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 512974
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: says the one..
by MollyC on Thu 5th Apr 2012 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: says the one.."
Member since:

Didn't Google recently get caught "hacking" Safari's browser such that even if the user turned off cookies or tracking or whatever, Google still hacked some way to do tracking in Safari? (Sorry, I forget the details of the story.) And then it turned out they did similar with IE?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: says the one..
by fran on Thu 5th Apr 2012 23:08 in reply to "RE[3]: says the one.."
fran Member since:

Yip, that's true. The accusation from the companies is a bit hypocritical though.

Edited 2012-04-05 23:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3