9 ms·

When you think about the power Google has, Don't be Evil is still a real value of theirs, and we should be grateful. Most people won't even let themselves imag

When you think about the power Google has, Don't be Evil is still a real value of theirs, and we should be grateful. Most people won't even let themselves imagine what could be done with Google if evil was an option. How many hours would it take to compile a list of everyone who searches for incest porn and correlate that with 'people who are judges'. Considering that the incest fetish runs as high as 10% such information could be used to perform a bloodless coup. Call the legal system nullified, and lobbyists obsolete. And that is just one facet of the simplest way Google could be used for evil (blackmail). There are infinite ways Google's information asymmetry could be exploited, and most of them would be completely invisible and 100% effective. Thats why I'm glad we have Sergey and Larry running under the banner of "Don't be Evil." It shows that even from the beginning they realized they were going to wield terrible power, and they were a bit honest with that fact.

jiggy2011 13y ago
True, but it's not in their interest to blackmail people. If people knew people who were being actively extorted in relation to their google searches then everyone would switch to Bing or DDG in a second.
- mgkimsal 13y ago
  It's really not just your google searches though - every site you visit that runs adwords is reporting your info back to google - just visiting a site directly can leak info, regardless of searches. Search history is obviously the low-hanging fruit, but Google's tentacles reach pretty far.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    Yes, but if nobody trusts them then they would suddenly find life very difficult.
crabasa 13y ago
The minute that anything even remotely resembling that happens, you will find the full force of the federal government and every possible legal resource come to bear on Google. The hypothetical that you stated isn't just related to judges, it's relevant to the most powerful people in the world. Which is precisely why it won't happen. The people in charge at Google understand this existential threat and that is why every feasible cultural and technical safeguard exists to prevent this from happening.
- mtgx 13y ago
  That's assuming the government or certain agencies like NSA wouldn't already try to get Google to abuse that power in their favor, and be a very willing partner for them. But the thing is Google has been one of the companies that has actively fought the hardest against such government abuses. Others on the other hand are more than willing to do it. How long did it take Microsoft to brag to the Chinese authorities that they are on the Chinese government's side, just so they can gain 1% market share if Google was banned from China? A whole week? What about the partnership to create the surveillance tool that is TOM-Skype? So yes, I think we could do much, much worse than Google.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    So Microsoft is opportunistic. Big deal. Google was equally quite happy to "brag to the Chinese authorities that they are on the Chinese government's side" as well in the past. They just maybe didn't understand the implications of what they meant. Yes. We could do much, much worse than Google. We could also do much, much better. But the fact is that every company is complying with the basic tenants of the law and that is all that anyone can expect of them really.
tinco 13y ago
If the only qualification for not being evil is abiding by the law then jay, Google could be considered not to be evil. As long as their tax evasion practices are deemed legal that is. But that is just a reflection of the low moral standards Sergey and Larry have. Instead of imagining what they could do if they committed senseless stupid evil on irrelevant perverts, imagine what they could do if they would actually do good. They wield a terrible power, and worse the faceless public owners of Google wield it with them. If they truly were good, then the world would be a different place from what it is now.
- DominikR 13y ago
  Didn't they already change the world in a very positive way? I mean they've given access to information and cheap computing to everyone for free, including the third world.
pron 13y ago
In what way is "Don't be Evil" a value of Google's? I mean, they're not going to get up one day and start shooting children with sniper rifles, I guess, but that's not their business anyway. Their business is making tons of money by collecting information both public and personal, and accruing power and influence for the benefit of their money-making as well as for the personal gratification of their top executives (because that's what people do). Do you think that when they see an opportunity to further one of these two goals the Googlers say, "but before we do that, let's stop and think long and hard about the ramifications of what we're about to do, and whether that action can be considered evil?" No, they don't. They do it, and then, if it does turn out to be evil, they explain why it really isn't. They wouldn't do it only if so many people would consider it to be evil that it would turn into a serious PR issue for them. So really, "Don't be Evil" is a motto at Google, but it's not a value. Their true value, if corporations can even have such a thing at all, is "Don't be So Conspicuously Evil That People Hate Us and Stop Trusting Us With Their Private Information or Too Afraid of Us To Let Us Benignly Spy On Them All the Time". And as for blackmail, who's to say it's not already happening? But even if the Googlers don't personally blackmail anyone to advance their own goals, how hard would it be for a crime organization to put a Google employee on their payroll? I don't know what kind of security they hav at Google, and chances are it's the wrong kind[1]. [1]: http://xkcd.com/538/ http://xkcd.com/538/
