10 ms·

You cannot wield the kind of economic power Google does and not be evil, at least for the working definition many people have of "evil". We've put a huge hunk

You cannot wield the kind of economic power Google does and not be evil, at least for the working definition many people have of "evil". We've put a huge hunk of our intellectual and economic capital under the control of a marketing company. I really, really like Google, but I don't see this situation as being stable over a period of decades. Maybe 5-10 more years or so, but not a lot longer. These kinds of decisions, where we pick economic winners and losers, are political decisions, no matter who makes them. (Personally I abhor making them, but that doesn't change what they are). These knife guys have representatives. Indeed, every small business Google has run over has democratic representation. Each year Google continues to make these decisions the political hue and cry will increase. This can't go on forever like this. "Don't be evil" was a great slogan, but its days are numbered. Perhaps over. Side note: one of the ways I can tell Google's power has grown too large is the elliptical way many commenters have of criticizing it. They're unhappy with its actions, perhaps even livid, but it's always a tone of "Golly! This is really unfortunate and I'm sure nobody at Google really meant to do this, but...." This is the same way you'd criticize a king, somebody you are beholden to. "Golly! I know you, the king, are not at fault, but some of these advisers of yours must have accidentally goofed up somewhere..." Whereas if Dell, the electric company, or the garage down the street screws up in your eyes? Different tone entirely.

