3 ms·

This is really mourning the human condition. This scenario is not new. It is one that has been repeated over and over again --- not just in the history of busi

This is really mourning the human condition. This scenario is not new. It is one that has been repeated over and over again --- not just in the history of business but in the history of humanity. I'm not the only one who saw the big flashing warning signs at the start of the Big Tech/social media era. The distressing and frustrating part is the fact that so many others didn't. I watched as even my own family ignored my warnings and succumbed to the allure and promise of "free service" without really questioning why or how it was possible. Some yearning deep inside the human psyche drives people to just "believe" in the impossible without questioning. Those who recognize and tap into this typically don't have altruism as their objective. "Don't be evil" was really just a diversion --- a seductive marketing ploy that soon vanished --- to the surprise of few even though some holdouts still refuse to accept it out of fear for what it implies about themselves.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> "Don't be evil" was really just a diversion --- a seductive marketing ploy that soon vanished I don't buy this. I believe that "Don't be evil" was a genuine desire, but it characterized a contrarian position designed to stand in opposition to traditional corporate culture. The correct lesson, IMO, is that you cannot ever grow to be a corporation remotely the size that google is and fight that traditional corporate culture successfully. Larry & Sergey were just incredibly naive about this, that's all. If you want to "not be evil", you must be prepared to remain small, and probably niche. That doesn't mean you're unimportant, but you're definitely not Google as we know it today.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  People forget how common this cycle reappears in tech. Jobs founded Apple in opposition to IBM culture alongside Wozniak the ultimate hobbyist tinkerer. Musk was lauded for open-sourcing Tesla’s patents, ten years ago. I’m sure even an up-and-coming Microsoft was seen as a “good guy” at the top of the ‘90s. Though some of this was just public posturing, of course.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    All correct except the Microsoft part. They were never seen as the good guy, thanks to Gates' "Letter to Hackers" in the 80s. MS may have started small, but they were always about "let's make lots of money".
  - varjag 3y ago
    I’m sure even an up-and-coming Microsoft was seen as a “good guy” at the top of the ‘90s. Uh, about that…
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      I said at the top of the decade, not at its end.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        The letter to hackers ("hobbyists") was actually from 1976: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists Microsoft were never the good guys, not in the 80s, not in the 90s, not ever.
      - varjag 3y ago
        Microsoft was a broadly accepted villain throughout all 1990s, only a matter whether one despised or adored that.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  Larry & Sergey were just incredibly naive about this, that's all. You are free to believe as you choose. I believe they were fully aware of the nature of their work and who was funding it before the company was ever formed. And they worked to counter any realistic public perception of it. Email conversations in 2012 between the NSA chief and Google executives, including Brin, were uncovered, inviting the Google heads to a classified threat briefing. https://www.grunge.com/640181/the-shady-history-behind-google-and-the-cia/ https://www.grunge.com/640181/the-shady-history-behind-googl...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    2012?? Google was founded in 1998. 2012 is 14 years later. I'm fine with the argument that they had already abandoned "Don't be Evil" by that point in time.
    - jqpabc123 3y ago
      In 2012, "Don't be evil" was still their corporate motto. I'll assume you just skipped over the part in the reference where their graduate research done in the 1990s that went into Google was funded by the CIA and NSA. They knew what they were doing and who they were doing it with all along. Suggesting otherwise defies rationality.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        I worked at the University of Washington, dept of Computer Science & Engineering, for the first half of the 1990s. I was there when the first webcrawler was created (Brian Pinkerton). I knew a lot of graduate students there. I was the "webmaster" too. I feel fairly confident in saying that even though the facts of the MDDS grant that was helping to fund Page & Brin's graduate student research are clear, I do not believe that the involvement of the US military and intelligence services would have been particularly obvious and/or significant in their minds. Saying "They knew what they were doing and who they were doing it with all along" defies everything I knew about university CS graduate student research. I knew several UW graduate students (including one of my best friends) who were recipients of grant money that originated with the military/intelligence services; they were highly buffered from donor contacts and even donor requirements while working on their research. Most of them would joke to the effect of "our grant donor(s) would have a fit if they knew what we are actually working on", and would often have to struggle to explain how their research fit into the ostensible goals of the donor. I've also known many graduate students over the years for whom, especially in the early phases of their PhD research, it wasn't even clear to them precisely what they were doing, let alone "for whom".

