8 ms·

It's great that Google is doing the right thing in this case, but it is still incredibly dangerous for society that one company has so much power over what peop

It's great that Google is doing the right thing in this case, but it is still incredibly dangerous for society that one company has so much power over what people can find on the internet. Google used to say "Don't be evil," but no company or individual should be in the position where they can sit there and think "Should I be evil or not?"

DannyB2 8y ago
Any company CAN sit there and think "should I be evil or not?" > it is still incredibly dangerous for society that one company > has so much power over what people can find on the internet That could easily refer to the RIAA / MPAA with their bogus DMCA takedown notices. Particularly when DMCA is misused to take down sites with no direct copyright infringement. Especially when it is obvious bogus, such as a DMCA takedown of someone's nature audio recordings, while the DMCA filer even doubles-down on the notice claiming it infringes the copyright on their music. There should be a statutory large fine for filing a bogus DMCA notice just as their is a statutory high cost for copyright infringement.
- nightski 8y ago
  The public has a lot more influence with policy than they do with internal corporate affairs. I'd much rather fight a bad law than an evil but legally operating company.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    > I'd much rather fight a bad law than an evil but legally operating company. You have more faith in the power of your vote than in the power of your dollar, I take it.
    - aninhumer 8y ago
      For the majority of people, their share of the vote is a lot more powerful than their share of the dollars.
      - srean 8y ago
        Precisely this. Thank you.
    - nightski 8y ago
      Wait how exactly would I use my dollars to influence internal decisions at a company such as Facebook?
      - fixermark 8y ago
        When they screw up, stop using them. The currency you're giving them is attention, which goes to the user activity counts they use to sell advertising opportunities to marketers. If they run out of eyeballs, they run out of money.
      - kevin_b_er 8y ago
        You pay off a politician to get laws passed against them or to go after them with legal instruments.
- derekp7 8y ago
  In most of these cases, they aren't filing an actual DMCA notice (which takes a lot of human resources from both the filer and the receiver side), they are using a lighter-weight platform-provided system (such as Google's content ID system). So any crackdown on filing false DMCA notices will need to be extended to private-party DMCA surrogate systems also.
- justinjlynn 8y ago
  The fine is supposed to be: being charged with perjury.
  - DannyB2 8y ago
    That obviously doesn't work or doesn't mean anything. That's why a Statutory fine for specific things such as: * not stating an actual copyright infringement * not being the registered owner or agent of the copyright Those two would get rid of a LOT of abuse immediately. Such as people using DMCA for something not copyright related, such as to shut someone up for saying something they don't like. To silence criticism. Etc. Those are beyond clear examples of DMCA abuse. The other is when someone who has no actual interest in the copyright merely uses the DMCA to silence something because they recognize it might be a copyright infringement -- whether the actual copyright owner cares or not.
kyrra 8y ago
Google's code of conduct[0] still has "don't be evil" in it. The very last paragraph/line in the document: > And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up! The big issue with a phrase like "don't be evil" is that it is ambiguous and highly depends on the understanding of the word "evil" to the individual that reads that line. Google at this point is 80k+ full-time-employees, that I can guarantee will read that phrase to mean different things. The newer code of conduct tries to codify what "evil" means, to lay a clearer picture for everyone what it means. That way it can't arbitrarily be applied for or against the company based on your an individual's beliefs of what that word means. [0] https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
- Erik816 8y ago
  And the big issue with trying to codify broad moral statements is that you either devolve into restrictive legalism or you get ever better at interpreting specific rules to meet your desired outcomes. It's almost like the problem of human behavior is complex and can't be solved by a tech company with good intentions.
- thinkingemote 8y ago
  They also changed the implication from it applying to the company, to Googlers as individuals.
  - drb91 8y ago
    ...which rather defeats the point of having any systemic ethical statement. People are gonna follow their own ethics anyway, google just now pretends to have a say when actually just not considering ethics at all.
- wernercd 8y ago
  > Google's code of conduct[0] still has "don't be evil" in it. The very last paragraph/line in the document: > > And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up! And get fired for doing so. http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/02/google-employee-fired-after-speaking-out-against-racism.html http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/02/google-employee-fired-aft...
013a 8y ago
Seriously? Any person can go buy a gun and attack a mall. Ban guns and people can take a knife into a preschool. Ban knives and someone can go carjack a person with a tire iron. Every single person and corporation is always in a position to act with evil or not. It is impossible to create a society where it is impossible to place people in a position where they have to rely on their morality to act correctly. You can only create a society which instills the right morals; you can support the entities which act with the right morals, and punish those who don't. But go ahead and try to design a society where no one has the freedom to be evil; you might have missed the week of high school english where we read 1984.
- mbowcutt 8y ago
