16 ms·

I am hoping that this is a rogue group of local Google employees who are about to be smacked down by Google head office. This kind of thing is going to happen

I am hoping that this is a rogue group of local Google employees who are about to be smacked down by Google head office. This kind of thing is going to happen occasionally with global organisations, but Google needs to do something public quickly to make it clear that this is against policy.

mike-cardwell 15y ago
I am hoping the opposite. I am hoping that this was sanctioned by head office, so it destroys their undeserved and harmful, "does no evil," reputation.
- bruceboughton 15y ago
  So you're hoping Google has done something evil so people will think they're evil?!
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    I am hoping that Google has been exposed for their "evil" business practices, so people start to realise that they're just another rich corporation trying to make profit at the expense of others. I don't want them to do "evil" things. But they do. People are blind to this and need a wake up call. EDIT: The downvotes only serve to prove my point
    - urbanjunkie 15y ago
      How are downvotes proving your point?
      - mike-cardwell 15y ago
        Because people are blind to Google doing evil and immediately jump to defend them (by downvoting in this case) This is exactly where their undeserved reputation is harmful. It lets them get away with things that other corporations wouldn't be able to. If what the blog described is true. Then Google did Evil. It does not matter which branch of Google. If Microsoft did the same, they wouldn't be defended half as much as Google is being.
        swombat 15y ago
        I downvoted you, not because "I'm blind to the fact that Google does bad stuff", or to defend Google, but simply because you sound like a malcontent with an axe to grind and not much substance to back up your personal crusade against Google. Google is no more or less evil (or hypocritical) than other corporations that size.
        mike-cardwell 15y ago
        "Google is no more or less evil (or hypocritical) than other corporations that size." Exactly my point Therefore their "does no evil" reputation is undeserved. At no point did I specify that Google is more evil than any other company, but only that their reputation is undeserved, and people need waking up to this fact. If this latest action was sanctioned by head office, then Googles "does no evil" reputation becomes impossible to defend.
        mattgreenrocks 15y ago
        Who cares what a group of people think? Especially on the Internet? The only real use of 'public opinion' is trolling people with their own cognitive dissonance. Without strong evidence, you just sound whiny.
        mike-cardwell 15y ago
        "Who cares what a group of people think" Everybody. Every single person who has ever existed and every single person who will ever exist.
        urbanjunkie 15y ago
        That's certainly not why I downvoted you. So, how does my downvote prove your point? PS - it may surprise you, but there are PLENTY of people on Hacker News who don't think Google is the epitome of all that is good.
        15y ago
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      The downvotes only serve to prove my point That is false. The cause of my reaction is actually revealed here quite explicitly: trying to make profit at the expense of others. The enterprise we're all engaged in on HN is making profit, paid for by someone else. This is a good thing, because a buyer's willingness to pay for a product signifies how important that product is to him. If someone is willing to give me a lot of money for something, it's because he thinks my product is going to improve his situation at least to that degree. Thus, if someone is making a lot of profit (honestly), it's prima facie evidence that they are delivering that much value to their customers. And no, that's not corporatist propaganda. It's a necessary logical consequence of the idea that people who are free to choose, will make the choice that serves their own needs better. If we can assume that, it all follows automatically. EDIT: I wasn't going to add this, but can't restrain myself. The line "your disagreement only proves my point" is perhaps one of the worst gambits I can imagine in a debate, possibly only surpassed by "they're just jealous". A person's agreement or disagreement has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of a statement.
      - mike-cardwell 15y ago
        I'll put you in with the group of people who misunderstood the point. By my statement, "they're just another rich corporation trying to make profit at the expense of others," I made no judgement on whether or not this is a good thing. I was trying to point out that they're no different to any other company. That they're motivated by profit, and do things that people consider to be evil in the pursuit of that profit. This is why I think they're undeserving of their reputation. People are too quick to make accusations of anti-capitalism around here. Especially when it's to defend a company that they like. Especially when said company has an undeserved reputation for being all nice and fluffy. Bringing us back to my point of their rep being harmful.
        drivebyacct2 15y ago
        My problem is that you seem to have implied that Google being a for-profit company automatically means that they must "do evil". I don't think anyone think Google is a saint, but you seem to have a vendetta against them and are looking for things to make them appear bad.
- JS_startup 15y ago
  You must not have gotten the memo--HN still has a creepy, starry-eyed obsession with Google and sacrilege like yours will have you burned at the stake :)
latch 15y ago
You can't have a "rogue group of local employees". You are accountable for all your employees action - legally and morally. How often has a company done something only to blame it on "contractors" or "a third party". That's not acceptable.
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  Oh, absolutely. Google are responsible for oversight of their employees. Someone inside Google isn't doing their job, and heads need to roll here.
- mooism2 15y ago
  Google are responsible for their employees' actions. But there is still a difference between employees doing evil in defiance of management's orders, doing evil as instructed by management, and doing evil in a climate of management neglect.
- r00fus 15y ago
  And the appropriate response is to publicly: admonish the behavior, investigate and report, then reprimand/dismiss the employee(s) who are found guilty. If Google's management is innocent, then they need to prove so, and show it by acting ethically as described above.
  - Tobu 15y ago
    That, and make sure it doesn't happen again. I'd be a little worried about how Google manages the business side of things; they have a good brand and the potential to make a lot of money, so of course someone will find it advantageous to take shortcuts turning one into the other. The philosophy and reliance on automation, which can be designed to dismiss complaints and block normal feedback, can be used to have some teams shield themselves from accountability. At a higher level, there's the possibility of selective blindness and negligence hiding some level of malice and irresponsibility. Mnemotechnic for a proper apology: regret, responsibility, and reform.

