On shitting on Google.

[Cramulus]

to 000


We have to be very careful right now, because google is growing, and it's becoming a really intimate part of all of our lives. How many of you use the verb "to google" when you mean "to look something up using a search engine"?

I don't believe the "don't do evil" motto for a second. That meme surely lowers people's defenses, and it makes people mentally frame google's actions assuming positive intent. The larger a company becomes, the more pervasive it becomes in everyday life, the more skeptical and reserved one should be about it.

Yeah, it was only 1 measly GB of wifi data. But if that gig of data had been social security numbers, wouldn't you be freaked out? It doesn't matter what those data were. Doesn't it bother you a bit that google is saying "Ah LOL yes don't worry about that illegal systematic data collection, that was just an accident"? If the government did this, people would be TWEAKED OUT. This is the tip of the iceberg. There are other things like this which just haven't come to the surface yet. You can be sure of it, because the people working for google are ambitious, extremely powerful, and sharp as a tack.

[Captain Utopia]

to 000


We have to be very careful right now, because google is growing, and it's becoming a really intimate part of all of our lives. How many of you use the verb "to google" when you mean "to look something up using a search engine"?

To me it's similar to the way "Windows" represents all PC architecture in popular culture.  MS rose to prominence partly because before the internet became so ubiquitous you needed a standardised platform for business.. if someone sent you a file in a floppy disk in snail-mail, and you didn't have the correct program to read it, it might be weeks before you could get the software to read the contents.  Without an internet you couldn't just download a converter.

In the same way "Kleenex" replaced "tissue paper for noses" and "Hoovering" replaced "using the vacuum cleaner" (in the UK).. people will gravitate to a convenient shorthand to describe common activities - the other possibilities are all flawed:  microsofting/msning/yahooing/altavistaing.  "Searching" has too many off-line meanings, and a generic "online searching" is too long.  "Surfing" might have been a contender, but it implies a more aimless wander through the web.

So no, I don't see it as ominous that a common activity was named after a corporation, there's plenty of precedent there.

The larger a company becomes, the more pervasive it becomes in everyday life, the more skeptical and reserved one should be about it.

I agree completely.

I don't believe the "don't do evil" motto for a second. That meme surely lowers people's defenses, and it makes people mentally frame google's actions assuming positive intent.

Well if you start from the premise that they are successful therefore they must be evil, then yes.  Why do you dismiss the possibility that it cannot be intended to primarily guide internal actions, rather than to change external reactions?

Yeah, it was only 1 measly GB of wifi data. But if that gig of data had been social security numbers, wouldn't you be freaked out? It doesn't matter what those data were. Doesn't it bother you a bit that google is saying "Ah LOL yes don't worry about that illegal systematic data collection, that was just an accident"?

No, it doesn't bother me a bit.

• As a geek who has worked in large teams and small, I know how easy it can be to fuck up, and for that fuck up to go unnoticed.
• Having read the independent technical report on that issue, it looks for all the world like a stupid but hard to spot configuration error.
• Due to the nature of the collection method, the data they got would be fragmented - partial web pages, half a frame of video data.  Hello - google already collects full details of every page you visit with adwords/doubeclick, and every youtube video you watch -- if they wanted to be evil, there would be much easier ways for them to get your data than drive wifi-snooping cars all around the world.

I'm not saying that Google shouldn't be more responsible with their QA, or that they should not face any consequences for the laws which they broke.  But if it wasn't an accident, then why would they only collect a tiny amount of useless data, and then confess to it after they had gotten away with it.

That doesn't fit the "evil" definition to me.

Honestly, I think they were fairly laid back with their initial apology because they are overly-geeky, and assumed the public would judge this matter rationally on the technical details alone and not get upset.  That was stupidity verging on aspergers.

[Cramulus]

In the same way "Kleenex" replaced "tissue paper for noses" and "Hoovering" replaced "using the vacuum cleaner" (in the UK).. people will gravitate to a convenient shorthand to describe common activities - the other possibilities are all flawed:  microsofting/msning/yahooing/altavistaing.  "Searching" has too many off-line meanings, and a generic "online searching" is too long.  "Surfing" might have been a contender, but it implies a more aimless wander through the web.

