"Don't Be Google." It's about time someone said it out loud!
The 1 June 2014, Doonesbury Comic Strip,

http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2014/06/01

Bu..bu...bu...but Mr Cwizardone, the Googles is our friend. (?)

Only if you have something they want... Just like any "business relationship."

I'm with you on that one.

"The Zen of being mice"
The Zen of being an Open Source Development Corporation

1 members found this post helpful.

Since when is Google an "Open Source Development Corporation"?

Edit: I liked the comic too.

If I'm not mistaken Google is hosting the "Summer of Coding" at college campuses across the nation where you to can code for their proprietary API and recieve vast compensation for your skills in the form of unlimited Doritos and all the Jolt Cola you can hold down.
I "friended" google on google and now we "hangout".
I don't hate proprietary software companies but I know a little about stockholders and fiduciary obligations so I don't kid myself about every ones motivations. I don't hate sharks, I just wont swim with them.

I don't mind my Google overlords at all. Come on in, the water is fine.

All seriousness aside, I do think Google takes its "Don't be evil" motto seriously.

I also think that Google is convinced that anything Google does is ipso facto not evil. They are, of course, quite wrong, but I believe that that's how they think and how they reconcile their--let's call it "intrusiveness"--with their self-image.

They mean well, therefore they must be doing good.

As I recall, that was also Torquemada's reasoning.

1 members found this post helpful.

I should have mentions " I don't swim with them for Jolt Cola or Dorritos"

Meet the new Boss
Same as the old boss.

@Frank
I respectfully disagree, The only thing Google takes seriously is it's stockholders. Everything else is...um.... fungible.
Still, they don't seem "evil" as much as "overly clever", at least from my perspective.
In the interest of keeping the shark theme going, don't you think you might have jumped one right there?

1 members found this post helpful.

While the word "hate" may carry strong and unintended connotations for some, I, for one, do in fact hate these sharks, at least in a somewhat limited sense.

All talk of shareholders and fiduciary shenanigans aside, the facts are quite simple:

We are all human beings and we are all created equal within the context of whatever origin you wish to ascribe.

We should respect each other, and regard each other from the perspective of that "equality" of origin, as fellow human beings, in all our dealings with each other.

The absolute best this was ever expressed was, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

The Google corporation, and all others, are still simply collections of human beings, and their particular terms of incorporation do not exempt them collectively or individually from an obligation to regard - and respect - all other human beings as "equals", in all their dealings.

The people at Google are not alone, but are particularly egregious and obnoxious in having zero respect for any and all other human beings, whether they have any business relationship or not! And they are at the top of the list for being aggressively intrusive and abusive in their total disregard of the wishes of all others. As such, they must obviously consider themselves superior to the rest of us and they think of us as lesser breeds suitable only as inventory for their schemes.

I absolutely hate that trait in any human, and I hate the actions and injury that result from it. In that sense, I hate those who do it.

Their wealth and profit for their shareholders does not in any way elevate them to god-like status over the rest of us.

1 members found this post helpful.

That doesn't cut much ice among the sharks.
Human beings are not rational, they are rationalizing. There isn't one in a thousand who can hold an objective concept of "good" or "moral" in their minds and then apply their own actions to that standard (in our defense, we are boffo when it comes to holding other people to our measuring sticks). I'd imagine google is populated by people who are just like everybody else, it seems unreasonable to expect anything other than standard human behaviour from them.
The guy who pulls the switch on the electric chair thought he was "doing justice", not killing another human being, and you could argue he was, of course, you could just as easily argue he wasn't.
Moral lines, much like motives, are amazingly...fungible.

Obviously.

Again, obviously, as your rationalizing response actually confirms.

But you miss the whole point of that very simple principle (and my post) by not considering it any more than others do (I am not picking on you, it is a mostly universal trait).

Please consider, there is no "moral" judgment, and no external standard of "good" required or applied by that principle. Application is entirely self-contained in the individual: Learn to think before acting, "Would I welcome this?", then act accordingly toward others.

All that is required is that we show the identical respect to others that we expect for ourself - whoever we may be.

Respect. That is all. "Good" and "moral" are the results that follow, not a pre-requisite to be applied.

Those who act otherwise simply demonstrate they have less respect for others than that which they expect for themselves, and the inevitable result is "!good" and "!moral".

Corporate policy is set and implemented by individual people. Corporate "personality" is what the people within want it to be. Google is what those inside want it to be. If its actions are harmful to the world the rest of us must live in, then they must be held accountable for that harm, at the very least by having their harm recognized and "Boooo"'d on occasion!

To paraphrase another useful principle: "Over regard for all things fungible, is the root of all evil."

1 members found this post helpful.

Having a strict moral code you apply to others?
Not notable.
Having an objective one you dare to apply to yourself?
That would be notable

if your done with the internet, Mother Theresa, the entire nation of Burkini Faso is waiting for it's turn...

I'd guess you are still missing the point astrogeek trying to tell. Rape someone or swindle people out of their savings you may find not evil or immoral, but if somebody else would do the same to you, only the imagination would make you feel uneasy and angry.

1 members found this post helpful.

Who did google do that to?

I'm pretty certain there isn't one.

You're not happy with Google.
I don't care. I try adhere to my own ethical standard but you complain it is insufficient when compared to yours.
Perhaps
But I try to abide by mine and I try not to use it as a standard by which to judge others, even Google.
For that, I use the law.
You use a standard you yourself can't meet, so how seriously is anyone supposed to take you?

Or as my grandfather told me once. "Everybody wants to climb up on the cross, until they get a look at the hammer and spikes."