5 ms·

I understand what you are trying to say here and I mostly agree, but.. two comments: 1. Size is important: A mischievous kid can be cute, but a mischievous gen

I understand what you are trying to say here and I mostly agree, but.. two comments: 1. Size is important: A mischievous kid can be cute, but a mischievous general can be terrifying. 2. Incentives: A small start-up has space to grow, in many cases, it's in its interest to be nice. A giant could be out of ways of to grow and, in many cases, hungry, it will bite the hand that fed them. In the case of Google, Facebook and company, could be their users. Maybe it's the circumstances of the beast what have changed, instead of its nature but that's enough to deserve some criticism.

milesvp 9y ago
3. Ability: when google simply indexed the web and showed ads that others bid on there wasn't a lot to be evil with. As soon as you develop sophisticated tracking techniques and become the defacto leader in surveillance there is so much more to be evil with. And worse, the tendency is always to flex one's ability which means there's always danger of 'flexing in the wrong direction'. 4. Mottos matter: if you explicitely remove the tenet to not be evil, and replace it with doing the right thing. You open up a lot more wiggle room philosophically. Right for whom? society? shareholders? employees? advertisers? advertisees? the company? Part of the problem with google is that they have the same problem that all advertising supported products have, in that there is a misalignment of incentives for people who use the product. In the end they harvest eyeball (or earballs) (or personal data) to sell to advertisers, this means there is big incentive to do things that the eyeballs don't like. The best newspapers have historically tried to counter this problem by segregating advertising and editorial, and promoting a culture where advertising has no say in the stories that get run. But the tension is always there, and I'm positive 'do the right thing' does not have enough context to encourage siding with the eyeball at every opportunity, and I think the corruption has started to take hold.

milesvp 9y ago

3. Ability: when google simply indexed the web and showed ads that others bid on there wasn't a lot to be evil with. As soon as you develop sophisticated tracking techniques and become the defacto leader in surveillance there is so much more to be evil with. And worse, the tendency is always to flex one's ability which means there's always danger of 'flexing in the wrong direction'. 4. Mottos matter: if you explicitely remove the tenet to not be evil, and replace it with doing the right thing. You open up a lot more wiggle room philosophically. Right for whom? society? shareholders? employees? advertisers? advertisees? the company? Part of the problem with google is that they have the same problem that all advertising supported products have, in that there is a misalignment of incentives for people who use the product. In the end they harvest eyeball (or earballs) (or personal data) to sell to advertisers, this means there is big incentive to do things that the eyeballs don't like. The best newspapers have historically tried to counter this problem by segregating advertising and editorial, and promoting a culture where advertising has no say in the stories that get run. But the tension is always there, and I'm positive 'do the right thing' does not have enough context to encourage siding with the eyeball at every opportunity, and I think the corruption has started to take hold.