I'm convinced he makes what is at the very least an articulated argument for the first (but never specifically attempts the second) - although I'm forced to use

I'm convinced he makes what is at the very least an articulated argument for the first (but never specifically attempts the second) - although I'm forced to use capstone statements here. He specifically says: > There is no unified Google that is “good” or “evil”. There is just an organizational clusterfuck that is unable to decide what it thinks is truly the best way to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”5. Is that by forcing web authors into a social network in order to improve directory results? Is that by dipping a toe into the music business? Is that by abandoning standards like RSS and XMPP/Jabber? I don’t think so. and > Google is not “evil”. Google is too big to be evil. At its worst, Google is banal.