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Ignoring that i disagree completely about what Google's business actually is, "Do you think that when they see an opportunity to further one of these two goals the Googlers say, "but before we do that, let's stop and think long and hard about the ramifications of what we're about to do, and whether that action can be considered evil?" No, they don't. " Actually, yes, this is pretty much what happens almost all of the time. People think long and hard about the ramifications about what they are going to do. That doesn't mean they always come up with the "right" answers, or that there isn't vehement disagreement, but yes, they do in fact, thing long and hard about it, and whether it is the right thing to do. " I don't know what kind of security they hav at Google, and chances are it's the wrong kind[1]." As you said, you have literally no idea what you are talking about.
kevinalexbrown 13y ago
and we should be grateful. What? I don't believe Google is evil, but at the same time, I'm not "grateful" that they're not evil any more than I'm grateful that a driver isn't evil and doesn't run me over. Yes, I'm glad, but I don't feel like she's going beyond what she owes me. This perspective is subtly dangerous, because it takes the consumer out of the decision-making process. When we see Google as an amorphous blob of power we're grateful to, we've already conceded the right to set the terms of the marketplaces we engage in. Individuals should be concerned about the state of the marketplaces they frequent. There are great reasons for simple rules and regulations. Except for the ideal case, individual incentives differ with the incentives of those the market serves. For clarity, I love markets. The market is the most powerful tool society has ever developed. But a lot of the benefits of a very free market are lessened when the number of suppliers is small. In truth, how many companies do what Google does, even on a specific product other than gmail? A handful of search engines? The point at which google is doing us a favor by not being evil, instead of merely abiding by the law, is the point at which our expectations should be updated.
- msrpotus 13y ago
  Exactly right. They've made a choice but it's a choice that they benefit from by getting people to use their products. It's not something they're doing purely out of the goodness of their hearts the way an anonymous donation would be (that would be something to be grateful for).
  - mayanksinghal 13y ago
    I think people feel good when they donate, and that is what causes them to donate. How is that any less selfish? (However I also know I am pretty selfish, so I could be simply reflecting)
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      We really don't do anything without it making us "feel good" on some fundamental level. Motivation/intrinsic reward for behavior goes to the very core of our being as self-directed organisms. So asking "how is donating any less selfish than not donating" is asking the wrong question. We have evolved to take pleasure in behaviors that are beneficial to ourselves. One who is selfish will take pleasure in things that are solely beneficial to him or herself. One who is unselfish has a reward system that is aligned with the benefit of others. So when we say someone is a "good person" or "unselfish", we are really judging the alignment of their reward system as being more suitable for a social environment. As an aside, note that this way of thinking is compatible with determinism: while the murderer may not have any more control over his anti-social behavior than the altruist, the person is condemned for having a brain wired in such a way that is toxic to a collectivist society.
uvdiv 13y ago
Don't be Evil is still a real value of theirs, and we should be grateful. [...] and most of them would be completely invisible and 100% effective. You realize that these two sentiments are inconsistent? If Google could be evil without anyone knowing it, then you have no way of knowing that they are not evil.
foobarqux 13y ago
They needn't have the desire to blackmail anyone. Collecting the information makes it available to the government who will do the profiling and blackmailing.
Afforess 13y ago
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing By that definition, "Don't Be Evil" is the same as doing nothing. Google can play up the not evil card all it wants, but that doesn't make them good.
threeseed 13y ago
All of your examples don't fall under the category of "Don't be Evil" but rather "Don't do anything Illegal". Apple equally could ship every iPhone with a keystroke logger and a C4 explosive to detonate every time someone typed Android. Or Microsoft could modify their browser to record bank logins and secretly steal 1c everyday from their customers. The point about "Don't be Evil" was to not do anything that was immoral but legal. I would consider Google's support of Motorola's behaviour in abusing FRAND patents to be an example. Or Google's deliberate ignoring of the Do Not Track advertiser setting.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- scholia 13y ago
  Google also avoids paying tax on its huge UK earnings by shuffling the money between countries. That's presumably legal but it certainly isn't moral or ethical. Obviously Google is not the only company that does this. Apple and other capitalist corporations do the same thing. But it's one thing to run a company based on naked greed and quite another to claim that you're somehow superior.
  - mitchty 13y ago
    To be fair, corporations legally avoiding as much taxation as possible is a bit of a stretch for the evil claim. Corporate ethics wise it is more interesting why consumers want corporations to pay more tax as it effectively increases prices. A better question would be posed to our governments on tax reform and simplification. But we all know the loopholes exist somewhat intentionally, otherwise they would have been closed already. The fact they're not getting closed indicates that our perception of what a company should pay and what they're legally obligated is basically wrong.
