5 ms·

First the military drones, now getting in bed with China, and the law straw was removing almost every mention of "Don't be evil" from its workers' code of condu

by mtgx 8y ago

First the military drones, now getting in bed with China, and the law straw was removing almost every mention of "Don't be evil" from its workers' code of conduct manual. I think it's pretty clear at this point Google is willing to sell their own mothers (and your data) just to keep those profitable quarters up for many more years. As more advertisers start preferring Facebook, I think Google will become even more desperate in regards to what it will be willing to do to increase revenue and profits quarter after quarter. Expect many big "evil" things to come from Google in the near future.

teekert 8y ago
I guess it's what you get when you get judged by revenue growth, not just revenue, or even by people-employed-and-kept well-fed or some other more sensible metric.
- geocar 8y ago
  It's either that or pay dividends...
- subpixel 8y ago
  Measuring companies “by people-employed-and-kept well-fed or some other more sensible metric” strikes me as a fantastic idea.
ekianjo 8y ago
Dont be evil was pretty much meaningless to begin with. Its not like there was a clear definition, and not being evil is a far cry from being actively a force for Good.
- finnthehuman 8y ago
  Sure it had meaning. It was protest against the old Microsoft. Now that google is big enough to have the sort of financial incentives old Microsoft did, they’re making the same decisions. No it’s not identical, the EU is after them for their anticompetitive behavior, not the US.
consumer451 8y ago
> Expect many big "evil" things to come from Google in the near future. I worry a lot about the long term. What is going to be done with FB and Google's data once their founders are gone and Wall St has complete control? As far as I know, from their point of view there is no line that cannot be crossed for shareholder value. I believe in many cases the founders of these companies have actually been more morale than your generic fund manager. What's going to happen when the founders are gone?
macspoofing 8y ago
>First the military drones, now getting in bed with China, and the law straw was removing almost every mention of "Don't be evil" from its workers' code of conduct manual. I'm sorry, but providing services to the US military (as an American company) does not qualify as 'evil'. I hear the same insane calls for not providing services to ICE, a federal, civilian agency enforcing American democratically-derived laws. With respect to Google's dealings with China (and similarly Facebook's dealings with Russia), you can't expect technology companies to fight or even ignore major world military, economic and geopolitical powers. It's not fair for Google to take the 'high-road' with China when nobody else does. I'm certain OP has no qualms in buying and using Chinese-made goods but still complains about Google being evil because they can't afford to ignore 1.4 billion people. It is not fair for Facebook to fight Russian attempts at election engineering. It's not fair when the public demands that Facebook take all responsibility for being targeted by a major global power with unlimited resources to launch cyber attacks (looking at you Swisher). Both cases are failures of US, and European governments. US and EU should exert diplomatic and economic pressure on China and Russia to liberalize their governments, and economies (the shit the China gets away with in the kinds of hoops it requires foreign companies to jump through is insane). In the case of Russia, it is the US and EU that should take every step necessary to force that government to stop targeting western technologies companies for purpose of manipulating the voting public. This is particularly directed at the EU and Germany as they are very fond of publicly stating that with Trump being Trump that EU/Germany should take on a leadership position in world and they have the most to lose. Thus far, EU has done very little to curb Russian aggression (Germany particularly has been quiet) EVEN in light of the fact that Russia funded and took active role in the misinformation campaign that led to Brexit, and multitudes of EU and European nations have been either targeted with military force (Ukraine) or dirty money for corrupting politicians. Apparently none of this is enough for EU and Germany to pay more than lip service to Russian aggression.
- manigandham 8y ago
  You are correct, but unfortunately people do not use rational thought when discussing emotional issues, especially in today's highly politicized and socially sensitive environment.
- 8y ago
jarfil 8y ago
> keep those profitable quarters Isn't it actually illegal for publicly traded companies to do otherwise?
- giantsloth 8y ago
  No this is actually a myth. “More to the point, corporate directors are protected from most interference when it comes to running their business by a doctrine known as the business judgment rule. It says, in brief, that so long as a board of directors is not tainted by personal conflicts of interest and makes a reasonable effort to stay informed, courts will not second-guess the board’s decisions about what is best for the company — even when those decisions predictably reduce profits or share price.” https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
- Kliment 8y ago
  absolutely not, but the shareholders can stage a rebellion if the company keeps going in a direction they don't want it to. The standard examples here are companies that lose money or make minimal profits due to investing revenue into product development or growth. This is something shareholders are often okay with.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Illegal? No. The principle is "best interests of shareholders" but that has never meant only profits, especially if the costs of those profits do material damage to the world those shareholders live in, in which case it's not in the best interests.
manigandham 8y ago
"Don't be evil" was cute marketing, never a serious statement. It was removed precisely because people kept using it to argue against anything the company did. Advertisers are also not leaving Google at all, and Facebook is not a replacement.

