5 ms·

I'm tired of people bringing up 'don't do evil' EVERY time Google does something they dislike. New search results using personal targeting - EVIL! Anti-poaching

by omonra 15y ago

I'm tired of people bringing up 'don't do evil' EVERY time Google does something they dislike. New search results using personal targeting - EVIL! Anti-poaching agreement with Apple - EVIL! Closed down a bagel cafe next to my cubicle - EVIL! Can we all agree that the word Evil has a more sinister use - ie knowing endangering lives, environmental damage, maybe closing press freedoms? And, therefore, we should be more selective in its application? This is turning into another version of the Godwin's law - whereby it only takes so long before Google is accused of being evil (by breaking the not-be-evil pledge).

va_coder 15y ago
No. The "do no evil" was a way of saying let's not be like Microsoft and allow ourself to engage in unfair business practices. Google is now like Microsoft.
- omonra 15y ago
  "That's like..your opinion, man" :) So if someone wants to say that Google is becoming like MSFT - say that (incidentally regarding MST being evil I recently read this: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/antitrust_kills.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/antitrust_kills....) But I think that we should not dilute the definition of Evil.
  - rooshdi 15y ago
    But I think that we should not dilute the definition of Evil. Tell that to the employee who was "terminated within the hour."
  - deanproxy 15y ago
    Why not? Everyone has already diluted the meaning of the word "greed" successfully. Might as well start on "evil" now. :-) But in all fairness, non-poaching agreements are not right. What if every tech company did this? You better hope you never have to leave that company after they hire you... Cause otherwise you'll have to consider a career change.
mbateman 15y ago
People are just holding Google to their own standards and terms. If the standards and terms are strange or otherwise inapt, that's on Google.
- brudgers 15y ago
  The phrase, "Hoisted on their own petards," comes to mind.
vaksel 15y ago
and I'm tired of people excusing any and all scrutiny of bad behavior as alarmist
furyofantares 15y ago
Can we agree that limiting the career opportunities of your employees and firing recruiters who will not take part in this illegal practice is nothing like taking away bagels or personalizing search results? It's very close to the regular meaning of "evil", harming people for your own gain, illegally and without justification.
gvb 15y ago
I'm in total agreement with your statement with respect to when "Google does something they dislike." That is not the case here as Google and the others embroiled in this scandal were evil in that they willfully broke antitrust laws.
abrahamsen 15y ago
I agree in general, but this one (stifling competition by illegal methods) happens to be within my particular corporate evilness threshold. Unlike every previous evil Google has been accused of. The problem with a word like evil is that it is so subjective. For some, obeying repressive laws in China would be the ultimate evil Google has committed. Using Google's own definition of evil, using the entire right side of the search results for self-advertising could be seen as evil. However, ultimately I agree. Since evil is so subjective, very little information is provided by calling out Google in particular for being evil and thus hypocritical. Condemning all the involved companies equally would make more sense. (But I can't help feeling more disappointed Google was part of this).
jlarocco 15y ago
"Can we all agree that the word Evil has a more sinister use - ie knowing endangering lives, environmental damage, maybe closing press freedoms? And, therefore, we should be more selective in its application?" Using that version of "evil", makes it a completely empty marketing statement. Surely no company does "real" evil on purpose. Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find a legit company that does "real" evil even by accident.
- abrahamsen 15y ago
  Some of the alleged business practices of United Fruit (Chiquita), De Beers, Monsanto, and APOC (BP) have been comic book levels of evil.
ceejayoz 15y ago
That's not how Google has defined "evil" in the past. Per Wikipedia: > 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." "Exploiting the users" doesn't fit your definition of "evil", but it appears to have fit Google's.
spitfire 15y ago
Evil Occurs when individuals or groups embrace codes of conduct or standards of behavior for their own personal well being and social approval, yet violate those very same codes or standards to undermine the personal well being and social approval of others. There's degrees of evil, but no shades. Evil was being done to people in this case.
nostrademons 15y ago
(Disclaimer: Google employee, speaking for myself, not the company.) The point of "Don't be evil" is to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and not less us take the easy way out. That, IMHO, is what made Google great in the first place. I'm not going to comment on the specific case here - I don't know the facts - but the reason for "Don't be evil" is as much motivational as moral.

