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 512944
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I know this will come as a shock to many, but I've discovered the damning fact that Google is (gasp) an advertising company. Now this next bit may be hard to follow, but that also means that Google makes most of their revenue from advertising (GASP).

Now I'm not saying advertising is inherently EVIL and that Google must also be EVIL by association, because even I realize how stupid it would sound if I stated that outright. So instead I'll just repeat the same details over and over again with as much handwaving as possible, and maybe that will trick people into thinking I've made an actual point.

BTW, have I mentioned that Google is an ADVERTISING COMPANY?!?!?

(There, Tony - now you don't have to repost the same tirade that you've posted on nearly every Google-related article here in the past 6 months. You're welcome.)

Reply Score: 4