I enjoyed the piece and it echoed several thoughts I've had about the non-profit model (and in general, the "do good" model of design/innovation which poses man

I enjoyed the piece and it echoed several thoughts I've had about the non-profit model (and in general, the "do good" model of design/innovation which poses many interesting ethical questions). I thought I'd comment on one common sleight-of-hand I see in talking about these projects (I say this as someone who has been active in several charity/non-profit activities). The line about a non-profit organization's "commitment [not to be evil]" being "written in law" is really a fig leaf; there's very little in the law aside from a requirement that you not disburse excess revenues, and that you follow various accounting and reporting standards. Google's non-legal "don't be evil" directly implies things like "don't abuse our users", whereas there is no legal requirement that a non-profit not offer something potentially abusive like DRM'd mp3s (or whatever pet abuse you might imagine). Somehow the state-sanctioned non-profit status seems to flip a "do-goodery" bit in a lot of people's minds even though it's primarily an accounting, reporting, and financial restriction rather than a behavioral one.