    - M2Ys4U 13y ago
      >Corporate ethics wise it is more interesting why consumers want corporations to pay more tax as it effectively increases prices. Because taxes (help) pay for the negative externalities that arise from the corporation doing business. >A better question would be posed to our governments on tax reform and simplification. But we all know the loopholes exist somewhat intentionally, otherwise they would have been closed already. The fact they're not getting closed indicates that our perception of what a company should pay and what they're legally obligated is basically wrong. The problem exists because of the international tax framework, and getting the governments of all the jurisdictions involved to reform the tax system is harder than a single country unilaterally doing so - especially when it greatly benefits some countries at the expense of others.
thoughtcriminal 13y ago
We should be "grateful" Google isn't evil? Who is voting this stuff up?!
- mcantelon 13y ago
  People who don't believe in inherent human rights, apparently. If there's something to be gained by being evil, Google will be evil. Maybe not under Sergy and Larry, but Google will live on after they die.
vlasta2 13y ago
If Google really wants to "not do evil", they should actively work on removing themselves from this position of power they have. They should also work on making it impossible for any entity to obtain this kind of power. That is certainly a very difficult task, but there are little things that can be done and would make a difference (real support for freenet, bitcoins, or wikileaks). Just gathering power is evil, because in a few years the temptation to use the power will be too strong.
- wslh 13y ago
  Also being a public company complicates the strict "Don't be evil" logic. Shareholders, in general, doesn't care about being too ethical in a metaphysics sense. It's time to think that private companies has a most promising ethical future than public ones.
  - stormbrew 13y ago
    I think you can only say that, if you measure this on a spectrum, they only have a wider potential range of evil:good. Any conclusion about clustering would be founded on an utter lack of data.
smsm42 13y ago
Google access to information can be used for evil. But it takes only very small step to have the same thing reclassified as good. Take your example and let's say some eager attorney general declares war on obscenity, gets some laws passed by bleeding-heart think-of-the-children lawmakers and asks Google for data, which Google can not and will not refuse since it's not for evil - it's for the ultimate good of the children! And bingo, you just facilitated totalitarian state, where all you do online is now recorded by the government and can be used against you if they dislike it. And with the best intentions. Let's face it, "Don't be evil" is nothing more than PR. Great PR, but still nothing more. Very few people actually do something they think is evil. Usually they only do what they had to do, or what they were ordered to do, or what the situation made them to do. And I have absolutely no doubt Google will do the same, and will if needed find reason why anything they do is not evil. Any of us is capable of it and Google is no exception.
snowwrestler 13y ago
I think there is a good case to be made that we would have much stronger privacy laws if evil actions were more aggressive and obvious. The judicial and legislative bodies of the country will not put up with blackmail or attacks for long. One of the problems with advocating for stronger privacy protections now is that so much of the harm is hypothetical. It takes urgency and crisis to pass legislation, and Google (and Facebook, and others) have done a good job preventing crises.
jimmaswell 13y ago
>There are infinite ways Google's information asymmetry could be exploited, and most of them would be completely invisible and 100% effective. Then how do you know they're not happening?
znowi 13y ago
> we should be grateful Jesus Christ, this is the top comment on Hacker News. The sentiment is very similar to what you may hear in repressive countries: "Thank God, they don't do x to us". This is very disturbing.
- psbp 13y ago
  Eh, it's kind of like saying "I'm grateful that the hospital staff made me well instead of carelessly and greedily making my condition worse". I think many people in this thread are forgetting that Google is a conglomeration of different people, opinions, etc., and it may not be as easily defined as the paranoid attributions given to the tangential predictions of one of its executives.
ownagefool 13y ago
"and most of them would be completely invisible and 100% effective" ... You realise that would mean they could be doing this right now? :P Personally, I suspect they're not as I assume at least one person would have enough backbone to challenge them over it, so I don't think it's something they could legitimately get away with.
milesf 13y ago
"And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness." 2 Corinthians 11:14-15
JVIDEL 13y ago
Blackmail? try political suppression instead: there are many countries around the world that would shower google with money in exchange of information regarding dissidents. Right now many countries in south america maintain armies of paid bloggers dedicated to smear the opposition 24/7 in social networks. This is incredibly labor-intensive, costly and not always that effective since even the dullest individual can see through the obvious propaganda copypasta of those hired guns. If google wanted it could just charge those governments to shut the opposition from its services and give all their data from emails to files and social activity to the local police, which would put it to use right away with a devastating effect.