Brand name identification is not an accident, it's evidence of excellent marketing. They've injected their brand into everyday parlance. This in itself is not evil, but it is dangerous.

It IS weird when you need to blow your nose and you reach, in your head, for a kleenex brand^TM tissue. People who frequently use that word are more likely to buy Kleenex than other brands. This is not an innocuous evolution of language, it is a form of commercial that exists inside your skull.

I don't believe the "don't do evil" motto for a second. That meme surely lowers people's defenses, and it makes people mentally frame google's actions assuming positive intent.

Well if you start from the premise that they are successful therefore they must be evil, then yes.  Why do you dismiss the possibility that it cannot be intended to primarily guide internal actions, rather than to change external reactions?

I didn't say that they were evil. I think it's laughable that any gigantic fucking corporation's actions can be simplified into a neat label like "Good" or "Evil". But in the end, their motivation is NOT to make the world better. Their motivation is to generate profit for their employees and shareholders. Sometimes some evil is going to sneak in there and it will be contextualized by your perception of the corporation.

Even if it is an internal policy, what does REALLY  mean?

I'll let this quote explain how it works now:

In 2006, when Google declared their self-censorship move into China, their "Don't be evil" motto was somewhat replaced with an "evil scale" balancing system, allowing smaller evils for a greater good, as explained by CEO Eric Schmidt at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil

So here it sounds like Don't Be Evil was originally just a way of separating sponsored links from search results...

[Berkley Law Professor] Chris Hoofnagle agrees that Google's original intention expressed by the "don't be evil" motto is linked to the company's separation of search results from advertising. However, he argues that clearly separating search results from sponsored links is required by law, thus, Google's practice is now mainstream and no longer remarkable or good. According to Hoofnagle, Google should abandon the motto because:

"The evil talk is not only an albatross for Google, it obscures the substantial consumer benefits from Google's advertising model. Because we have forgotten the original context of Google's evil representations, the company should remind the public of the company's contribution to a revolution in search advertising, and highlight some overlooked benefits of their model."

A modified form of the "don't be evil" motto currently exists on google's corporate philosophy page. Which only says "You can make money without doing evil." It doesn't say DON'T do evil, and it certainly doesn't say "DO GOOD" (which seems to be implied by "Do No Evil").

[Captain Utopia]

In the same way "Kleenex" replaced "tissue paper for noses" and "Hoovering" replaced "using the vacuum cleaner" (in the UK).. people will gravitate to a convenient shorthand to describe common activities - the other possibilities are all flawed:  microsofting/msning/yahooing/altavistaing.  "Searching" has too many off-line meanings, and a generic "online searching" is too long.  "Surfing" might have been a contender, but it implies a more aimless wander through the web.

Brand name identification is not an accident, it's evidence of excellent marketing. They've injected their brand into everyday parlance. This in itself is not evil, but it is dangerous.

It IS weird when you need to blow your nose and you reach, in your head, for a kleenex brand^TM tissue. People who frequently use that word are more likely to buy Kleenex than other brands. This is not an innocuous evolution of language, it is a form of commercial that exists inside your skull.

If Google intentionally injected "to google" into the language, then that would be a masterstroke of marketing.  Did they ever run any ads?  I don't remember seeing any, but then, not being in the US I could easily have missed them.

I don't believe the "don't do evil" motto for a second. That meme surely lowers people's defenses, and it makes people mentally frame google's actions assuming positive intent.

Well if you start from the premise that they are successful therefore they must be evil, then yes.  Why do you dismiss the possibility that it cannot be intended to primarily guide internal actions, rather than to change external reactions?

I didn't say that they were evil. I think it's laughable that any gigantic fucking corporation's actions can be simplified into a neat label like "Good" or "Evil". But in the end, their motivation is NOT to make the world better. Their motivation is to generate profit for their employees and shareholders. Sometimes some evil is going to sneak in there and it will be contextualized by your perception of the corporation.

