8 ms·

The real problem is people don't really understand the context of "Don't be evil." If you read Steven Levy's In the Plex, or any first-hand account, really, you

The real problem is people don't really understand the context of "Don't be evil." If you read Steven Levy's In the Plex, or any first-hand account, really, you realize it's more about always thinking about the user experience first. It has nothing to do with personal information. As far as I know, when "Don't be evil" was coined, they used little to no personal information to provide search results.

ellyagg 15y ago
That doesn't really seem to agree with Paul Buchheit's quote on the wikipedia entry regarding the topic, where he said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out," adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent." I'm pretty sure the plain meaning of the phrase was one of the intended senses, suggesting that any aggressively selfish behavior falls under its umbrella. It would be a little opportunistic to, on the one hand, have the founders include the following line in a company manifesto: "Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains" and garner all the amazing PR that's come from that association over the years--but then turn around and claim, oh, no, that was really mostly just talking about user experience. And I doubt they'd make that claim.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  I got out the book and checked, and actually you're right, it was a more general statement than just about UX. (It was meant to be a frank and memorable statement that applied across the board, from UX to the greater good.) On the other hand, it was mostly an internal motto, and wasn't public until Eric Schmidt slipped it into an interview. It didn't become a public statement until it had already received a lot of press.
5l 15y ago
I find it interesting that a motto so straight forward a child could understand now requires knowledge of the context and history in which it was coined in order to interpret it correctly. From the Wikipedia article[0]: Buchheit, the creator of Gmail, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out," adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent." a letter from Google's founders: "Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains." The intent seems quite straight forward to me, but if we're actually at the stage where we're debating the meaning of "Don't be evil", then perhaps it's already too late. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_evil
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Unfortunately, things like privacy policies and appropriate use of personal information aren't as straightforward, even for children. "Theoretically, there's no difference between theory and practice," right? Also, if you think the concept of evil is easy or straightforward, well, let's just say I'm a proponent of a broad liberal arts education.
  - 5l 15y ago
    Nobody coerced them into any of this. The founders of Google can steer their company in all sorts of directions. If they choose to take their company to a place where they can no longer easily discern 'evil' from 'not evil', then I think it's fair to say that they're not adhering to the spirit of their motto. To be honest, my main concern is that they seem to be driven primarily by commercial considerations in dealing with Facebook, rather than serving their users best interests. That, more than the specifics of what they're doing, is what really worries me.
    - joebadmo 15y ago
      I'm not sure where coercion comes into it. I guess my point is that evil isn't always easily discernible, and this is probably most true wrt the most important subjects. They said "Don't be evil," whereas you're interpreting that as "Don't ever come close to doing anything that anyone could ever interpret as evil," which I think is unfair and would be prohibitively restrictive. It's a commercial company, so there will always be commercial considerations. And I do understand the general unease around Google. But I also totally get why Google would want to add social signals: to improve search. And if FB won't open up, what alternative does Google have?

ellyagg 15y ago

That doesn't really seem to agree with Paul Buchheit's quote on the wikipedia entry regarding the topic, where he said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out," adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent." I'm pretty sure the plain meaning of the phrase was one of the intended senses, suggesting that any aggressively selfish behavior falls under its umbrella. It would be a little opportunistic to, on the one hand, have the founders include the following line in a company manifesto: "Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains" and garner all the amazing PR that's come from that association over the years--but then turn around and claim, oh, no, that was really mostly just talking about user experience. And I doubt they'd make that claim.

joebadmo 15y ago
I got out the book and checked, and actually you're right, it was a more general statement than just about UX. (It was meant to be a frank and memorable statement that applied across the board, from UX to the greater good.) On the other hand, it was mostly an internal motto, and wasn't public until Eric Schmidt slipped it into an interview. It didn't become a public statement until it had already received a lot of press.

5l 15y ago

I find it interesting that a motto so straight forward a child could understand now requires knowledge of the context and history in which it was coined in order to interpret it correctly. From the Wikipedia article[0]: Buchheit, the creator of Gmail, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out," adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent." a letter from Google's founders: "Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains." The intent seems quite straight forward to me, but if we're actually at the stage where we're debating the meaning of "Don't be evil", then perhaps it's already too late. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_evil

joebadmo 15y ago
Unfortunately, things like privacy policies and appropriate use of personal information aren't as straightforward, even for children. "Theoretically, there's no difference between theory and practice," right? Also, if you think the concept of evil is easy or straightforward, well, let's just say I'm a proponent of a broad liberal arts education.
- 5l 15y ago
  Nobody coerced them into any of this. The founders of Google can steer their company in all sorts of directions. If they choose to take their company to a place where they can no longer easily discern 'evil' from 'not evil', then I think it's fair to say that they're not adhering to the spirit of their motto. To be honest, my main concern is that they seem to be driven primarily by commercial considerations in dealing with Facebook, rather than serving their users best interests. That, more than the specifics of what they're doing, is what really worries me.
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    I'm not sure where coercion comes into it. I guess my point is that evil isn't always easily discernible, and this is probably most true wrt the most important subjects. They said "Don't be evil," whereas you're interpreting that as "Don't ever come close to doing anything that anyone could ever interpret as evil," which I think is unfair and would be prohibitively restrictive. It's a commercial company, so there will always be commercial considerations. And I do understand the general unease around Google. But I also totally get why Google would want to add social signals: to improve search. And if FB won't open up, what alternative does Google have?