jiggy2011 13y ago

True, but it's not in their interest to blackmail people. If people knew people who were being actively extorted in relation to their google searches then everyone would switch to Bing or DDG in a second.

mgkimsal 13y ago
It's really not just your google searches though - every site you visit that runs adwords is reporting your info back to google - just visiting a site directly can leak info, regardless of searches. Search history is obviously the low-hanging fruit, but Google's tentacles reach pretty far.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Yes, but if nobody trusts them then they would suddenly find life very difficult.

crabasa 13y ago

The minute that anything even remotely resembling that happens, you will find the full force of the federal government and every possible legal resource come to bear on Google. The hypothetical that you stated isn't just related to judges, it's relevant to the most powerful people in the world. Which is precisely why it won't happen. The people in charge at Google understand this existential threat and that is why every feasible cultural and technical safeguard exists to prevent this from happening.

mtgx 13y ago
That's assuming the government or certain agencies like NSA wouldn't already try to get Google to abuse that power in their favor, and be a very willing partner for them. But the thing is Google has been one of the companies that has actively fought the hardest against such government abuses. Others on the other hand are more than willing to do it. How long did it take Microsoft to brag to the Chinese authorities that they are on the Chinese government's side, just so they can gain 1% market share if Google was banned from China? A whole week? What about the partnership to create the surveillance tool that is TOM-Skype? So yes, I think we could do much, much worse than Google.
- threeseed 13y ago
  So Microsoft is opportunistic. Big deal. Google was equally quite happy to "brag to the Chinese authorities that they are on the Chinese government's side" as well in the past. They just maybe didn't understand the implications of what they meant. Yes. We could do much, much worse than Google. We could also do much, much better. But the fact is that every company is complying with the basic tenants of the law and that is all that anyone can expect of them really.

tinco 13y ago

If the only qualification for not being evil is abiding by the law then jay, Google could be considered not to be evil. As long as their tax evasion practices are deemed legal that is. But that is just a reflection of the low moral standards Sergey and Larry have. Instead of imagining what they could do if they committed senseless stupid evil on irrelevant perverts, imagine what they could do if they would actually do good. They wield a terrible power, and worse the faceless public owners of Google wield it with them. If they truly were good, then the world would be a different place from what it is now.

DominikR 13y ago
Didn't they already change the world in a very positive way? I mean they've given access to information and cheap computing to everyone for free, including the third world.

pron 13y ago

In what way is "Don't be Evil" a value of Google's? I mean, they're not going to get up one day and start shooting children with sniper rifles, I guess, but that's not their business anyway. Their business is making tons of money by collecting information both public and personal, and accruing power and influence for the benefit of their money-making as well as for the personal gratification of their top executives (because that's what people do). Do you think that when they see an opportunity to further one of these two goals the Googlers say, "but before we do that, let's stop and think long and hard about the ramifications of what we're about to do, and whether that action can be considered evil?" No, they don't. They do it, and then, if it does turn out to be evil, they explain why it really isn't. They wouldn't do it only if so many people would consider it to be evil that it would turn into a serious PR issue for them. So really, "Don't be Evil" is a motto at Google, but it's not a value. Their true value, if corporations can even have such a thing at all, is "Don't be So Conspicuously Evil That People Hate Us and Stop Trusting Us With Their Private Information or Too Afraid of Us To Let Us Benignly Spy On Them All the Time". And as for blackmail, who's to say it's not already happening? But even if the Googlers don't personally blackmail anyone to advance their own goals, how hard would it be for a crime organization to put a Google employee on their payroll? I don't know what kind of security they hav at Google, and chances are it's the wrong kind[1]. [1]: http://xkcd.com/538/ http://xkcd.com/538/

