12 ms·

> Why do you think Google considers its actions evil? I don't want to sound prickly but you keep putting words in my mouth. As I said, it's less about the spe

by 5l 15y ago

> Why do you think Google considers its actions evil? I don't want to sound prickly but you keep putting words in my mouth. As I said, it's less about the specifics of what they're doing now, and more about the apparent switch of focus from "organising the world's information" [0] to "deliver[ing] online experiences tailored to each individual's interests and social circles" [1] which, I believe, may lead to a bad outcome. And it's obvious many people within the company are uneasy about this too (and do, arguably, think it's wrong) [2] Does this mean "Google" thinks itself to be evil? Well it becomes meaningless to talk about Google as a monolithic entity at that point because it's made up of individuals. I'm concerned because going forward I think it's going to be much harder for Google to balance the best interests of their users with their mission and profit motive. When Google launched, our interests were more or less perfectly aligned with theirs. This switch in focus is one of the biggest upsets to that yet. > Making life difficult for yourself requires no excuse. If I gave you my word, and then through a series of decisions proceeded to make it almost impossible to keep it, perhaps you would say nothing all the while. At the very least, I think you would have an opinion on it. But here we have an institution. People build institutions. We can build it in such a way that's it's likely to fail, or build it in such a way that it wont. Surely you can see it's important to make it as easy as possible for Google to do the right thing and difficult, if not impossible, for them do the wrong things. If we don't, I think history is pretty clear on this one. Sooner or later, a bad outcome is absolutely inevitable. > I didn't realize that mining personal data counted as evil. I said a race to the bottom in mining personal data. Is what they're doing now evil? The consensus seems to be, no. Is there a point where we could all agree they've gone too far? Absolutely; obviously, even. So naturally you're going to ask me where the line should be drawn. Well, I honestly don't know and unfortunately I think we'll only know after it has been crossed, by which time it may be far too late to take meaningful action. Google doesn't need to go down this route. If they choose to they're going to make it very difficult, if not impossible, to hold onto their values. Me, I think there are plenty of other things they could be getting on with. They haven't finished organising the worlds information yet. Maybe when they've done that, we can talk again about them "deeply understanding" who I am [1]. [0] http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/ http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/ [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/google-ceo-larry-page_n_1217379.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/google-ceo-larry-pa... [2] http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/24/larry-page-to-googlers-if-you-dont-get-spyw-work-somewhere-else/ http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/24/larry-page-to-googlers-if-y...

joebadmo 15y ago
First, I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm glad it remains civil. Thanks! > As I said, it's less about the specifics of what they're doing now, and more about the apparent switch of focus from "organising the world's information" [0] to "deliver[ing] online experiences tailored to each individual's interests and social circles" I don't see these as divergent. Information about individuals is information, too, and needs to be organized. It also affects how the rest of the information is organized. > And it's obvious many people within the company are uneasy about this too (and do, arguably, think it's wrong) > Does this mean "Google" thinks itself to be evil? Well it becomes meaningless to talk about Google as a monolithic entity at that point because it's made up of individuals. It also becomes meaningless to get that granular, doesn't it? Does Google have to not be evil in the eyes of every one of its employees? > But here we have an institution. People build institutions. We can build it in such a way that's it's likely to fail, or build it in such a way that it wont. Surely you can see it's important to make it as easy as possible for Google to do the right thing and difficult, if not impossible, for them do the wrong things. Could you describe in what ways you think Google is building an institution that leads them inevitably toward doing evil? Maybe the part I don't understand is what lies at the bottom of the personal data mine. Is it a matter of how much data they collect? What they do with the data?
- 5l 15y ago
  > First, I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm glad it remains civil. Thanks! Yes, me too! > I don't see these as divergent. Not divergent in the sense that one precludes the other, but where one doesn't involve me, the other is all about me. The old Google cared only about my search terms, the new Google seems to want to climb in my bed with a notepad and figure me all out. > Does Google have to not be evil in the eyes of every one of its employees? Google, the institution, just has not to be evil, as they have defined evil. That there's obvious internal disquet about their new direction should be fairly disqueting to you. > Could you describe in what ways you think Google is building an institution that leads them inevitably toward doing evil? It doesn't matter how many websites Google crawl or books they digitise, we don't have to trust them or their intentions or any of their staff. But our personal information can be used both for us and against us, and it's eventual misuse is inevitable whether by the institution, corrupt agents within it, or parties outside of it. The only thing we can do is limit the potential damage by limiting the data they hold on us. > Maybe the part I don't understand is what lies at the bottom of the personal data mine. That's part of the problem, I don't think anyone does really. We're in uncharted territory and part of the reason it's so tricky is so much can be inferred about you from seemingly innocuous data, or from analysing your social graph. > Is it a matter of how much data they collect? What they do with the data? Well they have a loosely defined need which is pushing them to collect this data. It seems fairly benign; to improve search. But where does it end? Larry Page doesn't seem to have drawn a line anywhere. Once they have the data and it's been mined for further meaning, it's inevitable they'll find new uses for it. So one leads to the other, leading back to the first. Google is staffed by thousands of very clever people. I don't want them spending their days trying to figure me out. They're not uncorruptible. It's bad enough Facebook is at it; we really don't need Google competing with them in this endeavor. If we allow the situation to get out of hand, the winner will be the company that holds the most complete portfolio of information on us. Are you comfortable with that?

