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 513104
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Spin
by testman on Fri 6th Apr 2012 23:34 UTC
testman
Member since:
2007-10-15

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.

Normally you are quick to claim that all corporations are "evil" by nature. Don't you think it's hypocritical when one of them to claims that they are not? That's what Gruber is arguing here; not that the behaviour is any way justified of other corporations, but that the difference between them and Google has nothing to do with ethics or morality, it is simple hypocrisy.

You're as guilty of spin as Gruber is.

Reply Score: 2