DannyBee 13y ago
Ignoring that i disagree completely about what Google's business actually is, "Do you think that when they see an opportunity to further one of these two goals the Googlers say, "but before we do that, let's stop and think long and hard about the ramifications of what we're about to do, and whether that action can be considered evil?" No, they don't. " Actually, yes, this is pretty much what happens almost all of the time. People think long and hard about the ramifications about what they are going to do. That doesn't mean they always come up with the "right" answers, or that there isn't vehement disagreement, but yes, they do in fact, thing long and hard about it, and whether it is the right thing to do. " I don't know what kind of security they hav at Google, and chances are it's the wrong kind[1]." As you said, you have literally no idea what you are talking about.

kevinalexbrown 13y ago

and we should be grateful. What? I don't believe Google is evil, but at the same time, I'm not "grateful" that they're not evil any more than I'm grateful that a driver isn't evil and doesn't run me over. Yes, I'm glad, but I don't feel like she's going beyond what she owes me. This perspective is subtly dangerous, because it takes the consumer out of the decision-making process. When we see Google as an amorphous blob of power we're grateful to, we've already conceded the right to set the terms of the marketplaces we engage in. Individuals should be concerned about the state of the marketplaces they frequent. There are great reasons for simple rules and regulations. Except for the ideal case, individual incentives differ with the incentives of those the market serves. For clarity, I love markets. The market is the most powerful tool society has ever developed. But a lot of the benefits of a very free market are lessened when the number of suppliers is small. In truth, how many companies do what Google does, even on a specific product other than gmail? A handful of search engines? The point at which google is doing us a favor by not being evil, instead of merely abiding by the law, is the point at which our expectations should be updated.

msrpotus 13y ago
Exactly right. They've made a choice but it's a choice that they benefit from by getting people to use their products. It's not something they're doing purely out of the goodness of their hearts the way an anonymous donation would be (that would be something to be grateful for).
- mayanksinghal 13y ago
  I think people feel good when they donate, and that is what causes them to donate. How is that any less selfish? (However I also know I am pretty selfish, so I could be simply reflecting)
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    We really don't do anything without it making us "feel good" on some fundamental level. Motivation/intrinsic reward for behavior goes to the very core of our being as self-directed organisms. So asking "how is donating any less selfish than not donating" is asking the wrong question. We have evolved to take pleasure in behaviors that are beneficial to ourselves. One who is selfish will take pleasure in things that are solely beneficial to him or herself. One who is unselfish has a reward system that is aligned with the benefit of others. So when we say someone is a "good person" or "unselfish", we are really judging the alignment of their reward system as being more suitable for a social environment. As an aside, note that this way of thinking is compatible with determinism: while the murderer may not have any more control over his anti-social behavior than the altruist, the person is condemned for having a brain wired in such a way that is toxic to a collectivist society.

uvdiv 13y ago

Don't be Evil is still a real value of theirs, and we should be grateful. [...] and most of them would be completely invisible and 100% effective. You realize that these two sentiments are inconsistent? If Google could be evil without anyone knowing it, then you have no way of knowing that they are not evil.

foobarqux 13y ago

They needn't have the desire to blackmail anyone. Collecting the information makes it available to the government who will do the profiling and blackmailing.

Afforess 13y ago

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing By that definition, "Don't Be Evil" is the same as doing nothing. Google can play up the not evil card all it wants, but that doesn't make them good.

threeseed 13y ago

All of your examples don't fall under the category of "Don't be Evil" but rather "Don't do anything Illegal". Apple equally could ship every iPhone with a keystroke logger and a C4 explosive to detonate every time someone typed Android. Or Microsoft could modify their browser to record bank logins and secretly steal 1c everyday from their customers. The point about "Don't be Evil" was to not do anything that was immoral but legal. I would consider Google's support of Motorola's behaviour in abusing FRAND patents to be an example. Or Google's deliberate ignoring of the Do Not Track advertiser setting.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
scholia 13y ago
Google also avoids paying tax on its huge UK earnings by shuffling the money between countries. That's presumably legal but it certainly isn't moral or ethical. Obviously Google is not the only company that does this. Apple and other capitalist corporations do the same thing. But it's one thing to run a company based on naked greed and quite another to claim that you're somehow superior.
- mitchty 13y ago
  To be fair, corporations legally avoiding as much taxation as possible is a bit of a stretch for the evil claim. Corporate ethics wise it is more interesting why consumers want corporations to pay more tax as it effectively increases prices. A better question would be posed to our governments on tax reform and simplification. But we all know the loopholes exist somewhat intentionally, otherwise they would have been closed already. The fact they're not getting closed indicates that our perception of what a company should pay and what they're legally obligated is basically wrong.
  - M2Ys4U 13y ago
    >Corporate ethics wise it is more interesting why consumers want corporations to pay more tax as it effectively increases prices. Because taxes (help) pay for the negative externalities that arise from the corporation doing business. >A better question would be posed to our governments on tax reform and simplification. But we all know the loopholes exist somewhat intentionally, otherwise they would have been closed already. The fact they're not getting closed indicates that our perception of what a company should pay and what they're legally obligated is basically wrong. The problem exists because of the international tax framework, and getting the governments of all the jurisdictions involved to reform the tax system is harder than a single country unilaterally doing so - especially when it greatly benefits some countries at the expense of others.