by omonra 15y ago

va_coder 15y ago

No. The "do no evil" was a way of saying let's not be like Microsoft and allow ourself to engage in unfair business practices. Google is now like Microsoft.

omonra 15y ago
"That's like..your opinion, man" :) So if someone wants to say that Google is becoming like MSFT - say that (incidentally regarding MST being evil I recently read this: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/antitrust_kills.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/antitrust_kills....) But I think that we should not dilute the definition of Evil.
- rooshdi 15y ago
  But I think that we should not dilute the definition of Evil. Tell that to the employee who was "terminated within the hour."
- deanproxy 15y ago
  Why not? Everyone has already diluted the meaning of the word "greed" successfully. Might as well start on "evil" now. :-) But in all fairness, non-poaching agreements are not right. What if every tech company did this? You better hope you never have to leave that company after they hire you... Cause otherwise you'll have to consider a career change.

mbateman 15y ago

People are just holding Google to their own standards and terms. If the standards and terms are strange or otherwise inapt, that's on Google.

brudgers 15y ago
The phrase, "Hoisted on their own petards," comes to mind.

vaksel 15y ago

and I'm tired of people excusing any and all scrutiny of bad behavior as alarmist

furyofantares 15y ago

Can we agree that limiting the career opportunities of your employees and firing recruiters who will not take part in this illegal practice is nothing like taking away bagels or personalizing search results? It's very close to the regular meaning of "evil", harming people for your own gain, illegally and without justification.

gvb 15y ago

I'm in total agreement with your statement with respect to when "Google does something they dislike." That is not the case here as Google and the others embroiled in this scandal were evil in that they willfully broke antitrust laws.

abrahamsen 15y ago

I agree in general, but this one (stifling competition by illegal methods) happens to be within my particular corporate evilness threshold. Unlike every previous evil Google has been accused of. The problem with a word like evil is that it is so subjective. For some, obeying repressive laws in China would be the ultimate evil Google has committed. Using Google's own definition of evil, using the entire right side of the search results for self-advertising could be seen as evil. However, ultimately I agree. Since evil is so subjective, very little information is provided by calling out Google in particular for being evil and thus hypocritical. Condemning all the involved companies equally would make more sense. (But I can't help feeling more disappointed Google was part of this).

jlarocco 15y ago

"Can we all agree that the word Evil has a more sinister use - ie knowing endangering lives, environmental damage, maybe closing press freedoms? And, therefore, we should be more selective in its application?" Using that version of "evil", makes it a completely empty marketing statement. Surely no company does "real" evil on purpose. Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find a legit company that does "real" evil even by accident.

abrahamsen 15y ago
Some of the alleged business practices of United Fruit (Chiquita), De Beers, Monsanto, and APOC (BP) have been comic book levels of evil.

ceejayoz 15y ago

That's not how Google has defined "evil" in the past. Per Wikipedia: > 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." "Exploiting the users" doesn't fit your definition of "evil", but it appears to have fit Google's.

spitfire 15y ago

Evil Occurs when individuals or groups embrace codes of conduct or standards of behavior for their own personal well being and social approval, yet violate those very same codes or standards to undermine the personal well being and social approval of others. There's degrees of evil, but no shades. Evil was being done to people in this case.

nostrademons 15y ago

(Disclaimer: Google employee, speaking for myself, not the company.) The point of "Don't be evil" is to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and not less us take the easy way out. That, IMHO, is what made Google great in the first place. I'm not going to comment on the specific case here - I don't know the facts - but the reason for "Don't be evil" is as much motivational as moral.