mike-cardwell 15y ago

I am hoping the opposite. I am hoping that this was sanctioned by head office, so it destroys their undeserved and harmful, "does no evil," reputation.

bruceboughton 15y ago
So you're hoping Google has done something evil so people will think they're evil?!
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  I am hoping that Google has been exposed for their "evil" business practices, so people start to realise that they're just another rich corporation trying to make profit at the expense of others. I don't want them to do "evil" things. But they do. People are blind to this and need a wake up call. EDIT: The downvotes only serve to prove my point
  - urbanjunkie 15y ago
    How are downvotes proving your point?
    - mike-cardwell 15y ago
      Because people are blind to Google doing evil and immediately jump to defend them (by downvoting in this case) This is exactly where their undeserved reputation is harmful. It lets them get away with things that other corporations wouldn't be able to. If what the blog described is true. Then Google did Evil. It does not matter which branch of Google. If Microsoft did the same, they wouldn't be defended half as much as Google is being.
      - swombat 15y ago
        I downvoted you, not because "I'm blind to the fact that Google does bad stuff", or to defend Google, but simply because you sound like a malcontent with an axe to grind and not much substance to back up your personal crusade against Google. Google is no more or less evil (or hypocritical) than other corporations that size.
        mike-cardwell 15y ago
        "Google is no more or less evil (or hypocritical) than other corporations that size." Exactly my point Therefore their "does no evil" reputation is undeserved. At no point did I specify that Google is more evil than any other company, but only that their reputation is undeserved, and people need waking up to this fact. If this latest action was sanctioned by head office, then Googles "does no evil" reputation becomes impossible to defend.
        mattgreenrocks 15y ago
        Who cares what a group of people think? Especially on the Internet? The only real use of 'public opinion' is trolling people with their own cognitive dissonance. Without strong evidence, you just sound whiny.
        mike-cardwell 15y ago
        "Who cares what a group of people think" Everybody. Every single person who has ever existed and every single person who will ever exist.
      - urbanjunkie 15y ago
        That's certainly not why I downvoted you. So, how does my downvote prove your point? PS - it may surprise you, but there are PLENTY of people on Hacker News who don't think Google is the epitome of all that is good.
        15y ago
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    The downvotes only serve to prove my point That is false. The cause of my reaction is actually revealed here quite explicitly: trying to make profit at the expense of others. The enterprise we're all engaged in on HN is making profit, paid for by someone else. This is a good thing, because a buyer's willingness to pay for a product signifies how important that product is to him. If someone is willing to give me a lot of money for something, it's because he thinks my product is going to improve his situation at least to that degree. Thus, if someone is making a lot of profit (honestly), it's prima facie evidence that they are delivering that much value to their customers. And no, that's not corporatist propaganda. It's a necessary logical consequence of the idea that people who are free to choose, will make the choice that serves their own needs better. If we can assume that, it all follows automatically. EDIT: I wasn't going to add this, but can't restrain myself. The line "your disagreement only proves my point" is perhaps one of the worst gambits I can imagine in a debate, possibly only surpassed by "they're just jealous". A person's agreement or disagreement has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of a statement.
    - mike-cardwell 15y ago
      I'll put you in with the group of people who misunderstood the point. By my statement, "they're just another rich corporation trying to make profit at the expense of others," I made no judgement on whether or not this is a good thing. I was trying to point out that they're no different to any other company. That they're motivated by profit, and do things that people consider to be evil in the pursuit of that profit. This is why I think they're undeserving of their reputation. People are too quick to make accusations of anti-capitalism around here. Especially when it's to defend a company that they like. Especially when said company has an undeserved reputation for being all nice and fluffy. Bringing us back to my point of their rep being harmful.
      - drivebyacct2 15y ago
        My problem is that you seem to have implied that Google being a for-profit company automatically means that they must "do evil". I don't think anyone think Google is a saint, but you seem to have a vendetta against them and are looking for things to make them appear bad.
JS_startup 15y ago
You must not have gotten the memo--HN still has a creepy, starry-eyed obsession with Google and sacrilege like yours will have you burned at the stake :)

latch 15y ago

You can't have a "rogue group of local employees". You are accountable for all your employees action - legally and morally. How often has a company done something only to blame it on "contractors" or "a third party". That's not acceptable.

AndrewDucker 15y ago
Oh, absolutely. Google are responsible for oversight of their employees. Someone inside Google isn't doing their job, and heads need to roll here.
mooism2 15y ago
Google are responsible for their employees' actions. But there is still a difference between employees doing evil in defiance of management's orders, doing evil as instructed by management, and doing evil in a climate of management neglect.
r00fus 15y ago
And the appropriate response is to publicly: admonish the behavior, investigate and report, then reprimand/dismiss the employee(s) who are found guilty. If Google's management is innocent, then they need to prove so, and show it by acting ethically as described above.
- Tobu 15y ago
  That, and make sure it doesn't happen again. I'd be a little worried about how Google manages the business side of things; they have a good brand and the potential to make a lot of money, so of course someone will find it advantageous to take shortcuts turning one into the other. The philosophy and reliance on automation, which can be designed to dismiss complaints and block normal feedback, can be used to have some teams shield themselves from accountability. At a higher level, there's the possibility of selective blindness and negligence hiding some level of malice and irresponsibility. Mnemotechnic for a proper apology: regret, responsibility, and reform.