Is Google Evil ?

[Paul Shields]

Of course not - and, lest we forget, their slogan is 'Don't no evil'. Well, that's alright then and I'm sure everything they do is ultimately for the benefit of all, and if it makes a bit of money - then good for them. However, should they decide that goodness may actually be less profitable than evilness, they are in a unique position in this Internetted world to exploit their knowledge of all of us to their advantage.

Think for a moment about what services they are offering, mostly for free and therefore for the good of humanity:

Gmail - a virtually unlimited mailbox for every netizen. Sure, they'll scan your messages, but only so they can discretely show sponsored ads. It's all free, so why worry?

Google Checkout - well, they've promised that they don't do evil, so letting them look after your credit card details is the least you can do. At least they aren't PayPal (who can't be any less evil).

Gdrive - well, if they can look after my mail (only scanning it so they can show appropriate ads), and I let them store my credit card details, then I don't see why they can't offer a virtual 'C: drive' where I can handily store my documents in an easily accessible space, with the added benefit of google-indexed documents to improve on my searches.

Google Desktop - who better to index all your data on your PC than Google?

Google/Writely - an extension to the Desktop paradigm where Google offer full word processing facilities via a browser. Oh, and they'll helpfully index your documents for you because, despite being one of the largest and wealthiest companies on the planet, we trust them and - they don't do evil.

Of course, the best known and most used service is the basic Google search engine. Free, slick, fairly lacking in ads, and completely lacking in evil - although we'll quickly gloss over the fact that if you're accessing this search engine in China then don't be surprised if certain keywords result in 'not found' - "Tiananmen Square massacre" for example.


No doubt I've missed other essential services that Google would like us to entrust them with. In the end though, it's clear to me that Google is all about data mining. It may very well be benevolent, but the data being analyzed and no doubt stored is incredibly sensitive and unique to each and every one of us. It's as close to an Internet fingerprint as any forensic facility could muster.

I just hope they do the right thing, and don't be evil.

[jfrancho]

Picassa.

[cyclohexane]

Google Earth.

[Paul Shields]

I acknowledge those two apps - but I didn't categorise them as being as evil. Time will tell, no doubt .

[Blinky]

It's possible for them to not be evil... right now they probably aren't. Any company can be good rather than evil and be profitable if it has good, strong leadership.

The problem is that the people that rise to the top of a public company will not be good leaders... they will be stockholder panderers. Stockholders except nothing but maximum profits on every Income Statement and so... the company, in it's impossible quest to please them, becomes evil.

It happened to Ben And Jerry's, Apple, Red Hat and Blue Cross... it will happen to Google.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by B

The problem is that the people that rise to the top of a public company will not be good leaders... they will be stockholder panderers. Stockholders except nothing but maximum profits on every Income Statement and so... the company, in it's impossible quest to please them, becomes evil.

Bingo! Once you're a listed company then the key driver is dividends for your shareholders. This is a very difficult position to square with a company motto of 'dont do evil'.

[jfrancho]

Originally Posted by B

The problem is that the people that rise to the top of a public company will not be good leaders... they will be stockholder panderers.

It's been my experience that incompetence is the fast track to the top.

[Mr. Pickles]

Like Bush?

[Blinky]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Like Bush?

Yep.

/stumpON

The problem to me anyway, is that greed and to a lesser degree ambition, are antithetical to insight and positive leadership. I don't necessarily agree that incompetence leads up the ladder... it's just not an impediment. Greedy people want greedy people under them because they are so easy to control... it allows one to solve virtually any problem with money. Creativity and a caring attitude can't be had with money, it takes intelligence and integrity to lead creatively.

Georgey Porgey throws money at every problem that comes along because it's the most successful technique he knows... he's never needed to think creatively. As long as I'm on this subject... how is it that conservative Republicans think Bush is conservative when his record shows anything but conservatism? I was a Republican, I voted for Reagan and GHW Bush... GW Bush is no Republican.

Honestly? I don't think Bush is actually stupid. He is cognitively able... not stellar, but able. His lack of articulative speech is a development... he used to speak very persuasively and could think on his feet. I don't agree with his politics, never have... but I don't 'mis-underestimate' him because that's always a mistake... it's why he was elected a second time.

That's why the Dems need to wake up and actually BE populist instead of just spouting a big game from the ivory towers and running a bunch of spoiled bluebloods. They need another Jimmy Carter and I think John Edwards is the guy.

Say what you want, but Carter has always been a true leader and continues to this day. He addressed real problems and it wasn't popular. He's the only President we've ever had with a verifiable record of fighting political corruption and winning (as Georgia DA).

/stumpOFF

[metalstorm]

Originally Posted by B

The problem is that the people that rise to the top of a public company will not be good leaders... they will be stockholder panderers. Stockholders except nothing but maximum profits on every Income Statement and so... the company, in it's impossible quest to please them, becomes evil.

The first rule of any publicly held corporation is "maximize profit for shareholders." Finance 101.