  > Any person can go buy a gun and attack a mall. Exactly. To protect ourselves from tyranny, the US established the second amendment. It is preferable if we are equally in a position of asking "should I be evil or not?" It's arguably more dangerous when the power to be evil is centralized.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Yes because a few citizens with guns are going to fight a tyrannical state that has bigger guns, nukes, tanks, bomber jets, etc. And for all intents and purposes, unlimited resources.
    - 013a 8y ago
      Yeah, that's why the US completely killed it in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mission Accomplished! This is one of the least thought out arguments against the 2A you'll ever see. It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents. Turning the military, or even the national guard, against the people would be a recipe for a huge number of AWOL soldiers. And guess what; those trained soldiers and veterans, with dozens of guns at home and a love for the country, not the government, will be the ones leading the resistance. > nukes Yup. The tyranical government will rule over a hellish wasteland, with nowhere to grow food, no taxable income, and millions of human resources dead. Sure hope you're not the one in charge if an uprising happens, because it seems like you're more likely to shoot yourself in the foot than stomp out the rebellion.
l5870uoo9y 8y ago
I take it most people agree, however the ramification of this would essentially be to breakup Google and ban storage of data deemed too sensitive.
- fixermark 8y ago
  And who deems the data too sensitive? I, for one, am thrilled by the notion that we should run from the arms of our corporate overlords and straight into the arms of our government overlords. ;)
bluedino 8y ago
>> it is still incredibly dangerous for society that one company has so much power over what people can find on the internet. Someone could form an organization that's run by donations that could create a web index that isn't influenced by advertising or other third parties. Like a wikipedia type thing.
- felipelemos 8y ago
  Would be easier to create a organization that just monitor web indexes and other kind of influential internet core websites instead. And I think that is a perfect spot for EFF.
- thwarted 8y ago
  DMOZ tried that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMOZ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMOZ
  - always_good 8y ago
    I applied to be a DMOZ editor of my niche and was accepted. I could freely put my website at the top and remove my competitors. I was a 17-year-old little shit and that's exactly what I did. I'm not convinced that a "directory of websites" can work. If it actually becomes popular, then people are willing to pay a pretty penny to get listed. Essentially just becomes another advertising platform except far less fair than what we have with Google. Imagine just how hilarious the "Payday Loans" or "Online Pharmacy" sections of a popular DMOZ relaunch would be. i.e. Industries that happily bid dollars (plural) per measly PPC click.
jadedhacker 8y ago
I had just read this essay which advocated for the FANG + Microsoft to be nationalized and taken out of the profit system like the post office. It really resonated with me. If anything, the removal of profits would return the things we like about these companies and remove the things we despise while giving their customers more of a say in how they do buisness. https://catalyst-journal.com/vol2/no1/between-cambridge-and-palo-alto https://catalyst-journal.com/vol2/no1/between-cambridge-and-...
- chatmasta 8y ago
  Google attracts the top engineers in the world because it can pay them the most money in the world through its profits. Take away profits, take away the engineers that made google valuable in the first place...
- solipsism 8y ago
  headslap How's the USPS doing these days? Answer: it's being propped up like Bernie from Weekend At Bernie's. Spam mail is the only thing keeping it afloat. A nationalized Microsoft full of federal employees would be an ineffective, bloated mess.
  - hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
    Spam mail is the only thing keeping it afloat. The USPS is the only federal institution required to fully fund its retirement. It's also expected to act like an efficient, private business, but it's unable to set its prices. The USPS is intentionally hamstrung so that conservatives can point to it as an example of how inefficient government is, and subsequently line their pockets thought privatization.
exegete 8y ago
The phrase "don't be evil" is obviously open to interpretation when it comes to issues like these. Most of us agree on a common moral standard since we have conscience (don't murder people, don't steal from people, etc.). Even then though, societies can change their views on what is morally acceptable behavior. Can you really say that a private company blocking a website that helps facilitate illegal activities is "evil"? It might be something you don't like, or it even may be unwise for our society to allow companies to have this much power (as you said), but I don't think I would classify this as "evil".
manigandham 8y ago
"Dont be evil" is nothing but a cute marketing statement. It has never been a serious principle in the life of the company and ceases to hold any meaning once it became a major multinational corporation. I dont understand why this phrase keeps being brought up by the HN community which usually doesn't buy marketing gimmicks but in this case seem to be completely befuddled that a company that just said 3 words could somehow do things they may dislike.
- petra 8y ago
  Every HN user is a temporarily embarassed Google employee.
  - sgc 8y ago
    That is the funniest thing I've read in ages! What a jab in the heart!
tambourine_man 8y ago
>no company or individual should be in the position where they can sit there and think "Should I be evil or not?" Or trusted to be able to tell the difference 100% of the time
SXX 8y ago
After I read certain Brandon Sanderson fantasy book every time someone mention "Don't be evil" I starting to think of certain sapient magical item. Item in the book was given command to "Destroy Evil" and it's intelligently follow the command. Very unfortunately neither this item from fantasy book nor corporation like Google can really provide clear statement on what "evil" is. Depend on whoever is in control Google can do whatever they want without ever going against this principle.

