15 ms·

Google's Evil Plan is Simple (and not so evil)

9 points by marlowe 14y ago

ajkohn 14y ago
While I didn't expand upon it in the piece I believe many apply the 'evil' brush to a host of normal, though sometimes ruthless, business activities. People seem consumed with those 'wrongs' and wind up missing the larger picture entirely.
jacquesm 14y ago
Google is only guilty of being Evil because they raised the bar by making it a part of their motto. So people will -naturally- hold google up to the standard that google has set for themselves. And based on that standard they've done plenty of evil, and they will likely do plenty more. 'Don't be evil' sets you up for the interpretation of every act you perform against the background of what the rest of the world thinks is evil or not. That means that when you promote your own browser on services that are already very much entrenched at the expense of other browsers that some people will see that as an act of evil, and will conclude that 'don't be evil' was just a nice slogan. If you help governments censor data then that might be construed by some as proof that you are evil. If you collect data on every visitor to your website and you make it seem that you give them the option to stop tracking you when in fact the language is worded in such a way that you misdirect those people (likely not lawyers, and likely not able to spot the subtle difference in wording) that this is proof that you are evil. I think google brought this on themselves. They were going to set a new standard, but it seems like they are just another large company. Nobody would have thought of labeling them 'evil' if they had not started the use of that word to distance themselves from their competition. But now they're stuck with it and they will either have to admit that it wasn't all that easy, to be large and 'not evil' at the same time or they will have to start to really live by their motto.
- ajkohn 14y ago
  Yes, the 'Don't be Evil' motto sets Google up for being a target for every little thing that someone thinks is wrong, whether or not it really is or not. What I think is meant by that motto is that they want to be a positive force, to use their technology and smarts for good. But of course, there's an ends justify the means argument and not everyone will have the same definition of good. The censorship stuff is ... sticky. The data collection stuff is largely fine though a full opt-out is difficult. The problem there is that Google knows that personalized experiences are better for users whether they know it or not.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    > The problem there is that Google knows that personalized experiences are better for users whether they know it or not. That's really problematic, that Google would even think that it knows better for its users whether they know it or not. Users know best what is best for them, period. No need to second guess.
    - Goronmon 14y ago
      Users know best what is best for them, period. No need to second guess. I disagree, there are plenty of examples were groups of users will make poor decisions about how they would like things to work. Gaming and security are two things that come to mind immediately.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        That is not the right context here. You can pull in examples from all over the place but the context is if a user demands privacy over customized search results then google has no business second guessing that users decision.
        ajkohn 14y ago
        I agree. If there really is this desire, then Google needs to honor it. The Ads Preference manager is fairly straight-forward (www.google.com/ads/preferences) and more people who go there change settings rather than opt-out. The full opt-out instructions (http://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=54048 http://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&a...) are a bit tougher. Should they make it easier to do this? Maybe. But if you make it too easy, you get false positives and then people may become upset that Google isn't as useful as it once was not fully understanding that it was their own preference to do so, right?
        jacquesm 14y ago
        See, that is exactly what I meant. That's not a 'full opt-out', that is just an opt out from having your search results personalized. Tracking will merrily continue. And if you fall for that what do you think the general public will do?
logn 14y ago
"To get people to use the Internet more" ... on Google properties. How else do you explain Google+ ?
- ajkohn 14y ago
  I covered Google+ in the piece. It's definitely a bit of an outlier. I see Google+ as two things: 1) A way for Google to get primary and active signals about user preferences to better personalize search results. (aka - make search better). 2) A way to break the monopoly Facebook had on social attention. The strategy only works if users are in places where Google has a presence. That's almost everywhere - except Facebook. So ensuring that attention doesn't pool and persist in a dead zone was important - and I think they've succeeded.
iterationx 14y ago
Will we ever see a day where the word evil isn't in nearly every Google news headline? After 10+ years this is getting a little old.
- ajkohn 14y ago
  Oddly, I agree. That's one of the reasons I wrote this piece. Though clearly I've used the evil word to tease people into reading it.
  - iterationx 14y ago
    Well if you agree cut it out. Its not clever its just annoying.
    - ajkohn 14y ago
      Point taken. But you don't get to speak to those who think Google is evil without getting them to read it first. For me the ends justified the means. Of course you may disagree and simply find it to be an annoying type of pandering.
ajkohn 14y ago
FWIW - the evil debate we're having here has once again sort of derailed us all from the main thesis which is ... Google wins when people use the Internet more. So while some laugh at the self driving car initiative and see it as indulgent I see a company who is trying to unlock countless hours of time each day that is currently 'non-usable' from an Internet perspective.