by mtgx 8y ago

teekert 8y ago

I guess it's what you get when you get judged by revenue growth, not just revenue, or even by people-employed-and-kept well-fed or some other more sensible metric.

geocar 8y ago
It's either that or pay dividends...
subpixel 8y ago
Measuring companies “by people-employed-and-kept well-fed or some other more sensible metric” strikes me as a fantastic idea.

ekianjo 8y ago

Dont be evil was pretty much meaningless to begin with. Its not like there was a clear definition, and not being evil is a far cry from being actively a force for Good.

finnthehuman 8y ago
Sure it had meaning. It was protest against the old Microsoft. Now that google is big enough to have the sort of financial incentives old Microsoft did, they’re making the same decisions. No it’s not identical, the EU is after them for their anticompetitive behavior, not the US.

consumer451 8y ago

> Expect many big "evil" things to come from Google in the near future. I worry a lot about the long term. What is going to be done with FB and Google's data once their founders are gone and Wall St has complete control? As far as I know, from their point of view there is no line that cannot be crossed for shareholder value. I believe in many cases the founders of these companies have actually been more morale than your generic fund manager. What's going to happen when the founders are gone?

macspoofing 8y ago

>First the military drones, now getting in bed with China, and the law straw was removing almost every mention of "Don't be evil" from its workers' code of conduct manual. I'm sorry, but providing services to the US military (as an American company) does not qualify as 'evil'. I hear the same insane calls for not providing services to ICE, a federal, civilian agency enforcing American democratically-derived laws. With respect to Google's dealings with China (and similarly Facebook's dealings with Russia), you can't expect technology companies to fight or even ignore major world military, economic and geopolitical powers. It's not fair for Google to take the 'high-road' with China when nobody else does. I'm certain OP has no qualms in buying and using Chinese-made goods but still complains about Google being evil because they can't afford to ignore 1.4 billion people. It is not fair for Facebook to fight Russian attempts at election engineering. It's not fair when the public demands that Facebook take all responsibility for being targeted by a major global power with unlimited resources to launch cyber attacks (looking at you Swisher). Both cases are failures of US, and European governments. US and EU should exert diplomatic and economic pressure on China and Russia to liberalize their governments, and economies (the shit the China gets away with in the kinds of hoops it requires foreign companies to jump through is insane). In the case of Russia, it is the US and EU that should take every step necessary to force that government to stop targeting western technologies companies for purpose of manipulating the voting public. This is particularly directed at the EU and Germany as they are very fond of publicly stating that with Trump being Trump that EU/Germany should take on a leadership position in world and they have the most to lose. Thus far, EU has done very little to curb Russian aggression (Germany particularly has been quiet) EVEN in light of the fact that Russia funded and took active role in the misinformation campaign that led to Brexit, and multitudes of EU and European nations have been either targeted with military force (Ukraine) or dirty money for corrupting politicians. Apparently none of this is enough for EU and Germany to pay more than lip service to Russian aggression.

manigandham 8y ago
You are correct, but unfortunately people do not use rational thought when discussing emotional issues, especially in today's highly politicized and socially sensitive environment.
8y ago

jarfil 8y ago

> keep those profitable quarters Isn't it actually illegal for publicly traded companies to do otherwise?

giantsloth 8y ago
No this is actually a myth. “More to the point, corporate directors are protected from most interference when it comes to running their business by a doctrine known as the business judgment rule. It says, in brief, that so long as a board of directors is not tainted by personal conflicts of interest and makes a reasonable effort to stay informed, courts will not second-guess the board’s decisions about what is best for the company — even when those decisions predictably reduce profits or share price.” https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
Kliment 8y ago
absolutely not, but the shareholders can stage a rebellion if the company keeps going in a direction they don't want it to. The standard examples here are companies that lose money or make minimal profits due to investing revenue into product development or growth. This is something shareholders are often okay with.
manigandham 8y ago
Illegal? No. The principle is "best interests of shareholders" but that has never meant only profits, especially if the costs of those profits do material damage to the world those shareholders live in, in which case it's not in the best interests.

manigandham 8y ago

"Don't be evil" was cute marketing, never a serious statement. It was removed precisely because people kept using it to argue against anything the company did. Advertisers are also not leaving Google at all, and Facebook is not a replacement.