3 ms·

This is definitely something everyone has been waiting for. The only question I have is.. why? One generally hopes that everyone is out to do no evil, includi

This is definitely something everyone has been waiting for. The only question I have is.. why? One generally hopes that everyone is out to do no evil, including those that do so unintentionally. So why remove something that's been so closely associated with the company for so long? Did some executive find it "tacky"? At any rate, this is truly a loss for the internet.

drharby 8y ago
A loss for the internet? Its a symbol. It has as much meaning as you ascribe to it. Its a publicly traded company, not a crusader for internet goodness
- rando444 8y ago
  publicly traded companies do not have to be evil. investors often enjoy investing in companies that they can relate to. one hopes that most people ascribe to do no evil. a+b+c is not a bad combination in the end, i agree it's a symbol.. but also scrapping that symbol reflects on the company that no longer wants to be associated with said symbol.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> So why remove something that's been so closely associated with the company for so long? They didn't, per the body of the article (contrary to the headline.)
- rando444 8y ago
  Yes, and if you read the article you'll notice the significant difference. Anyone that was with google from the beginning knows the significance, and to try to play off "hey they used it in a sentence" as some sort of passivity, doesn't really grasp the depth of the change. (IMHO)
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Yes, and if you read the article you'll notice the significant difference. Yes, but neither the headline, nor the text of the article, nor any of the commentary here so far mentions the significant difference in the excerpts shown, which is only tangentially connected to removing gratuitous repetition of the phrase “don't be evil.” The signficant change is removing the value statement connected to the old motto in the first paragraph of the excerpt from the older Code of Conduct: “Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-workers with courtesy and respect.” (Now, it's possible that those value statements were redundant with other parts of the CoC or that the revision moved them to someplace other than the place preceding the rest of the excerpt and that they retain equal prominence in the new CoC, in which case the selection of the excerpt boundaries would be another misleading aspect of the article. And you can even make the case that they were largely redundant with the last sentence of the second paragraph of then old—first of the new—excerpt, so that, while it's more significant than dropping a few repetitions of “don’t be evil”, it's not all that significant.)
    - rando444 8y ago
      Gratuitous repetition? Come on. It's been the unofficial company motto since the beginning. When they filed their IPO, it was one of the very first things they included in the IPO https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504124025/ds1a.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504... .. now it's been reduced to a footnote at the end of a sentence. If you don't get the significance of this, you're either, very young, very naïve, or astroturfing.

drharby 8y ago

A loss for the internet? Its a symbol. It has as much meaning as you ascribe to it. Its a publicly traded company, not a crusader for internet goodness

rando444 8y ago
publicly traded companies do not have to be evil. investors often enjoy investing in companies that they can relate to. one hopes that most people ascribe to do no evil. a+b+c is not a bad combination in the end, i agree it's a symbol.. but also scrapping that symbol reflects on the company that no longer wants to be associated with said symbol.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> So why remove something that's been so closely associated with the company for so long? They didn't, per the body of the article (contrary to the headline.)

rando444 8y ago
Yes, and if you read the article you'll notice the significant difference. Anyone that was with google from the beginning knows the significance, and to try to play off "hey they used it in a sentence" as some sort of passivity, doesn't really grasp the depth of the change. (IMHO)
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Yes, and if you read the article you'll notice the significant difference. Yes, but neither the headline, nor the text of the article, nor any of the commentary here so far mentions the significant difference in the excerpts shown, which is only tangentially connected to removing gratuitous repetition of the phrase “don't be evil.” The signficant change is removing the value statement connected to the old motto in the first paragraph of the excerpt from the older Code of Conduct: “Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-workers with courtesy and respect.” (Now, it's possible that those value statements were redundant with other parts of the CoC or that the revision moved them to someplace other than the place preceding the rest of the excerpt and that they retain equal prominence in the new CoC, in which case the selection of the excerpt boundaries would be another misleading aspect of the article. And you can even make the case that they were largely redundant with the last sentence of the second paragraph of then old—first of the new—excerpt, so that, while it's more significant than dropping a few repetitions of “don’t be evil”, it's not all that significant.)
  - rando444 8y ago
    Gratuitous repetition? Come on. It's been the unofficial company motto since the beginning. When they filed their IPO, it was one of the very first things they included in the IPO https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504124025/ds1a.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504... .. now it's been reduced to a footnote at the end of a sentence. If you don't get the significance of this, you're either, very young, very naïve, or astroturfing.