I agree.  There is, however, an apparent clash of motivations at the top.  Eric Schmidt consistently advocates choices to increase profit - that's his job.  Whereas on issues such as the decision to pull completely out of China, according to accounts Page and Brin explicitly overruled him.

Now this could be excellent PR too, but consider:

• Moving out of China does represent a massive financial loss of potential revenue.
• Some positive PR may translate positively towards the bottom line, but even if you could put a dollar figure on it, I can't imagine any way that it would be more than the loss above.
• Chinese people who one day woke up with no Google were made aware that their Government is actively censoring them.  It created a public discussion point.

You can argue the relative weights, but I think the points themselves are indisputable.

According to one story, they had hoped to actually change the Chinese governments stance towards censorship by partnering with them!  That's either stupid, naive or a lie created to make Google look stupid and naive.  I don't have a hard time believing it since many of the high-level decisions in Google seem to come from a rather inept conception of human nature.

Even if it is an internal policy, what does REALLY  mean?

It'll mean something different every time it's applied to a particular situation.  E.g. I think Microsoft would have deleted the Wifi data without thinking twice, I think it's likely that having invested emotional energy into not doing evil Google chose instead to do the right thing and admit their mistake.

I'll let this quote explain how it works now:

In 2006, when Google declared their self-censorship move into China, their "Don't be evil" motto was somewhat replaced with an "evil scale" balancing system, allowing smaller evils for a greater good, as explained by CEO Eric Schmidt at the time.

Yeah, that is total bullshit reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil

So here it sounds like Don't Be Evil was originally just a way of separating sponsored links from search results...

[Berkley Law Professor] Chris Hoofnagle agrees that Google's original intention expressed by the "don't be evil" motto is linked to the company's separation of search results from advertising. However, he argues that clearly separating search results from sponsored links is required by law, thus, Google's practice is now mainstream and no longer remarkable or good. According to Hoofnagle, Google should abandon the motto because:

That wiki link suggests that the motto was for the core company values.  But regardless, this sounds like a biased account to me -- it's like saying that the individuals and States who took a stand against slavery are not remarkable because they won the war to stop the practice.

A modified form of the "don't be evil" motto currently exists on google's corporate philosophy page. Which only says "You can make money without doing evil." It doesn't say DON'T do evil, and it certainly doesn't say "DO GOOD" (which seems to be implied by "Do No Evil").

According the the wiki page, "don't be evil" was always an unofficial motto, so I wouldn't necessarily expect it to appear on the corporate philosophy page.  But yeah, the official stance is definitely not as clear-cut. 

[Requia ☣]

If Google intentionally injected "to google" into the language, then that would be a masterstroke of marketing.  Did they ever run any ads?  I don't remember seeing any, but then, not being in the US I could easily have missed them.

The following is pure speculation:

Around the time Google was getting started, Yahoo! was running ads that used Yahoo! as a verb, I wonder if Google's runaway success transformed yahoo! the verb into google the verb.

[Bruno]

Didn't Amazon.com, once upon a time, back in the day, say they were going to give a certain percentage of their profits to save the Amazon rainforest? IIRC, this is why they chose the name.

Then they went several years without making a profit. By the time they did, they had forgotten about the whole rainforest thing.

Does anybody else remember that, or am I going senile?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Didn't Amazon.com, once upon a time, back in the day, say they were going to give a certain percentage of their profits to save the Amazon rainforest? IIRC, this is why they chose the name.

Then they went several years without making a profit. By the time they did, they had forgotten about the whole rainforest thing.

Does anybody else remember that, or am I going senile?

Wikipedia says they just named themselves after the world's largest river. No source is given for that info.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Didn't Amazon.com, once upon a time, back in the day, say they were going to give a certain percentage of their profits to save the Amazon rainforest? IIRC, this is why they chose the name.

Then they went several years without making a profit. By the time they did, they had forgotten about the whole rainforest thing.

Does anybody else remember that, or am I going senile?

I remember when Amazon started up, and I don't remember anything like that.

[Bruno]

Hmm, I must have been on better drugs than I realized back then.

