4 ms·

I would feel much better about being a google user if they were standing up strongly for the original "do no evil" ethos. Where is Page indeed? It really seem

• maxxxxx 8y ago
  Idealism goes away once a company has reached a certain size and has to reach for big growth like Google. They all have to turn into big faceless corporations. That's why we shouldn't celebrate things like trillion dollar companies or the richest man in the world but we should celebrate small companies. That's where ethics and also innovation can happen .
  • alexgmcm 8y ago
    Big companies are just successful small companies. IBM, Bell Labs etc. did far more innovation than any Mom and Pop shop.
    • gnodar 8y ago
      > Big companies are just successful small companies. That would imply either that big companies all started as small companies which became successful and grew large, which is false (some big companies start big). Or that big companies operate the same way as small companies, just at a larger scale, which is unequivocally false.
    • PascLeRasc 8y ago
      Successful at what? "Mom and Pop" shops are totally different and provide for their small communities in ways no big company ever could. Individuals like Alexandra Elbakyan, Bram Moolenaar, and Guido van Rossum have done great things on their own without the help of corporations.
  • puzzle 8y ago
    Or maybe this is largely a manufactured issue. Alphabet sent Walker, but the committee didn't allow him to sit down. Between him and Salgado, the experts that Page and Pichai defer to, I don't think there's anyone better qualified to talk about these issues, because they deal with them all the time. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, that is. The problem is that the hearing was mostly an excuse for the senators to posture and to go on off topic rants about pet peeves. It's a media event, not a venue to get anything of substance done. Page has little tolerance for such BS. While the senators' whining was to be expected, because it largely called their bluff, I was more disappointed by the media's acceptance of the lines that Walker was not the right person to be there and that he was "a lawyer" (should we send home all politicians with a law degree?). These are policy issues, so you talk to the experts and leaders who make the policy calls.
  • justaguyhere 8y ago
    I'm no fan of big companies, but I feel we need both big and small companies. Mom and Pop shops can never tackle huge infrastructure projects or projects that require intense capital (space etc). That said, celebrating billionaires (many of whom trampled on others to get there) leaves a bad taste. I wish we had more cooperatives...
  • gnode 8y ago
    I don't think this is not so much a property of the big company than it is of the public company. The only thing which generally unites public investors is a desire to see a positive return on their investment, typically with a high aversion to risk. I would argue there is something to be celebrated about the "richest man in the world". Large private investors are more accountable than the public, and can act on ideologies or intentions other than greed (for better or worse).
• standon 8y ago
  They removed the ~"do no evil"~ " Don't be evil" from the preface of Google corporate code of conduct April 2018. They have "don't be evil" in a last sentence: "And remember… don't be evil, and if you see something that you think isn't right – speak up!". It's directed towards the Google employers as individuals, not for the corporation.
  • mdwrigh2 8y ago
    It was always "don't be evil" [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
• narrator 8y ago
  Google is the biggest media company in the world and with that comes political power and political pressure. Larry and Sergey are probably really sick of that problem and just want to make everyone putting pressure on them happy enough so they can focus on the tech stuff. Part of that strategy is keeping a low profile even though it is impossible in their position.
• tmalsburg2 8y ago
  I always felt that "don't be evil" is a shallow and effectively vacuous feel-good slogan because they never spelled out what it means for them not to be evil, which I think is a completely non-trivial question.
  • DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I always felt it was a bit like that old saw about not knowing how to define porn, but "I know when I see it." I took it as the broadest possible encouragement to Do The Right Thing as you see fit instead of spending a lot of time second-guessing what corporate would think. -- disclaimer: never worked there
• cycrutchfield 8y ago
  It was never “do no evil”. It was “don’t be evil”. There is a rather important semantic difference. Regardless, that ethical stance still exists and informs decisions.
• randcraw 8y ago
  Avoiding the cameras is the best way for Page & Co to escape politically dangerous questions like "Isn't Google actively censoring queries and web content in China?" and "Where else is Google doing this? In India? In the UK? In the USA?" I can see why Google sent a lawyer instead of Page.