Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2012 22:22 UTC
Google Interesting, if not inherently flawed, article by Farhad Manjoo. "Honan might be right that Google has violated its own definition of evil, but doesn't it matter that every one of its rivals also routinely violates Google's definition of evil?" I say flawed, because I value promises more than anything. Google has done things recently that break their initial promise. That sucks - there's no way around it. I do love Gruber's take, though: "It's not that Google is evil. It's that they're hypocrites. That's the difference between Google and its competitors." In other words, it's perfectly fine to be an evil scumbag company, as long as you're not claiming you're not. That's a rather... Warped view on morality.
Permalink for comment 512923
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re:
by kurkosdr on Thu 5th Apr 2012 11:11 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

Was there a period when Google was NOT evil? They 've been data mining users since day 1. And no, the fact it is mentioned in the privacy policy doesn't act as a waiver.

I know, "if you don't like it, don't use it", but the same can be applied to DRM, region lockout etc and other evil things that Apple, MS and Sony are practicing. If you don't like those, don't buy the product. Does this make DRM and Region lockout non evil? Of course not. Same for data mining.

Unless of course you don't consider data mining the users "evil". This is the problem with this word, there is no clear definition.

Edited 2012-04-05 11:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2