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

> "Don't be evil" was really just a diversion --- a seductive marketing ploy that soon vanished I don't buy this. I believe that "Don't be evil" was a genuine desire, but it characterized a contrarian position designed to stand in opposition to traditional corporate culture. The correct lesson, IMO, is that you cannot ever grow to be a corporation remotely the size that google is and fight that traditional corporate culture successfully. Larry & Sergey were just incredibly naive about this, that's all. If you want to "not be evil", you must be prepared to remain small, and probably niche. That doesn't mean you're unimportant, but you're definitely not Google as we know it today.

Apocryphon 3y ago
People forget how common this cycle reappears in tech. Jobs founded Apple in opposition to IBM culture alongside Wozniak the ultimate hobbyist tinkerer. Musk was lauded for open-sourcing Tesla’s patents, ten years ago. I’m sure even an up-and-coming Microsoft was seen as a “good guy” at the top of the ‘90s. Though some of this was just public posturing, of course.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  All correct except the Microsoft part. They were never seen as the good guy, thanks to Gates' "Letter to Hackers" in the 80s. MS may have started small, but they were always about "let's make lots of money".
- varjag 3y ago
  I’m sure even an up-and-coming Microsoft was seen as a “good guy” at the top of the ‘90s. Uh, about that…
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    I said at the top of the decade, not at its end.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      The letter to hackers ("hobbyists") was actually from 1976: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists Microsoft were never the good guys, not in the 80s, not in the 90s, not ever.
    - varjag 3y ago
      Microsoft was a broadly accepted villain throughout all 1990s, only a matter whether one despised or adored that.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
jqpabc123 3y ago
Larry & Sergey were just incredibly naive about this, that's all. You are free to believe as you choose. I believe they were fully aware of the nature of their work and who was funding it before the company was ever formed. And they worked to counter any realistic public perception of it. Email conversations in 2012 between the NSA chief and Google executives, including Brin, were uncovered, inviting the Google heads to a classified threat briefing. https://www.grunge.com/640181/the-shady-history-behind-google-and-the-cia/ https://www.grunge.com/640181/the-shady-history-behind-googl...
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  2012?? Google was founded in 1998. 2012 is 14 years later. I'm fine with the argument that they had already abandoned "Don't be Evil" by that point in time.
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    In 2012, "Don't be evil" was still their corporate motto. I'll assume you just skipped over the part in the reference where their graduate research done in the 1990s that went into Google was funded by the CIA and NSA. They knew what they were doing and who they were doing it with all along. Suggesting otherwise defies rationality.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      I worked at the University of Washington, dept of Computer Science & Engineering, for the first half of the 1990s. I was there when the first webcrawler was created (Brian Pinkerton). I knew a lot of graduate students there. I was the "webmaster" too. I feel fairly confident in saying that even though the facts of the MDDS grant that was helping to fund Page & Brin's graduate student research are clear, I do not believe that the involvement of the US military and intelligence services would have been particularly obvious and/or significant in their minds. Saying "They knew what they were doing and who they were doing it with all along" defies everything I knew about university CS graduate student research. I knew several UW graduate students (including one of my best friends) who were recipients of grant money that originated with the military/intelligence services; they were highly buffered from donor contacts and even donor requirements while working on their research. Most of them would joke to the effect of "our grant donor(s) would have a fit if they knew what we are actually working on", and would often have to struggle to explain how their research fit into the ostensible goals of the donor. I've also known many graduate students over the years for whom, especially in the early phases of their PhD research, it wasn't even clear to them precisely what they were doing, let alone "for whom".