DannyB2 8y ago

Any company CAN sit there and think "should I be evil or not?" > it is still incredibly dangerous for society that one company > has so much power over what people can find on the internet That could easily refer to the RIAA / MPAA with their bogus DMCA takedown notices. Particularly when DMCA is misused to take down sites with no direct copyright infringement. Especially when it is obvious bogus, such as a DMCA takedown of someone's nature audio recordings, while the DMCA filer even doubles-down on the notice claiming it infringes the copyright on their music. There should be a statutory large fine for filing a bogus DMCA notice just as their is a statutory high cost for copyright infringement.

nightski 8y ago
The public has a lot more influence with policy than they do with internal corporate affairs. I'd much rather fight a bad law than an evil but legally operating company.
- fixermark 8y ago
  > I'd much rather fight a bad law than an evil but legally operating company. You have more faith in the power of your vote than in the power of your dollar, I take it.
  - aninhumer 8y ago
    For the majority of people, their share of the vote is a lot more powerful than their share of the dollars.
    - srean 8y ago
      Precisely this. Thank you.
  - nightski 8y ago
    Wait how exactly would I use my dollars to influence internal decisions at a company such as Facebook?
    - fixermark 8y ago
      When they screw up, stop using them. The currency you're giving them is attention, which goes to the user activity counts they use to sell advertising opportunities to marketers. If they run out of eyeballs, they run out of money.
    - kevin_b_er 8y ago
      You pay off a politician to get laws passed against them or to go after them with legal instruments.
derekp7 8y ago
In most of these cases, they aren't filing an actual DMCA notice (which takes a lot of human resources from both the filer and the receiver side), they are using a lighter-weight platform-provided system (such as Google's content ID system). So any crackdown on filing false DMCA notices will need to be extended to private-party DMCA surrogate systems also.
justinjlynn 8y ago
The fine is supposed to be: being charged with perjury.
- DannyB2 8y ago
  That obviously doesn't work or doesn't mean anything. That's why a Statutory fine for specific things such as: * not stating an actual copyright infringement * not being the registered owner or agent of the copyright Those two would get rid of a LOT of abuse immediately. Such as people using DMCA for something not copyright related, such as to shut someone up for saying something they don't like. To silence criticism. Etc. Those are beyond clear examples of DMCA abuse. The other is when someone who has no actual interest in the copyright merely uses the DMCA to silence something because they recognize it might be a copyright infringement -- whether the actual copyright owner cares or not.

kyrra 8y ago

Google's code of conduct[0] still has "don't be evil" in it. The very last paragraph/line in the document: > And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up! The big issue with a phrase like "don't be evil" is that it is ambiguous and highly depends on the understanding of the word "evil" to the individual that reads that line. Google at this point is 80k+ full-time-employees, that I can guarantee will read that phrase to mean different things. The newer code of conduct tries to codify what "evil" means, to lay a clearer picture for everyone what it means. That way it can't arbitrarily be applied for or against the company based on your an individual's beliefs of what that word means. [0] https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html

Erik816 8y ago
And the big issue with trying to codify broad moral statements is that you either devolve into restrictive legalism or you get ever better at interpreting specific rules to meet your desired outcomes. It's almost like the problem of human behavior is complex and can't be solved by a tech company with good intentions.
thinkingemote 8y ago
They also changed the implication from it applying to the company, to Googlers as individuals.
- drb91 8y ago
  ...which rather defeats the point of having any systemic ethical statement. People are gonna follow their own ethics anyway, google just now pretends to have a say when actually just not considering ethics at all.
wernercd 8y ago
> Google's code of conduct[0] still has "don't be evil" in it. The very last paragraph/line in the document: > > And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up! And get fired for doing so. http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/02/google-employee-fired-after-speaking-out-against-racism.html http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/02/google-employee-fired-aft...

013a 8y ago

Seriously? Any person can go buy a gun and attack a mall. Ban guns and people can take a knife into a preschool. Ban knives and someone can go carjack a person with a tire iron. Every single person and corporation is always in a position to act with evil or not. It is impossible to create a society where it is impossible to place people in a position where they have to rely on their morality to act correctly. You can only create a society which instills the right morals; you can support the entities which act with the right morals, and punish those who don't. But go ahead and try to design a society where no one has the freedom to be evil; you might have missed the week of high school english where we read 1984.