[Triple Zero]

And their core mission is not "to index and make searchable all information in the world", but "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".

Yes I meant that one.

It's been this ever since Google was just a bunch of motherboards duct-taped into a cardboard box.  Why is this a bad goal?  If information is universally accessible, then what does it matter whose servers it resides on?

sorry but, man, if you have to ASK this, we're going to have to take this discussion on privacy down a whole bunch of notches. yes, sorry I'm being condescending but I wouldn't have expected a stupid question like this so far into the discussion. it pisses me off because apparently I have been writing all those rants in this (and that other) thread to deaf ears that apparently have no idea what the fuck they are talking about and what all this means.
next you're going to ask me why it's a bad thing that corporations know all this shit about you if you have nothing to hide.

but your question, privacy 101 (the situation with Google is a LOT more complicated)

why is having data in a bigass database owned by one single megacorporation worse than having it sitting in several thousands of databases all owned by separate entities?

because data becomes more as soon as you can draw connections between it. exponentially so. it means that all that data can be automatically combined, and this megacorp will know so much, much more about you and your life than all the single entities added together.

it's not just that decentralized non-linked separately owned data cannot be shared due to copyright IP and database right issues, but also on a much more fundamental level, there are technical restrictions as well as that it's much easier to find out side-channels and correlations if all the data can be simply explored without having to ask for a license every time or other.

And all the while having a happy shiny public imago.

(which is crumbling somewhat, but imagine if it wasn't. that is whey they need to be shat upon)

So I see this and I don't see someone trying to keep a company true to its stated goals and beliefs, but someone shitting on a company because it has the apparent audacity to try to become something better than that which has come before it.

Yes they tried, and while they tried I really applauded them for that. In the young years of Google, I was a really big fan. I actually believed they might be able to pull it off (become really big and still "dont be evil" in a meaningful way).

But then they went corporate. Real bad. And they failed to become something better. There is nothing left to try anymore, they are a mega corporation now, and while a littlebit different from other corporations, also really on the whole not that much, except that they started out with the best intentions, as did many others. There is nothing left to save.

It's not just the 20% time mentioned in the other thread that is an empty PR lie. It's all the cool and shiny things you hear about Google. Maybe in their headquarters in Mountainview it's like the Willy fucking Wonka chocolate factory [funny how Wonka has about the same view on customer support as Google does, btw], but Google offices and servers are all over the world, also here. And everywhere I've seen em, they are exactly the same cold corporate IT structures you see in all the big corporations. Except they own some orders of magnitude more server hardware and databases.

And no, I'm not shitting on them because they tried to not become like this. Really, it's too bad that they failed. No, I shit on them because they are gigantic and dangerous, and are doing all the bad things that any greyfaced corporation would do, except they're doing it on an exceptionally large scale, and in a territory that affects everybody in the first world directly in their personal lives.

Any greyfaced corporation would do this. It's in their nature. Basically Google's initial promise to try and be better is like the promise of the Scorpion in the parable of the Frog and the Scorpion (look it up if you don't know it).

[Triple Zero]

No, it doesn't bother me a bit.

• As a geek who has worked in large teams and small, I know how easy it can be to fuck up, and for that fuck up to go unnoticed.
• Having read the independent technical report on that issue, it looks for all the world like a stupid but hard to spot configuration error.
• Due to the nature of the collection method, the data they got would be fragmented - partial web pages, half a frame of video data.  Hello - google already collects full details of every page you visit with adwords/doubeclick, and every youtube video you watch -- if they wanted to be evil, there would be much easier ways for them to get your data than drive wifi-snooping cars all around the world.

I'm not saying that Google shouldn't be more responsible with their QA, or that they should not face any consequences for the laws which they broke.  But if it wasn't an accident, then why would they only collect a tiny amount of useless data, and then confess to it after they had gotten away with it.

That doesn't fit the "evil" definition to me.

I thought we already established that everyone agrees that Google most likely did not do this on purpose, so I don't know why you're bringing this up. You're right they could get much more useful data in other ways.

