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.
Thread beginning with comment 512900
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Google's Official Philosophy document "Ten things" has no mention of "Don't Be Evil". Perhaps, it is the media that keeps reinforcing that notion which Google appears to have abandoned and moved on. It is silly to be persecuting Google on its fabled motto which does not even appear on its official philosophy page.

The idea of evil should be same for all corporations. May be the best way to define it contextually is to determine if a firm’s practice is in contravention of the legal frameworks in which it operates.

Reply Score: 4

dsmogor Member since:

As long as they benefit from that perception PRwise the public has every right to have them accountable.

Reply Parent Score: 2