“Don’t be evil” was, from the second it was suggested by (I believe Paul Buchheit) a acknowledgement of failure. The story goes that the, then very young, compa

“Don’t be evil” was, from the second it was suggested by (I believe Paul Buchheit) a acknowledgement of failure. The story goes that the, then very young, company was trying to define their values and every suggestion, no matter how broad, was being shot down by a counter-example. Even “be good” was not enough because too vague, or not neutral enough. A young engineer tried to summarise that failure by a double-negative, which left all the moral undefined. I still think that this problem isn’t resolved: is the problem the existence of violence, its legitimate monopoly by a democratically elected temporary dictator, or that violence is being misused by jingoistic non-sense, and that the US armed forced are controlled by corporate interests? Is evading that question the most moral stance? I feel like it’s mainly an easier one to defend, rather than the better one.