The bit where they are evil IS they complete lack of responsibility when it comes to QA, they only look at what the project will mean to them, accidentally trampling all over European privacy laws apparently didn't even occur to them.

Because that's the thing, this IS a serious legal issue. I dunno, apparently you don't have privacy laws like that in the US? But you'd want QA to catch a "hard to spot configuration error" if it meant large scale tax fraud as well, right?

Even if you didn't do it on purpose, even if you can somehow roll back the damage done, Google still showed itself being irresponsibly neglicient of privacy regulations.

It shows that they just cared if they got the data they wanted (streetview data and WiFi SSIDs) and checked and doublechecked that with their QA but when you go out into our streets, there's matters of privacy you gotta adhere to, just as the Google Cars aren't exempt from traffic regulations either. And they didn't care enough. This is the bit they spotted, who knows what has happened more? Or what will happen if they don't take a more responsible stance?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Here's my whole problem with the whole "OMG megacorporations want to eat our babies" approach - it paints all these terrifying what-if scenarios all over the good stuff that is happening. No shit. What google is doing represents some of the most exciting techological advancements of the 21st century. We're fast moving into an era where everybody is capable of knowing anything they want. The tinfoil hats all scream and bitch about "PRIVACY" but for me that's utter bullshit. If everybody knows everything then there can be no privacy. Newsflash - privacy is set to go the same way as the appendix - it's an organ we no longer require to function as a society or even as individuals.

Yesterday I had to drive to a location in Glasgow city center. I don't go to glasgow much and the one way system is lethal but, using google streetview I managed to find a way into this place and, when I actually got there it was like I'd already been there before. I wish retarded luddite villagers with pitchforks would STFU about google vans taking pictures of their windows. The windows are already public domain - we have this projection system called motherfucking reality and it has the data on display, live, at any time of the day or night. So now everybody in the world can see your ugly curtains without having to actually travel there - ONOEZ END OF CIVILISATION

Sorry folks, I'm just not buying it.

[Cain]

The problem is lack of privacy only goes one way.  Your or I may not have privacy, but you can sure as hell bet Lloyd Blankfein and the National Security Council does.

And it's amazing how all of these "zomg privacy is an outdated concept" style corporations and ISPs immediately capitulate whenever, say, 32,000 State Department diplomatic cables are threatened to be published.  Or an Uzbek gangster/businessman threatens to sue.

Hmm, it's almost like a double standard is at work, where those who actually collect the information or otherwise trade and profit from it are protected from the "transparent society", while no-one else is actually given a choice.  Gosh, I wonder why that would be?

[P3nT4gR4m]

The problem is lack of privacy only goes one way.  Your or I may not have privacy, but you can sure as hell bet Lloyd Blankfein and the National Security Council does.

And it's amazing how all of these "zomg privacy is an outdated concept" style corporations and ISPs immediately capitulate whenever, say, 32,000 State Department diplomatic cables are threatened to be published.  Or an Uzbek gangster/businessman threatens to sue.

Hmm, it's almost like a double standard is at work, where those who actually collect the information or otherwise trade and profit from it are protected from the "transparent society", while no-one else is actually given a choice.  Gosh, I wonder why that would be?

Now that's a cause I can get behind. I'm all for being able to find out what these fucks are up to but unless I'm willing to give up my own privacy in exchange then it's me who's using double standards.

National security is a tricky one and, tbh, I'm not sure where exactly I stand on that. I am pretty sure that it's used to cover up a lot of nasty shit but I'm still undecided as to the flipside - does it really make our nation more secure?

[Captain Utopia]

It's been this ever since Google was just a bunch of motherboards duct-taped into a cardboard box.  Why is this a bad goal?  If information is universally accessible, then what does it matter whose servers it resides on?

sorry but, man, if you have to ASK this, we're going to have to take this discussion on privacy down a whole bunch of notches. yes, sorry I'm being condescending but I wouldn't have expected a stupid question like this so far into the discussion. it pisses me off because apparently I have been writing all those rants in this (and that other) thread to deaf ears that apparently have no idea what the fuck they are talking about and what all this means.