mbowcutt 8y ago
> Any person can go buy a gun and attack a mall. Exactly. To protect ourselves from tyranny, the US established the second amendment. It is preferable if we are equally in a position of asking "should I be evil or not?" It's arguably more dangerous when the power to be evil is centralized.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Yes because a few citizens with guns are going to fight a tyrannical state that has bigger guns, nukes, tanks, bomber jets, etc. And for all intents and purposes, unlimited resources.
  - 013a 8y ago
    Yeah, that's why the US completely killed it in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mission Accomplished! This is one of the least thought out arguments against the 2A you'll ever see. It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents. Turning the military, or even the national guard, against the people would be a recipe for a huge number of AWOL soldiers. And guess what; those trained soldiers and veterans, with dozens of guns at home and a love for the country, not the government, will be the ones leading the resistance. > nukes Yup. The tyranical government will rule over a hellish wasteland, with nowhere to grow food, no taxable income, and millions of human resources dead. Sure hope you're not the one in charge if an uprising happens, because it seems like you're more likely to shoot yourself in the foot than stomp out the rebellion.

l5870uoo9y 8y ago

I take it most people agree, however the ramification of this would essentially be to breakup Google and ban storage of data deemed too sensitive.

fixermark 8y ago
And who deems the data too sensitive? I, for one, am thrilled by the notion that we should run from the arms of our corporate overlords and straight into the arms of our government overlords. ;)

bluedino 8y ago

>> it is still incredibly dangerous for society that one company has so much power over what people can find on the internet. Someone could form an organization that's run by donations that could create a web index that isn't influenced by advertising or other third parties. Like a wikipedia type thing.

felipelemos 8y ago
Would be easier to create a organization that just monitor web indexes and other kind of influential internet core websites instead. And I think that is a perfect spot for EFF.
thwarted 8y ago
DMOZ tried that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMOZ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMOZ
- always_good 8y ago
  I applied to be a DMOZ editor of my niche and was accepted. I could freely put my website at the top and remove my competitors. I was a 17-year-old little shit and that's exactly what I did. I'm not convinced that a "directory of websites" can work. If it actually becomes popular, then people are willing to pay a pretty penny to get listed. Essentially just becomes another advertising platform except far less fair than what we have with Google. Imagine just how hilarious the "Payday Loans" or "Online Pharmacy" sections of a popular DMOZ relaunch would be. i.e. Industries that happily bid dollars (plural) per measly PPC click.

jadedhacker 8y ago

I had just read this essay which advocated for the FANG + Microsoft to be nationalized and taken out of the profit system like the post office. It really resonated with me. If anything, the removal of profits would return the things we like about these companies and remove the things we despise while giving their customers more of a say in how they do buisness. https://catalyst-journal.com/vol2/no1/between-cambridge-and-palo-alto https://catalyst-journal.com/vol2/no1/between-cambridge-and-...

chatmasta 8y ago
Google attracts the top engineers in the world because it can pay them the most money in the world through its profits. Take away profits, take away the engineers that made google valuable in the first place...
solipsism 8y ago
headslap How's the USPS doing these days? Answer: it's being propped up like Bernie from Weekend At Bernie's. Spam mail is the only thing keeping it afloat. A nationalized Microsoft full of federal employees would be an ineffective, bloated mess.
- hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
  Spam mail is the only thing keeping it afloat. The USPS is the only federal institution required to fully fund its retirement. It's also expected to act like an efficient, private business, but it's unable to set its prices. The USPS is intentionally hamstrung so that conservatives can point to it as an example of how inefficient government is, and subsequently line their pockets thought privatization.

exegete 8y ago

The phrase "don't be evil" is obviously open to interpretation when it comes to issues like these. Most of us agree on a common moral standard since we have conscience (don't murder people, don't steal from people, etc.). Even then though, societies can change their views on what is morally acceptable behavior. Can you really say that a private company blocking a website that helps facilitate illegal activities is "evil"? It might be something you don't like, or it even may be unwise for our society to allow companies to have this much power (as you said), but I don't think I would classify this as "evil".

manigandham 8y ago

"Dont be evil" is nothing but a cute marketing statement. It has never been a serious principle in the life of the company and ceases to hold any meaning once it became a major multinational corporation. I dont understand why this phrase keeps being brought up by the HN community which usually doesn't buy marketing gimmicks but in this case seem to be completely befuddled that a company that just said 3 words could somehow do things they may dislike.

petra 8y ago
Every HN user is a temporarily embarassed Google employee.
- sgc 8y ago
  That is the funniest thing I've read in ages! What a jab in the heart!

tambourine_man 8y ago

>no company or individual should be in the position where they can sit there and think "Should I be evil or not?" Or trusted to be able to tell the difference 100% of the time

SXX 8y ago

After I read certain Brandon Sanderson fantasy book every time someone mention "Don't be evil" I starting to think of certain sapient magical item. Item in the book was given command to "Destroy Evil" and it's intelligently follow the command. Very unfortunately neither this item from fantasy book nor corporation like Google can really provide clear statement on what "evil" is. Depend on whoever is in control Google can do whatever they want without ever going against this principle.