OGinparadise 14y ago
The worst part is that Google controls both the ads and search, and free clicks just happened to be under attack. Obviously Google wants you to advertise and search updates can do that. No one audits them at all despite them essentially controlling online commerce.
scarmig 14y ago
As they say, the Cossacks work for the Czar. They have always worked for the Czar. If a big institution screws you over but has found a clever way of perpetually evading or delegating away vocal blame for that... they're still responsible, unless they're fixing the system in the very-near term. If the resources aren't there to fix the system, that's because they've consciously chosen not to allocate those resources.
- coolsunglasses 14y ago
  "They" do not say it, DeLong does.
  - dboat 14y ago
    For others unfamiliar with the reference: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/05/remember_the_co.html?cid=6a00e551f08003883400e55239af358834 http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/05/remember_the_co.html?c...
  - scarmig 14y ago
    He originated it, but it's since become a mainstay on the political blogs, from Yglesias and Krugman to the folks over at RedState. Plus, it has a certain panache to it, don't you think? And vividly conjures a real phenomenon, despite eliding real principal agent problems.
readme 14y ago
Evil is a totally relative term. Google probably thinks they are being benevolent by taking an anti-weapons stance. I'd be inclined to disagree...
- vor_ 14y ago
  Discarding the anti-weapons stance for big advertisers like Walmart is hardly benevolent.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  >Google probably thinks they are being benevolent by taking an anti-weapons stance I think consistency is the bigger issue here. If they take that stance, the should go after Amazon and others and not just the site linked here.
- curiousfiddler 14y ago
  Can you name a few other companies which operate at Google's scale and are less evil? I feel Google has had a big contribution in how open internet as a medium is. I'd like to believe that the people at Google's helm are generally nicer, and can be trusted with this massive responsibility (more than a lot of other people and other companies). I also believe and hope, that they are picking signals from these conversations and resolving to improve and be better in future. PS: Absolutely no affiliation with Google.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    I agree, Google has had a contribution to the openness of the web. Unfortunately, in their haste to follow the paths of Apple and Facebook, they no longer seem to be making a contribution anymore. If anything, they are now actively "closing" the web.
    - TomGullen 14y ago
      How do you believe they are "closing the web"?
bambax 14y ago
> They're unhappy with its actions, perhaps even livid, but it's always a tone of "Golly! This is really unfortunate and I'm sure nobody at Google really meant to do this, but...." They're trying not to burn bridges, which is good business. But it's true Google has a monopoly on online ads, which should not be allowed to continue unchallenged. Don't like Dell? Buy Lenovo. Don't like AdWords? Die. On the other hand, the strategy of the OP is questionable. Google asked them to stop advertising for one category of products. It's admirable to have chosen the high route of stopping to do business with Google altogether, but it wasn't the only option. They could have continued to advertise for all their other products on AdWords, and then cross/up-sell customers to the forbidden fruits once these users got to their site.
- jamroom 14y ago
  If I understand correctly, Google asked them to REMOVE the knife's from sale on their site - not just from any ads running on adwords.
- euroclydon 14y ago
  Are you sure about that? I have the impression Google wanted them to remove assisted opening knives from their site. The Amazon ad they used as an example was not for assisted opening knives, but the Amazon page they showed was.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  > They're trying not to burn bridges, which is good business. I think that's the parent's point: that you cannot afford to burn bridges with Google, even when they are wrong. Speaks to their power. > Google asked them to stop advertising for one category of products. I read it as Google asking them to stop advertising through Adwords as long as their site carried the products in question, even if the ads weren't for those specific products. If your interpretation is correct, however, I would agree with your conclusion. Perhaps the OP can clarify.
  - smusumeche 14y ago
    I'm not the OP, but I do work for Knife Depot. Google did not ask us to stop advertising for one category of product. They asked us to remove those products from our site, and if we didn't, we could not advertise for ANYTHING via AdWords, including kitchen knives, cutting boards, pocket knives, etc.
Roedou 14y ago
As is often the case, Google has to find a line that allows legitimate brands to do their thing, but also make sure that smaller/less legitimate sites not exploit their systems. Google won't tell Amazon/Target/Walmart, to stop selling a product or get banned from AdWords. But a small retailer who wants to circumvent the rules could capture PPC traffic for a similar (but legitimate) product, and then funnel people to the 'banned' product page. Rather than Google policing the landing page's CTAs & on-page intent, they find it easier to just say "you can't sell that thing." Here's what I would do if I were Google: simply not show any PPC units (paid or product listings) on the SERPs for 'Assisted Opening Knives'. Suddenly the whole issue goes away, and Google doesn't look hypocritical - since they're then not making money off a product class that they claim to find objectionable.
- bigiain 14y ago
  Did anybody else read through that keyword-heavy body text, and think "I wonder if they'll really get away with trying to own the organic SERPs while the Adwords team are swatting down their paid placements?"
  - DanBC 14y ago
    I can't see any easy link from their blog to their webstore, so that tactic might fail.
    - bigiain 14y ago
      That's not a particularly uncommon technique - get a page to rank first, without any obvious commercial links on it - then once it's generating traffic add the desired links.
