Linked by Mohit Ranka on Thu 17th May 2007 15:07 UTC
Google A recent Google acquisition of DoubleClick for a whopping USD 3.1 billion has turned many heads. The recent past certainly does not fit into Google's traditional non-aggressive attitude towards acquisitions for monopoly in the market. DoubleClick Inc., a spearhead in ad-serving, is only one of many companies acquired by Google. A comprehensive list can be seen here. Beside Google's acquisitions, this article will also explore some changes in Google's philosophy and potential threats to web community.
Thread beginning with comment 241100
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ohhh noes...Google is t3h EVILS
by the_trapper on Thu 17th May 2007 15:52 UTC
Member since:

So basically the gist of it is that Google is evil because they want to be a successful corporation by extending globally (and therefore having to abide by France and China's laws among others), acquiring other companies (eat or be eaten as they say), and acquiring massive collections of user data (the only truly valuable asset they own besides a household brand name).

It seems like the community has to brand every company as evil when they get too successful. There was a time when people actually *GASP* liked *GASP* Microsoft and rooted for them as they fought against big bad IBM. Then people rooted for Red Hat as they fought against Microsoft. Then people became afraid that Red Hat would be the "Microsoft of Linuxes" so they started to root for other community driven distros that couldn't become too commercialized.

Unfortunately, corporations have obligations to their employees and stock holders to do as well financially speaking as possible so that stock holders make money and employees continue to collect pay checks. Sometimes the best way to make that money treads on some shaky ethical ground. This is all shades of grey with Google right now. None of the author's examples were truly evil. Government meddling in the Internet is hardly Google's fault. I also think that our generation has to accept that privacy is going away forever. We all live in glass fish bowls, at least as far as our personal data is concerned. It's the price we have to pay for all the great "free" stuff we have access to on the Internet. I'm not saying this is good or bad, it just IS.

Edited 2007-05-17 16:07

Reply Score: 5

Almindor Member since:

Actually, corporations don't have obligations to anyone. Corporations do not "feel". Corporations do not have "morals". Corporations only care about profit. This is the first thing you learn in economics. Profit by any means necessary. They usually don't break law but do it if they can get away with it. They do amoral acts if they can get away with it. They would do anything if they can get away with it and of course the more profit the better.

You might say that "the people of company XXX are good guys etc.". Well they might be, for some years until the company is run by shareholders (in other words, big enough) and those only care about money. The new managers always only care about money.

Rule of thumb, the bigger they are, the more evil they go.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Spellcheck Member since:

You just made an unsubstatiated leap from profit-motivated to "evil." It seems to me that reasoning like this begs the question.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:

"They usually don't break law but do it if they can get away with it. They do amoral acts if they can get away with it. They would do anything if they can get away with it and of course the more profit the better."

Actually, "they" dont do anything. People do amoral acts, people will do anything they can if they can get away with it and people are the ones that will profit at any cost. Saying that it's the corporations that does this is just a convenient way to shift the blame onto an anonymous entity and make yourself not feel guilty.

Edited 2007-05-18 03:56

Reply Parent Score: 4