Generally I dont see many hard-ardent Google defenders. I see Google as a far less centralized/top down org, with a lot more different competeing goals. Ads ar

Generally I dont see many hard-ardent Google defenders. I see Google as a far less centralized/top down org, with a lot more different competeing goals. Ads are evil, Android is ugly, but and there's a lot of different things happening with their web work but imo a huge swarth of it is good, and their process & trying to work with the world is admirable. The realization that huge companies have good & bad sides, tension within, is I think a indicator of maturity. Some organizations to have high homogeneity, high organizational patterns, but top-down orgs are usually a sign of bad. There's something much more interesting & dynamic about orgs that allow internal variance, that have different viewpoints within. The Democratic Party in the US for example seems to have a quite hard time figuring out top priorites & creating cohesive messaging; there are a lot of different ideas & values, within the group, & debate about how & where to go... this has gobs of problems, but I think that tolerance of internal discourse (even though it's presence is contrary to alignmemt, even though it can bleed out) is enormously powerful, creates a far better for the org to assess it's values & align itself over time. I'd love to see a web platform Google that operates with even one pro-web ally on the standards board, that believes in a Fugu like expansion, versus the narrow-web rest-of-universe that is out there... right now there are some places for cooperation in html/cas, but there's no real allies in growing the platform, adding new capabilities. It's been long & lonely trying to work on the web & that's a shit position, with literally every other implememter/browser being anti-feature in nature. Your observation that contrarianism now entails defending the most money-grubbing practicies is seemingly a somewhat apt one.