- Spooky23 14y ago
  They don't hold Amazon/Target/Walmart sacred. They probably have contracts where these vendors get commitments from google that they will not be treated this way. Pissing off some little knife company means exactly nothing to google.
reader5000 14y ago
The only way to stop a bad guy clicking through an assisted-opening knife ad on the internet is with a good guy clicking through an assisted-opening knife ad on the internet. You have crossed the National Assisted-Opening Knife Ad Association for the last time Google! We have representatives!!
enraged_camel 14y ago
>> "Don't be evil" was a great slogan, but its days are numbered. Perhaps over. It didn't mean anything. You said it yourself: Google is a marketing company. And that slogan served exactly that purpose. We have a name for it in politics. We call it "rhetoric."
001sky 14y ago
These kinds of decisions, where we pick economic winners and losers, are political decisions == A point, often overlooked.
TomGullen 14y ago
Evil is a strong word with regards to the original article. Having a double standard in the commercial world for whatever reason ranks pretty low on my list of evil things. Banks have been far more evil but they are rarely referred to as such. I think when commenting on such matters it's important to remain proportional.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  >Banks have been far more evil but they are rarely referred to as such. What? For the past few years I haven't heard "bank" spoken without severe negative undertones and usually "evil" explicitly thrown in.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>This is the same way you'd criticize a king, somebody you are beholden to. "Golly! I know you, the king, are not at fault, but some of these advisers of yours must have accidentally goofed up somewhere..." I don't buy it. People don't criticize a king at all. You don't criticize the communist party in Stalinist Russia, tactfully or otherwise. Doing that gets you sent to the gulag. The reason people say that it was a probably a mistake is that it was probably a mistake. There is no apparent malicious objective for Google to stop taking this company's money. There are really only two plausible causes for this. The first is some bureaucratic red tape within Google, where some employee made a poor decision and no one has corrected it yet. The second is that this isn't Google at all, it's the government putting pressure on Google to stop doing business with certain types of companies, and then it's Google being beholden to the government and having to do its bidding. And I have to say the second one is a lot more plausible. Google has every incentive to take an advertiser's money. They're a publicly traded company. They have an obligation to the shareholders. Turning down paying customers because of some moral objection to pointy objects is a little bit crazy. Turning down paying customers because otherwise the government is going to start harassing you is a lot more rational. Of course, it could actually be both. Congress is fond of passing laws against doing business with "criminals" or "terrorist organizations" or whoever may be found wearing an Anti-Flag shirt, and lawyers are fond of the phrase "out of an abundance of caution." Put the two together and you get a de jure ban on certain things and a de facto ban on anything that might be sold in the same showcase as those things. And if you don't like that then you might want to stop voting for Congress critters who support the Patriot Act.
- smsm42 14y ago
  >>>> They have an obligation to the shareholders. Turning down paying customers because of some moral objection to pointy objects is a little bit crazy. Happens all the time. For example, Groupon recently dropped all firearms-related deals on the wave of the craziness that is going on. I, personally, cancelled my account with them the next day and would never buy from them anymore. I am completely certain them and the shareholders don't care too much. Same Google - losing couple of ad dollars from some independent shop is nothing to them. If their deals with Amazon would be under threat that'd probably be different business. And the government probably has absolutely nothing to do with it - if it were government-enforced, it would apply to Amazon too.
walshemj 14y ago
yep years ago on Matt Cutts blog I said at some stage googles going to get regulated. Googles no1 priority should be managing the process to delay and mitigate regulation and not keep drinking in the last chance saloon going "hey fuck you" repeatedly which is only going to make it worse when the evil day comes. I know I shared a office with guys in BT who spent years working on a project (ISDN D Channel) and they where not even sure if we could ever launch the product as Ofcom had the final say.
Karunamon 14y ago
>This is the same way you'd criticize a king, somebody you are beholden to. Or because you really like the company. I think you've misinterpreted the thoughts involved here.. Google is one I have pretty positive feelings about, not just because their applications are usually the best as far as web-based SaaS offerings go, they're free, usually painless (for most people), but also because they just plain make cool stuff. (Glass? Driverless cars?) I'd count their presence and activities, even with the warts, as a huge net benefit for technology and even humanity as a whole. Possibly irrational fanboying aside, the electric or phone company or cable company the other hand are things that people love to hate. Off the top of my head.. * Arbitrary and large rate hikes or base prices * Take it or leave it attitude * Customer-hostile It makes a consumer feel somewhat hunted, as in they tolerate the existence of and do business with these companies because they have no other choice.
- quanticle 14y ago
  Or because you really like the company. Who says the two thoughts are mutually exclusive? In Imperial China, people genuinely loved the Emperor, even as they ran from his mandarins. In Soviet Russia, people genuinely loved Joseph Stalin, even as they ran scared from the NKVD and (later) the KGB. So it's entirely possible to love Google (the company), but think that the AdWords team or GMail team <whichever other team> is being unfair and stupid.

