Ignoring that i disagree completely about what Google's business actually is,
"Do you think that when they see an opportunity to further one of these two goals the Googlers say, "but before we do that, let's stop and think long and hard about the ramifications of what we're about to do, and whether that action can be considered evil?" No, they don't. "
Actually, yes, this is pretty much what happens almost all of the time. People think long and hard about the ramifications about what they are going to do.
That doesn't mean they always come up with the "right" answers, or that there isn't vehement disagreement, but yes, they do in fact, thing long and hard about it, and whether it is the right thing to do.
" I don't know what kind of security they hav at Google, and chances are it's the wrong kind[1]."
As you said, you have literally no idea what you are talking about.
That doesn't mean they always come up with the "right" answers, or that there isn't vehement disagreement, but yes, they do in fact, thing long and hard about it, and whether it is the right thing to do.
And so the definition of behavior that would qualify as "evil" varies even within Google itself, making the motto even squishier.
Of course it varies, but that doesn't change anything about the value.
You really think the moral values of right and wrong are completely consistent across people?
The reason it's a corporate value is because it's part of the culture.
There is an actual conscience at the company, and you try to hear, understand, and deal with concerns people have, internally and externally. You try to do the right thing, for the right reasons.
The fact that you may not always achieve this, or that people may disagree on what the right thing is, changes nothing.
The outside problem is that most people think "Don't be evil" means "don't do anything I <the user> morally disagree with".
This would be a pointless value, as it would be both impossible and meaningless to achieve at any scale. There are plenty of moral values on which large populations of people have diametrically opposed views. For example, from the perspective of a large population of people, Google's stance on gay marriage is evil.
Suppose for a moment that Google really is as benevolent as you believe. You yourself admit that they do have a lot of power. In a democracy, we try not to put too much power even in the hands of an elected official. Isn't it a problem that so much power resides with a corporation? Should society trust Google's good intentions?
But I even have doubts about Google's benevolence. What, a company that adopts a "don't be evil" motto is less likely to be evil than a company that doesn't? I'd be suspicious of a person that feels the need to declare that he'll do his best not murder anyone. By adopting the motto, Google had acknowledged the fact that corporations do tend to do evil. But is it because they intend to do so? Do chairmen and CEOs wake up in the morning all giddy about doing some evil or naughty, harmful, mischief today? Even Bernie Madoff didn't start out like this. And yet, corporations do evil in spite of people's best intentions. So Google said: we'll try to be careful. That's actually not bad, because I hope that that slogan makes the Google executives aware of the temptations and pitfalls that await all big firms. But I do not for a second believe that Google's executives are so much better than all other good people running large corporations that actually do evil. Because, hey -- power corrupts.
Nobody likes getting up one day and realize they've become a Bond villain, so they don't: that is, they just don't realize it. Also, nobody really is an actual Bond villain (well, Hitler). Even good people do bad things. My point is, people do need a little help from the outside to protect them from themselves, and with that much power, Google needs a lot of help. Google has become a big problem.
It's not clear what you are suggesting with the power questions.
Breaking up Google?
As for whether society should trust Google's intentions: I hope not. Society should be, in general, distrustful of corporations, and, for the most part, they are. That doesn't mean Google doesn't have good intentions, or that one should assume bad faith everywhere. At the same time, what was questioned originally was the operation of that corporation and it's people, and that's what i responded to :)
As for the adoption of the motto: The original outside publication of this was done while going public, and was intended to make clear to wall street that Google wasn't going to maximize profit at the expense of everything else, where everything else usually involves doing morally questionable things.
I think you read way too much into it.
"But I do not for a second believe that Google's executives are so much better than all other good people running large corporations that actually do evil. Because, hey -- power corrupts."
All I would say to this is I hope you get to meet them some day. Except for one, I can say they really are better than all the other good people i've met running other large corporations. They are honestly good people, and honestly care about doing right.
In the end, I guess we just disagree. I don't believe Google has become a big problem, and I don't think Google needs a lot of help from the outside to protect them from themselves.
In fact, I think help from "the outside" would make things a lot worse.
For example, the last time I looked, the outside wants Google to try to detect when people are doing bad things, and report them.
they really are better than all the other good people i've met running other large corporations.
Good, so they'll understand that no one, no matter how "good" should have this much power.
I also think that Barack Obama is better than most other politician, and that the US will be much better off -in the short term -- if he were allowed to operate without hindrance from that pesky, annoying, inefficient Congress that's just slowing him down. And yet, checks and balances are a good thing in the long term.
Augustus was a great ruler. Certainly much more efficient and benevolent than the senate. But he did effectively bring the monarchy back, and many of his successors weren't as good as him.
what you are suggesting with the power questions. Breaking up Google?
Yes, although we probably have a little more time (a couple of years, probably) before this becomes absolutely necessary. Also, we need regulation on companies holding personal information:
- Limitations on what information can be kept.
- FBI background checks on all employees with access to private information.
- Top notch cyber security (I'm sure Google does that; no complaints there)
- Maximum physical security, like access to private information only from certain, constantly monitored physical location.
the outside wants Google to try to detect when people are doing bad things, and report them.