9 points by marlowe 14y ago

While I didn't expand upon it in the piece I believe many apply the 'evil' brush to a host of normal, though sometimes ruthless, business activities. People seem consumed with those 'wrongs' and wind up missing the larger picture entirely.

jacquesm 14y ago

Google is only guilty of being Evil because they raised the bar by making it a part of their motto. So people will -naturally- hold google up to the standard that google has set for themselves. And based on that standard they've done plenty of evil, and they will likely do plenty more. 'Don't be evil' sets you up for the interpretation of every act you perform against the background of what the rest of the world thinks is evil or not. That means that when you promote your own browser on services that are already very much entrenched at the expense of other browsers that some people will see that as an act of evil, and will conclude that 'don't be evil' was just a nice slogan. If you help governments censor data then that might be construed by some as proof that you are evil. If you collect data on every visitor to your website and you make it seem that you give them the option to stop tracking you when in fact the language is worded in such a way that you misdirect those people (likely not lawyers, and likely not able to spot the subtle difference in wording) that this is proof that you are evil. I think google brought this on themselves. They were going to set a new standard, but it seems like they are just another large company. Nobody would have thought of labeling them 'evil' if they had not started the use of that word to distance themselves from their competition. But now they're stuck with it and they will either have to admit that it wasn't all that easy, to be large and 'not evil' at the same time or they will have to start to really live by their motto.

ajkohn 14y ago
Yes, the 'Don't be Evil' motto sets Google up for being a target for every little thing that someone thinks is wrong, whether or not it really is or not. What I think is meant by that motto is that they want to be a positive force, to use their technology and smarts for good. But of course, there's an ends justify the means argument and not everyone will have the same definition of good. The censorship stuff is ... sticky. The data collection stuff is largely fine though a full opt-out is difficult. The problem there is that Google knows that personalized experiences are better for users whether they know it or not.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  > The problem there is that Google knows that personalized experiences are better for users whether they know it or not. That's really problematic, that Google would even think that it knows better for its users whether they know it or not. Users know best what is best for them, period. No need to second guess.
  - Goronmon 14y ago
    Users know best what is best for them, period. No need to second guess. I disagree, there are plenty of examples were groups of users will make poor decisions about how they would like things to work. Gaming and security are two things that come to mind immediately.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      That is not the right context here. You can pull in examples from all over the place but the context is if a user demands privacy over customized search results then google has no business second guessing that users decision.
      - ajkohn 14y ago
        I agree. If there really is this desire, then Google needs to honor it. The Ads Preference manager is fairly straight-forward (www.google.com/ads/preferences) and more people who go there change settings rather than opt-out. The full opt-out instructions (http://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=54048 http://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&a...) are a bit tougher. Should they make it easier to do this? Maybe. But if you make it too easy, you get false positives and then people may become upset that Google isn't as useful as it once was not fully understanding that it was their own preference to do so, right?
        jacquesm 14y ago
        See, that is exactly what I meant. That's not a 'full opt-out', that is just an opt out from having your search results personalized. Tracking will merrily continue. And if you fall for that what do you think the general public will do?

logn 14y ago

"To get people to use the Internet more" ... on Google properties. How else do you explain Google+ ?

ajkohn 14y ago
I covered Google+ in the piece. It's definitely a bit of an outlier. I see Google+ as two things: 1) A way for Google to get primary and active signals about user preferences to better personalize search results. (aka - make search better). 2) A way to break the monopoly Facebook had on social attention. The strategy only works if users are in places where Google has a presence. That's almost everywhere - except Facebook. So ensuring that attention doesn't pool and persist in a dead zone was important - and I think they've succeeded.

iterationx 14y ago

Will we ever see a day where the word evil isn't in nearly every Google news headline? After 10+ years this is getting a little old.

ajkohn 14y ago
Oddly, I agree. That's one of the reasons I wrote this piece. Though clearly I've used the evil word to tease people into reading it.
- iterationx 14y ago
  Well if you agree cut it out. Its not clever its just annoying.
  - ajkohn 14y ago
    Point taken. But you don't get to speak to those who think Google is evil without getting them to read it first. For me the ends justified the means. Of course you may disagree and simply find it to be an annoying type of pandering.

ajkohn 14y ago

FWIW - the evil debate we're having here has once again sort of derailed us all from the main thesis which is ... Google wins when people use the Internet more. So while some laugh at the self driving car initiative and see it as indulgent I see a company who is trying to unlock countless hours of time each day that is currently 'non-usable' from an Internet perspective.