3 ms·

> The problem here is "Don't Be Evil" is so vague. Exactly, depending on your political viewpoint, "Don't Be Evil" could mean some/all of the following: - Not

by umvi 5y ago

> The problem here is "Don't Be Evil" is so vague. Exactly, depending on your political viewpoint, "Don't Be Evil" could mean some/all of the following: - Not doing business with China - Not doing business with ICE - Not doing business with any government - Not doing business with any other business that has currently-employed "evil" (politically incorrect) employees - Not building ad-tech - Not building free products where the monetization model involves user tracking - Not hiring enough minorities - Not firing "evil" employees (employees who are politically incorrect, who voted for X evil candidate, who don't fall in line with "good" thought/speech, etc)

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
It could even mean the opposite of each of these, depending on your perspective. - Maybe it's evil to do business in China, because it requires you to censor search results. - Or maybe it's evil not to, because you deprive Chinese people of an important utility, and you don't actually make them better off in any other way. - Maybe doing business with ICE is evil, because kids in cages. - Or maybe avoiding ICE is evil, because it's unpatriotic or undemocratic! Every single one of these actions or inactions could be construed to be evil depending upon one's personal values, moral code, or even one's understanding of various contested facts involved in the decision-making!
q1w2 5y ago
The point of a motto like this is to provide guidance when there's no specific company guidance. When the company publicly says they will do business with China, the vague motto doesn't allow you to refuse to do you job.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  The vague motto is not the issue; the detailed elucidation of the meaning in the code of content and the positive direction in the CoC (alleged to be, and this is consistent with the legal treatment of similar signed policy documents in employment law, a binding contract) to raise issues when either individual googlers at any level or the company as a whole seemed to be violating the policy as elucidated in that document are the issues. The specific direction to raise issues if the company as a whole appeared to be in violation cannot be reconciled with the idea that it did not apply to announced official company actions. And no one refused to do their job. The question is whether the things they were fired for doing were additional to, outside of, and inconsistent with their job or part of their job as specified in a binding contract with their employer.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    > or the company as a whole seemed to be violating the policy There is no requirement for a company to follow principles listed in the CoC. > And no one refused to do their job. They refused to stop doing things that were against the CoC, despite being told to do so, and being told that those activities were not consistent with the company's interpretation of Do No Evil. This case will be thrown out

by umvi 5y ago

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

It could even mean the opposite of each of these, depending on your perspective. - Maybe it's evil to do business in China, because it requires you to censor search results. - Or maybe it's evil not to, because you deprive Chinese people of an important utility, and you don't actually make them better off in any other way. - Maybe doing business with ICE is evil, because kids in cages. - Or maybe avoiding ICE is evil, because it's unpatriotic or undemocratic! Every single one of these actions or inactions could be construed to be evil depending upon one's personal values, moral code, or even one's understanding of various contested facts involved in the decision-making!

q1w2 5y ago

The point of a motto like this is to provide guidance when there's no specific company guidance. When the company publicly says they will do business with China, the vague motto doesn't allow you to refuse to do you job.

dragonwriter 5y ago
The vague motto is not the issue; the detailed elucidation of the meaning in the code of content and the positive direction in the CoC (alleged to be, and this is consistent with the legal treatment of similar signed policy documents in employment law, a binding contract) to raise issues when either individual googlers at any level or the company as a whole seemed to be violating the policy as elucidated in that document are the issues. The specific direction to raise issues if the company as a whole appeared to be in violation cannot be reconciled with the idea that it did not apply to announced official company actions. And no one refused to do their job. The question is whether the things they were fired for doing were additional to, outside of, and inconsistent with their job or part of their job as specified in a binding contract with their employer.
- q1w2 5y ago
  > or the company as a whole seemed to be violating the policy There is no requirement for a company to follow principles listed in the CoC. > And no one refused to do their job. They refused to stop doing things that were against the CoC, despite being told to do so, and being told that those activities were not consistent with the company's interpretation of Do No Evil. This case will be thrown out