Google doesn't oppose reporting on people because it's evil; they're opposed because it would be really bad for business. And while I do share Assange's concern about government surveillance, I'm much more horrified at the prospect of surveillance by a corporation.
I don't have time at the moment to reply substantively to the rest, and I don't want to shortchange.
However, I will address one thing:
"Google doesn't oppose reporting on people because it's evil; they're opposed because it would be really bad for business. And while I do share Assange's concern about government surveillance, I'm much more horrified at the prospect of surveillance by a corporation."
This is false.
I have first hand knowledge of why we oppose it. We oppose it because it's evil. It is bad for business, but that is secondary.
Good. So you probably understand why amassing so much power in one corporation is evil in and of itself, even if the the people at the top have good intentions at the moment (whatever that means - I'm not sure most people share the same definition of good intentions).
The intentions of many influential people in government, including those at the very top, are not in the least bit less noble than those of Google's executives, and yet, while they may not always like it, they understand the necessity for checks and balances. Power must not be concentrated. Concentrated power is either evil, naivety or ignorance. It can never, ever-ever, be good, though it might have the appearance of good for a short while.
> In a democracy, we try not to put too much power even in the hands of an elected official. Isn't it a problem that so much power resides with a corporation?
No, it really isn't. If you pretend for a minute that Google is a hive mind, with a single individual in control of its actions, it still doesn't have a power to match the federal government of the US, or even the President (who is a single elected official).
You keep going down this track and pretty soon you are arguing that you can't have capitalism and democracy at the same time.
> But I do not for a second believe that Google's executives are so much better than all other good people running large corporations that actually do evil. Because, hey -- power corrupts.
The Don't Be Evil principle is actually a check on precisely this concern. By having it as a principle, it invites the executives to be challenged on this basis by everyone in the company. That is the entire point. Having a motto Don't Be Evil doesn't magically change the nature of your executive team. What it changes is how that team is challenged.
One problem is that it's a slippery slope. Effectively, the ethic would appear to be that anything and everything can be done/implemented as long as nobody involved calls it evil.
1. That isn't a slippery slope. A slippery slope is where once you start something, you can't stop it as it slowly erodes. In essence, once you start something down a slope, it will roll all the way to the bottom.
There is nothing about what you have said that demonstrates this is a slippery slope.
Maybe you meant to make the argument that once something is okay, you start down the path to everything being okay. This would be false, since outcomes, reactions, and viewpoints of previous things are raised when new things happen.
It's not a court where once a ruling has been issued, that is the rule.
2. I'm really trying to understand your concern here, but, as written, seems to boil down to "if everyone is a bad person, bad things can happen". Since I assume this is not what you are trying to say, could you elaborate a bit?
To expand on what DannyBee said, it can be a valid form of argument to say there is a slippery slope leading from A to B, but it turns into the "slippery slope fallacy" when it's not obvious how A necessarily turns into B and the possibility of a middle ground isn't acknowledged.
Each decision builds a foundation of a status quo, defined as the sum total of the "this is not evil" decisions and designations made in the past, which constitutes a form of momentum (especially among those who don't want to rock the gBoat).
This momentum is a force that affects the value system of the company's implementors and gating roles. It boils down to "bad things can happen even if everybody thinks they're working for good." Myopia becomes a bigger problem the older a company gets.
But for the reasons i've explained, it does not do this, and this is not how it operates in actuality.
Maybe if the company had no turnover, no leadership changes, no nothing you could make this argument, becuase it would always be the same people.
But it's not the same people, and even where it is, nobody sits around and asks "in light of us deciding this wasn't evil in the past, is it now okay to do X".
That's not the question to be answered. It's not "is this evil in light of us having done similar things in the past", it's "is this evil".
Don't get me wrong - The past is evidence, and data, for sure. It would be stupid to ignore reactions, viewpoints, etc.
But the world changes, decisions look different in hindsight, society changes. If there was no evolution of thought, you would be right. But there is.
Hey, when you find that world where what is "evil" is so damn absolute that there needn't be any thought or debate as to what course of action would avoid doing evil, can you pick up a unicorn for me? I could use one.
Larry and Sergey have the majority voting power, and they have veto power over product changes :)
But that's probably not what you meant, so i'm going to assume you meant give "non-preferred stock holders veto power over product changes".
I'm not sure what this would accomplish, since institutional investors are not exactly who you want deciding the fate of products. Timeline wise, they are too short term of thinkers. Ethically, they are often very suspect.
Strategically, most lack the knowledge to make the right decisions, and even if you gave it to them, they lack the experience.
What you are suggesting is almost identical to hiring a large set of outside consultants, bringing them into a well-functioning company, and letting them veto every product decision at the exec level or below. Worse the consultants would be experienced in say "women's shoes", and the company would be one that did something like "making airplanes"
I'm pretty sure i know where this leads, and it isn't "don't be evil" :)
Actually, yes, this is pretty much what happens almost all of the time. People think long and hard about the ramifications about what they are going to do. That doesn't mean they always come up with the "right" answers, or that there isn't vehement disagreement, but yes, they do in fact, thing long and hard about it, and whether it is the right thing to do.
" I don't know what kind of security they hav at Google, and chances are it's the wrong kind[1]."
As you said, you have literally no idea what you are talking about.