> their objective is to do "good things for the world" And if some people disagree that what Google is doing are "good things", too bad for them. Also, they ar

> their objective is to do "good things for the world" And if some people disagree that what Google is doing are "good things", too bad for them. Also, they are so fired. > see it as either naïveté or as a cynical ploy I see it as intolerance and blindness to even a possibility of one's position being wrong or incomplete. If you define what you are doing as "good thing", then automatically everybody who disagrees is "bad", and what shouldn't you do to not allow bad persons to ruin a good thing? > Seems to be working pretty well for them Except those who get disinvited, or not hired, or fired, for taking a wrong side (which is, any side that somebody in power disagrees with) in the debate. But yeah, they are making a boatload of money, so I guess that's a "good thing" too.