Good on this guy for standing up for something within Google. Now that this guy is running for office as a Democrat, I hope to see him on the DemSoc side having learnt his lesson about the...
Good on this guy for standing up for something within Google.
I then realized that the company had never intended to incorporate human rights principles into its business and product decisions. Just when Google needed to double down on a commitment to human rights, it decided to instead chase bigger profits and an even higher stock price.
Now that this guy is running for office as a Democrat, I hope to see him on the DemSoc side having learnt his lesson about the amorality of corporate capitalism.
Having a hard time making sense of this paragraph: Says he joined when the words still mattered, but his first example seems to go against that, putting company success over privacy sounds like an...
Having a hard time making sense of this paragraph:
I joined Google in 2008, when those words still mattered. I saw them used to guide product designs that put the company’s success above a user’s privacy, such as during the development of Google’s ill-fated social network, Buzz. I used those words myself in 2010 as Head of Public Policy for Asia Pacific, when I executed the company’s landmark decision to stop censoring Search results in China, putting human rights ahead of the bottom line.
Says he joined when the words still mattered, but his first example seems to go against that, putting company success over privacy sounds like an evil-leaning thing. Is something sailing over my head here?
That was my thought, too. Later he says this: I don't see how the pervasive tracking that they've been doing for over a decade was ever responsible or had a positive social impact. Kowtowing to...
That was my thought, too. Later he says this:
I think the important question is what does it mean when one of America’s marque’ companies changes so dramatically. Is it the inevitable outcome of a corporate culture that rewards growth and profits over social impact and responsibility?
I don't see how the pervasive tracking that they've been doing for over a decade was ever responsible or had a positive social impact. Kowtowing to the Chinese government is just the latest in a long string of actions that all pointed in the same direction.
This has caused problems. "Don't be evil" makes people think of pantomime villains twirling their moustaches. Of course that image isn't how an engineer thinks of themself when they introduce a...
The company’s motto used to be “Don’t be evil.”
This has caused problems. "Don't be evil" makes people think of pantomime villains twirling their moustaches. Of course that image isn't how an engineer thinks of themself when they introduce a real name policy, or pervasive tracking, or closing of accounts with no chance of appeal, or any of the other bad stuff that Google does.
Companies probably need a "Can you do better?" motto instead, or "what are the unintended consequences?". Admittedly, these are not nearly as catchy as "don't be evil".
You can get plenty evil by getting just a tiny bit more "evil" every year, which is exactly what the big internet companies are doing. My favorite example is settings defaults. They are...
You can get plenty evil by getting just a tiny bit more "evil" every year, which is exactly what the big internet companies are doing.
My favorite example is settings defaults. They are practically unmentioned when people talk about evil practices, mostly completely overshadowed by "choice" the consumer supposedly has. But most people never change the default settings. Being theoretically able to disable a questionable feature is good but it doesn't have a meaningful impact on how people are treated by the service as most people don't have the time to do in-depth research into the pros and cons of, say, online tracking. And now that they changed the default to the slightly-more-evil version, they can say "but so few people even use the button to disable tracking, it's not something customers want!" and get rid of the option altogether in the next version. These are very complicated, political decisions that are only bad for their long-term, mass-use effects, you can't expect the average person to become an expert on this fast enough to adopt (not before it's too late).
Good on this guy for standing up for something within Google.
Now that this guy is running for office as a Democrat, I hope to see him on the DemSoc side having learnt his lesson about the amorality of corporate capitalism.
Completely agreed. I hope to see him on that side, but I don't expect it.
Having a hard time making sense of this paragraph:
Says he joined when the words still mattered, but his first example seems to go against that, putting company success over privacy sounds like an evil-leaning thing. Is something sailing over my head here?
That was my thought, too. Later he says this:
I don't see how the pervasive tracking that they've been doing for over a decade was ever responsible or had a positive social impact. Kowtowing to the Chinese government is just the latest in a long string of actions that all pointed in the same direction.
This has caused problems. "Don't be evil" makes people think of pantomime villains twirling their moustaches. Of course that image isn't how an engineer thinks of themself when they introduce a real name policy, or pervasive tracking, or closing of accounts with no chance of appeal, or any of the other bad stuff that Google does.
Companies probably need a "Can you do better?" motto instead, or "what are the unintended consequences?". Admittedly, these are not nearly as catchy as "don't be evil".
You can get plenty evil by getting just a tiny bit more "evil" every year, which is exactly what the big internet companies are doing.
My favorite example is settings defaults. They are practically unmentioned when people talk about evil practices, mostly completely overshadowed by "choice" the consumer supposedly has. But most people never change the default settings. Being theoretically able to disable a questionable feature is good but it doesn't have a meaningful impact on how people are treated by the service as most people don't have the time to do in-depth research into the pros and cons of, say, online tracking. And now that they changed the default to the slightly-more-evil version, they can say "but so few people even use the button to disable tracking, it's not something customers want!" and get rid of the option altogether in the next version. These are very complicated, political decisions that are only bad for their long-term, mass-use effects, you can't expect the average person to become an expert on this fast enough to adopt (not before it's too late).