OGinparadise 14y ago

The worst part is that Google controls both the ads and search, and free clicks just happened to be under attack. Obviously Google wants you to advertise and search updates can do that. No one audits them at all despite them essentially controlling online commerce.

scarmig 14y ago

As they say, the Cossacks work for the Czar. They have always worked for the Czar. If a big institution screws you over but has found a clever way of perpetually evading or delegating away vocal blame for that... they're still responsible, unless they're fixing the system in the very-near term. If the resources aren't there to fix the system, that's because they've consciously chosen not to allocate those resources.

coolsunglasses 14y ago
"They" do not say it, DeLong does.
- dboat 14y ago
  For others unfamiliar with the reference: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/05/remember_the_co.html?cid=6a00e551f08003883400e55239af358834 http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/05/remember_the_co.html?c...
- scarmig 14y ago
  He originated it, but it's since become a mainstay on the political blogs, from Yglesias and Krugman to the folks over at RedState. Plus, it has a certain panache to it, don't you think? And vividly conjures a real phenomenon, despite eliding real principal agent problems.

readme 14y ago

Evil is a totally relative term. Google probably thinks they are being benevolent by taking an anti-weapons stance. I'd be inclined to disagree...

vor_ 14y ago
Discarding the anti-weapons stance for big advertisers like Walmart is hardly benevolent.
cooldeal 14y ago
>Google probably thinks they are being benevolent by taking an anti-weapons stance I think consistency is the bigger issue here. If they take that stance, the should go after Amazon and others and not just the site linked here.
curiousfiddler 14y ago
Can you name a few other companies which operate at Google's scale and are less evil? I feel Google has had a big contribution in how open internet as a medium is. I'd like to believe that the people at Google's helm are generally nicer, and can be trusted with this massive responsibility (more than a lot of other people and other companies). I also believe and hope, that they are picking signals from these conversations and resolving to improve and be better in future. PS: Absolutely no affiliation with Google.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I agree, Google has had a contribution to the openness of the web. Unfortunately, in their haste to follow the paths of Apple and Facebook, they no longer seem to be making a contribution anymore. If anything, they are now actively "closing" the web.
  - TomGullen 14y ago
    How do you believe they are "closing the web"?

bambax 14y ago

> They're unhappy with its actions, perhaps even livid, but it's always a tone of "Golly! This is really unfortunate and I'm sure nobody at Google really meant to do this, but...." They're trying not to burn bridges, which is good business. But it's true Google has a monopoly on online ads, which should not be allowed to continue unchallenged. Don't like Dell? Buy Lenovo. Don't like AdWords? Die. On the other hand, the strategy of the OP is questionable. Google asked them to stop advertising for one category of products. It's admirable to have chosen the high route of stopping to do business with Google altogether, but it wasn't the only option. They could have continued to advertise for all their other products on AdWords, and then cross/up-sell customers to the forbidden fruits once these users got to their site.

jamroom 14y ago
If I understand correctly, Google asked them to REMOVE the knife's from sale on their site - not just from any ads running on adwords.
euroclydon 14y ago
Are you sure about that? I have the impression Google wanted them to remove assisted opening knives from their site. The Amazon ad they used as an example was not for assisted opening knives, but the Amazon page they showed was.
unclebucknasty 14y ago
> They're trying not to burn bridges, which is good business. I think that's the parent's point: that you cannot afford to burn bridges with Google, even when they are wrong. Speaks to their power. > Google asked them to stop advertising for one category of products. I read it as Google asking them to stop advertising through Adwords as long as their site carried the products in question, even if the ads weren't for those specific products. If your interpretation is correct, however, I would agree with your conclusion. Perhaps the OP can clarify.
- smusumeche 14y ago
  I'm not the OP, but I do work for Knife Depot. Google did not ask us to stop advertising for one category of product. They asked us to remove those products from our site, and if we didn't, we could not advertise for ANYTHING via AdWords, including kitchen knives, cutting boards, pocket knives, etc.

Roedou 14y ago

As is often the case, Google has to find a line that allows legitimate brands to do their thing, but also make sure that smaller/less legitimate sites not exploit their systems. Google won't tell Amazon/Target/Walmart, to stop selling a product or get banned from AdWords. But a small retailer who wants to circumvent the rules could capture PPC traffic for a similar (but legitimate) product, and then funnel people to the 'banned' product page. Rather than Google policing the landing page's CTAs & on-page intent, they find it easier to just say "you can't sell that thing." Here's what I would do if I were Google: simply not show any PPC units (paid or product listings) on the SERPs for 'Assisted Opening Knives'. Suddenly the whole issue goes away, and Google doesn't look hypocritical - since they're then not making money off a product class that they claim to find objectionable.

bigiain 14y ago
Did anybody else read through that keyword-heavy body text, and think "I wonder if they'll really get away with trying to own the organic SERPs while the Adwords team are swatting down their paid placements?"
- DanBC 14y ago
  I can't see any easy link from their blog to their webstore, so that tactic might fail.
  - bigiain 14y ago
    That's not a particularly uncommon technique - get a page to rank first, without any obvious commercial links on it - then once it's generating traffic add the desired links.
Spooky23 14y ago
They don't hold Amazon/Target/Walmart sacred. They probably have contracts where these vendors get commitments from google that they will not be treated this way. Pissing off some little knife company means exactly nothing to google.

reader5000 14y ago

The only way to stop a bad guy clicking through an assisted-opening knife ad on the internet is with a good guy clicking through an assisted-opening knife ad on the internet. You have crossed the National Assisted-Opening Knife Ad Association for the last time Google! We have representatives!!

enraged_camel 14y ago

>> "Don't be evil" was a great slogan, but its days are numbered. Perhaps over. It didn't mean anything. You said it yourself: Google is a marketing company. And that slogan served exactly that purpose. We have a name for it in politics. We call it "rhetoric."

