> I joined Google in 2008, when those words still mattered. I saw them used to guide product designs that put the company’s success above a user’s privacy, such

> I joined Google in 2008, when those words still mattered. I saw them used to guide product designs that put the company’s success above a user’s privacy, such as during the development of Google’s ill-fated social network, Buzz. How is that !evil? Putting the company's success above user needs would seem to fall squarely into the evil category. > Although difficult, I was intensely proud of the principled approach the company took in making this decision. [pulling out of China] How naive. This wasn't a principled decision centered on user rights. This was protecting the company's non-China reputation. Can't have Chinese hackers infiltrating Google writ large. Google decided that the best defense was to pack up their toys. As should be obvious to the author considering his later experience: > But each time I recommended a Human Rights Program, senior executives came up with an excuse to say no. His solution: > Although the causes and the implications are worth debating, I am certain of the appropriate response. No longer can massive tech companies like Google be permitted to operate relatively free from government oversight. So, become China-lite? I think there is a reasonable answer in there somewhere, that could be expressed with much more nuance. But as-is, sorry but he sounds like a clown. That said, I've only cherry-picked the parts of the article I don't like. There's plenty to like. I'd read it more generously if he didn't have an ulterior motive at hand.