Wait, because I don't agree with you on everything, I don't know "what the fuck I am talking about"?   

why is having data in a bigass database owned by one single megacorporation worse than having it sitting in several thousands of databases all owned by separate entities?

because data becomes more as soon as you can draw connections between it. exponentially so. it means that all that data can be automatically combined, and this megacorp will know so much, much more about you and your life than all the single entities added together.

The key, for me at least, is that the data is "universally accessible and useful" to the public.  You're now changing the argument mid-stream to be about non-shared private data, as this is what I was responding to:

You can tell by their current mission statement, which is no longer "don't be evil", but the goal to index and make searchable all information in the world.

And that's scary and dangerous, when such a gigantic megacorp as Google is doing it, and succeeding.

Unless you were using their statement about publicly available data to talk about their collection of private data.  If that's the case, you can perhaps understand my confusion.


With the collection and manipulation of private data I am torn.  No-one likes being taken advantage of, but in practical terms there's fuck all way an individual could financially profit from their data being used.  At least no way that wouldn't balance out in inflationary terms.  Or if data from wealthy people had a higher market price, then that's not exactly a great way to reduce income disparity.

On the other hand, if companies do know more about their consumers, then can't they tailor their products to be closer to that which will actually be desired and useful?  If adverts can be targeted online, then think of all of the paper and energy that could be saved from billboards and posters in the real world.  And hey, if a company can get its grubby hands on the type and appearance of adverts which I respond positively to, then you can bet in that future I'll be seeing only the occasional adwords-style ad, and no flash "bash the monkey" style shit.  And even the energy saved by not serving me an annoying flash ad will be significant over my lifetime, and over the general population.

So when you account for all the energy and resources saved, the cargo-containers of unwanted plastic junk which are thrown, unsold, into landfills.. at which point does it become an environmental or ethical argument to eliminate such wastage?

And all the while having a happy shiny public imago.

(which is crumbling somewhat, but imagine if it wasn't. that is whey they need to be shat upon)

So I see this and I don't see someone trying to keep a company true to its stated goals and beliefs, but someone shitting on a company because it has the apparent audacity to try to become something better than that which has come before it.

Yes they tried, and while they tried I really applauded them for that. In the young years of Google, I was a really big fan. I actually believed they might be able to pull it off (become really big and still "dont be evil" in a meaningful way).

But then they went corporate. Real bad. And they failed to become something better. There is nothing left to try anymore, they are a mega corporation now, and while a littlebit different from other corporations, also really on the whole not that much, except that they started out with the best intentions, as did many others. There is nothing left to save.

It's not just the 20% time mentioned in the other thread that is an empty PR lie. It's all the cool and shiny things you hear about Google. Maybe in their headquarters in Mountainview it's like the Willy fucking Wonka chocolate factory [funny how Wonka has about the same view on customer support as Google does, btw], but Google offices and servers are all over the world, also here. And everywhere I've seen em, they are exactly the same cold corporate IT structures you see in all the big corporations. Except they own some orders of magnitude more server hardware and databases.

And no, I'm not shitting on them because they tried to not become like this. Really, it's too bad that they failed. No, I shit on them because they are gigantic and dangerous, and are doing all the bad things that any greyfaced corporation would do, except they're doing it on an exceptionally large scale, and in a territory that affects everybody in the first world directly in their personal lives.

Any greyfaced corporation would do this. It's in their nature. Basically Google's initial promise to try and be better is like the promise of the Scorpion in the parable of the Frog and the Scorpion (look it up if you don't know it).

If you've read the various historical accounts of Gates or Jobs, they've always been complete power-hungry do-anything-to-get-ahead psychopathic assholes who, nevertheless, got the job done.  The same cannot be said for Page and Brin, who do seem to believe that it's possible to make money without being evil, and who have fucked up royally on occasion.  Of course, there may be some secret exposé which will refute that claim, but if they can't even quietly delete 1gb of incriminating data, I doubt it.

Anyway, I love these sorts of discussions, and I'd love to hear rebuttals to any points I've made.. but if you can't do that without going down to the level of telling me that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, then please don't bother.