001sky 14y ago

These kinds of decisions, where we pick economic winners and losers, are political decisions == A point, often overlooked.

TomGullen 14y ago

Evil is a strong word with regards to the original article. Having a double standard in the commercial world for whatever reason ranks pretty low on my list of evil things. Banks have been far more evil but they are rarely referred to as such. I think when commenting on such matters it's important to remain proportional.

flyinRyan 14y ago
>Banks have been far more evil but they are rarely referred to as such. What? For the past few years I haven't heard "bank" spoken without severe negative undertones and usually "evil" explicitly thrown in.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>This is the same way you'd criticize a king, somebody you are beholden to. "Golly! I know you, the king, are not at fault, but some of these advisers of yours must have accidentally goofed up somewhere..." I don't buy it. People don't criticize a king at all. You don't criticize the communist party in Stalinist Russia, tactfully or otherwise. Doing that gets you sent to the gulag. The reason people say that it was a probably a mistake is that it was probably a mistake. There is no apparent malicious objective for Google to stop taking this company's money. There are really only two plausible causes for this. The first is some bureaucratic red tape within Google, where some employee made a poor decision and no one has corrected it yet. The second is that this isn't Google at all, it's the government putting pressure on Google to stop doing business with certain types of companies, and then it's Google being beholden to the government and having to do its bidding. And I have to say the second one is a lot more plausible. Google has every incentive to take an advertiser's money. They're a publicly traded company. They have an obligation to the shareholders. Turning down paying customers because of some moral objection to pointy objects is a little bit crazy. Turning down paying customers because otherwise the government is going to start harassing you is a lot more rational. Of course, it could actually be both. Congress is fond of passing laws against doing business with "criminals" or "terrorist organizations" or whoever may be found wearing an Anti-Flag shirt, and lawyers are fond of the phrase "out of an abundance of caution." Put the two together and you get a de jure ban on certain things and a de facto ban on anything that might be sold in the same showcase as those things. And if you don't like that then you might want to stop voting for Congress critters who support the Patriot Act.

smsm42 14y ago
>>>> They have an obligation to the shareholders. Turning down paying customers because of some moral objection to pointy objects is a little bit crazy. Happens all the time. For example, Groupon recently dropped all firearms-related deals on the wave of the craziness that is going on. I, personally, cancelled my account with them the next day and would never buy from them anymore. I am completely certain them and the shareholders don't care too much. Same Google - losing couple of ad dollars from some independent shop is nothing to them. If their deals with Amazon would be under threat that'd probably be different business. And the government probably has absolutely nothing to do with it - if it were government-enforced, it would apply to Amazon too.

walshemj 14y ago

yep years ago on Matt Cutts blog I said at some stage googles going to get regulated. Googles no1 priority should be managing the process to delay and mitigate regulation and not keep drinking in the last chance saloon going "hey fuck you" repeatedly which is only going to make it worse when the evil day comes. I know I shared a office with guys in BT who spent years working on a project (ISDN D Channel) and they where not even sure if we could ever launch the product as Ofcom had the final say.

Karunamon 14y ago

>This is the same way you'd criticize a king, somebody you are beholden to. Or because you really like the company. I think you've misinterpreted the thoughts involved here.. Google is one I have pretty positive feelings about, not just because their applications are usually the best as far as web-based SaaS offerings go, they're free, usually painless (for most people), but also because they just plain make cool stuff. (Glass? Driverless cars?) I'd count their presence and activities, even with the warts, as a huge net benefit for technology and even humanity as a whole. Possibly irrational fanboying aside, the electric or phone company or cable company the other hand are things that people love to hate. Off the top of my head.. * Arbitrary and large rate hikes or base prices * Take it or leave it attitude * Customer-hostile It makes a consumer feel somewhat hunted, as in they tolerate the existence of and do business with these companies because they have no other choice.

quanticle 14y ago
Or because you really like the company. Who says the two thoughts are mutually exclusive? In Imperial China, people genuinely loved the Emperor, even as they ran from his mandarins. In Soviet Russia, people genuinely loved Joseph Stalin, even as they ran scared from the NKVD and (later) the KGB. So it's entirely possible to love Google (the company), but think that the AdWords team or GMail team <whichever other team> is being unfair and stupid.