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 512952
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I'd make two comment:

People want to know how there information is being used and have the ability to "opt in" to these systems.

Opt Out was chosen to maximize the information Google collects and effort the user goes through to be excluded from that data collection. It is to Google's benefit by default. An Opt In system would be proper if the user was the concern. User's are not tricked into giving up data (obscured opt-out extra steps) but Google only gets data from users who expressly allow it.

As long as they operate opt-out survelance systems...

I'd also suggest reconsidering self-interest related to FOSS. All FOSS is developed out of self interst. Microsoft has contributed code to the kernel so it runs better inside MS virtualization and that's perfectly fine; everyone contributes out of self interest. Google premotes FOSS development due to self interst; say it isn't so. The important part to consider is that they are contributing at all and we have the resulting programs because of the self interest of all the developers who contributed to the project.

Reply Parent Score: 2