thoughtcriminal 13y ago

We should be "grateful" Google isn't evil? Who is voting this stuff up?!

mcantelon 13y ago
People who don't believe in inherent human rights, apparently. If there's something to be gained by being evil, Google will be evil. Maybe not under Sergy and Larry, but Google will live on after they die.

vlasta2 13y ago

If Google really wants to "not do evil", they should actively work on removing themselves from this position of power they have. They should also work on making it impossible for any entity to obtain this kind of power. That is certainly a very difficult task, but there are little things that can be done and would make a difference (real support for freenet, bitcoins, or wikileaks). Just gathering power is evil, because in a few years the temptation to use the power will be too strong.

wslh 13y ago
Also being a public company complicates the strict "Don't be evil" logic. Shareholders, in general, doesn't care about being too ethical in a metaphysics sense. It's time to think that private companies has a most promising ethical future than public ones.
- stormbrew 13y ago
  I think you can only say that, if you measure this on a spectrum, they only have a wider potential range of evil:good. Any conclusion about clustering would be founded on an utter lack of data.

smsm42 13y ago

Google access to information can be used for evil. But it takes only very small step to have the same thing reclassified as good. Take your example and let's say some eager attorney general declares war on obscenity, gets some laws passed by bleeding-heart think-of-the-children lawmakers and asks Google for data, which Google can not and will not refuse since it's not for evil - it's for the ultimate good of the children! And bingo, you just facilitated totalitarian state, where all you do online is now recorded by the government and can be used against you if they dislike it. And with the best intentions. Let's face it, "Don't be evil" is nothing more than PR. Great PR, but still nothing more. Very few people actually do something they think is evil. Usually they only do what they had to do, or what they were ordered to do, or what the situation made them to do. And I have absolutely no doubt Google will do the same, and will if needed find reason why anything they do is not evil. Any of us is capable of it and Google is no exception.

snowwrestler 13y ago

I think there is a good case to be made that we would have much stronger privacy laws if evil actions were more aggressive and obvious. The judicial and legislative bodies of the country will not put up with blackmail or attacks for long. One of the problems with advocating for stronger privacy protections now is that so much of the harm is hypothetical. It takes urgency and crisis to pass legislation, and Google (and Facebook, and others) have done a good job preventing crises.

jimmaswell 13y ago

>There are infinite ways Google's information asymmetry could be exploited, and most of them would be completely invisible and 100% effective. Then how do you know they're not happening?

znowi 13y ago

> we should be grateful Jesus Christ, this is the top comment on Hacker News. The sentiment is very similar to what you may hear in repressive countries: "Thank God, they don't do x to us". This is very disturbing.

psbp 13y ago
Eh, it's kind of like saying "I'm grateful that the hospital staff made me well instead of carelessly and greedily making my condition worse". I think many people in this thread are forgetting that Google is a conglomeration of different people, opinions, etc., and it may not be as easily defined as the paranoid attributions given to the tangential predictions of one of its executives.

ownagefool 13y ago

"and most of them would be completely invisible and 100% effective" ... You realise that would mean they could be doing this right now? :P Personally, I suspect they're not as I assume at least one person would have enough backbone to challenge them over it, so I don't think it's something they could legitimately get away with.

milesf 13y ago

"And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness." 2 Corinthians 11:14-15

JVIDEL 13y ago

Blackmail? try political suppression instead: there are many countries around the world that would shower google with money in exchange of information regarding dissidents. Right now many countries in south america maintain armies of paid bloggers dedicated to smear the opposition 24/7 in social networks. This is incredibly labor-intensive, costly and not always that effective since even the dullest individual can see through the obvious propaganda copypasta of those hired guns. If google wanted it could just charge those governments to shut the opposition from its services and give all their data from emails to files and social activity to the local police, which would put it to use right away with a devastating effect.