenue stream

barrkel 16y ago

It's not as simple as that. There are short-term interests and long-term interests, and which is best depends on both the pressures on the company and how far sighted its leadership is.

ajju 16y ago

Actually, most of the criticism aimed at Google for this issue stems from the fact that they do claim to be a pure entity by trumpeting "Don't be evil". Most people are resigned to large corporations always acting in their self interest, but when you be claim to be non-evil and imply that you will do this regardless of self interest, any infarction, however minor, will be met with criticism.

werrett 16y ago
infarct - an area of dead tissue caused by a loss of blood supply; a localized necrosis. infarction - the process which causes an infarct. [1] I think you meant infraction but infarction works too. :) [1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infarct http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infarct
- ajju 16y ago
  Good catch. Firefox's auto-correct is still not smart enough to catch misused words :)
rickmb 16y ago
Except, this isn't just "any infraction". This is the Big One(TM). This is Google turning against the open internet. I challenge you to find an example of any company making such a major, fundamental u-turn.

dschobel 16y ago

You'll have to forgive some of us for believing that Google was a principled company when it came to fundamental issues such as carrier control of content and services. "Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success...A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny." - Vint Cerf Google Chief Internet Evangelist and Co-Developer of the Internet Protocol http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html

jacquesm 16y ago
Makes you wonder what will happen next. Will a high placed Google exec resign out of principle? Will there be any public statements by people such as Vint Cerf about what they believe that conflict with other statements by google execs? I'd be really interested to know where he stands, he seems to be a very ethical person.
- dschobel 16y ago
  This is what I would like to know as well. Google employees some of the most respected and seminal names in the history of the internet and I imagine their reputations and principles are worth more than whatever Google pays them. I'm dying to hear the first comments from Vint, et al.
  - alecco 16y ago
    Yeah, I bet Cerf is considering resignation. http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/08/network_neutral.php http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/08/netw...
- grandalf 16y ago
  Uh, why would they resign now when they were OK with Google flaunting its previous (anti net neutrality) stance for the same nakedly selfish reasons? Anyone naive enough to think Google was sacrificing Billions in revenue in order to pursue net neutrality was seriously out of touch with reality. Google was attempting to "innovate through legislation". What better way to stop Bing from making a deal with Verizon or Comcast than to make such a deal illegal!