by 5l 15y ago

joebadmo 15y ago

First, I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm glad it remains civil. Thanks! > As I said, it's less about the specifics of what they're doing now, and more about the apparent switch of focus from "organising the world's information" [0] to "deliver[ing] online experiences tailored to each individual's interests and social circles" I don't see these as divergent. Information about individuals is information, too, and needs to be organized. It also affects how the rest of the information is organized. > And it's obvious many people within the company are uneasy about this too (and do, arguably, think it's wrong) > Does this mean "Google" thinks itself to be evil? Well it becomes meaningless to talk about Google as a monolithic entity at that point because it's made up of individuals. It also becomes meaningless to get that granular, doesn't it? Does Google have to not be evil in the eyes of every one of its employees? > But here we have an institution. People build institutions. We can build it in such a way that's it's likely to fail, or build it in such a way that it wont. Surely you can see it's important to make it as easy as possible for Google to do the right thing and difficult, if not impossible, for them do the wrong things. Could you describe in what ways you think Google is building an institution that leads them inevitably toward doing evil? Maybe the part I don't understand is what lies at the bottom of the personal data mine. Is it a matter of how much data they collect? What they do with the data?

5l 15y ago
> First, I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm glad it remains civil. Thanks! Yes, me too! > I don't see these as divergent. Not divergent in the sense that one precludes the other, but where one doesn't involve me, the other is all about me. The old Google cared only about my search terms, the new Google seems to want to climb in my bed with a notepad and figure me all out. > Does Google have to not be evil in the eyes of every one of its employees? Google, the institution, just has not to be evil, as they have defined evil. That there's obvious internal disquet about their new direction should be fairly disqueting to you. > Could you describe in what ways you think Google is building an institution that leads them inevitably toward doing evil? It doesn't matter how many websites Google crawl or books they digitise, we don't have to trust them or their intentions or any of their staff. But our personal information can be used both for us and against us, and it's eventual misuse is inevitable whether by the institution, corrupt agents within it, or parties outside of it. The only thing we can do is limit the potential damage by limiting the data they hold on us. > Maybe the part I don't understand is what lies at the bottom of the personal data mine. That's part of the problem, I don't think anyone does really. We're in uncharted territory and part of the reason it's so tricky is so much can be inferred about you from seemingly innocuous data, or from analysing your social graph. > Is it a matter of how much data they collect? What they do with the data? Well they have a loosely defined need which is pushing them to collect this data. It seems fairly benign; to improve search. But where does it end? Larry Page doesn't seem to have drawn a line anywhere. Once they have the data and it's been mined for further meaning, it's inevitable they'll find new uses for it. So one leads to the other, leading back to the first. Google is staffed by thousands of very clever people. I don't want them spending their days trying to figure me out. They're not uncorruptible. It's bad enough Facebook is at it; we really don't need Google competing with them in this endeavor. If we allow the situation to get out of hand, the winner will be the company that holds the most complete portfolio of information on us. Are you comfortable with that?