If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Computerworld)   Google's new motto: Don't be evil...as long as it doesn't interfere with profits   (computerworld.com) divider line 42
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3001 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Mar 2008 at 12:33 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2008-03-27 11:12:46 AM
"Google vs. wholly Chinese search engines? Lesser of two evils perhaps?"

"No! Robble robble robble Google robble robble higher standards robble robble ::pause:: (samples bouquet of own flatulence) robble robble Godwin robble robble."

"Sigh"
 
2008-03-27 11:42:30 AM
Waiting for the Google fan boys to arrive. Loves that things like this were predicted, but the fan boys were all "their motto is 'do no evil', so shut up"... because, as we all know a motto is how a company directs it's policies rather than an empty publicity slogan.

/Unless it's a non-profit, all companies are about profits.
//If they think they can get away with something without loss of profits, they will.
///Corporations (if viewed as an individual would be) act as a sociopath would, do anything to get what they want, if they can get away with it.
 
2008-03-27 12:40:10 PM
So basically, the Board of Directors has decided to continue making money in China. Why would they stop doing that? Seriously. It's not their job to make internet access equal for everyone.
 
2008-03-27 12:46:35 PM
FTA: "At its annual meeting on May 8, the board will recommend that shareholders vote against a proposal that would require the company to take steps to ensure freedom of access to the Internet. It also will advise a vote against a proposal calling for the company to form a committee to review its policies on human rights."

That a proposal like this even exists frankly says a lot more about the company than the fact that the Board of Directors hopes shareholders don't vote for it.
 
2008-03-27 12:51:29 PM
Bold: So basically, the Board of Directors has decided to continue making money in China. Why would they stop doing that? Seriously. It's not their job to make internet access equal for everyone.

It would be really nice if Google, WalMart, and all the other companies that do business in China would band together and force China to agree to humane business practices, but let's be realistic here.

China doesn't care what they think. If they were backed up by a freedom loving government with the balls to stand up with them, maybe they'd gain some traction. But, apparently, there's no such government. The US just loves China.

Man, I remember watching Tienanmen Square on TV. With all the fall-of-communism stuff going on at the time, I really thought I was watching the end of the Chinese government. The last throws of the Establishment versus the people.

^But hey, the Olympics are this year. WOOHOO.^

//Feh.
 
2008-03-27 12:52:57 PM
In their defense, Google has been lobbying the US government to make the actions that Google is taking illegal. Then they won't feel compelled to suck up to Chinese oppressions just to stay competitive, since every other company would have the same handicap.
 
2008-03-27 12:59:36 PM
t3knomanser: It would be really nice if Google, WalMart, and all the other companies that do business in China would band together and force China to agree to humane business practices, but let's be realistic here.

I think comparing Google to Wal-Mart here is unfair. In Wal-Mart's case, it's buying shoddy goods produced in sweatshops. In Google's case it's either compromise with political pressure or be completely banned in that country and invisible to that country's people.
 
2008-03-27 01:04:16 PM
jonny_q: I think comparing Google to Wal-Mart here is unfair.

I'm not making a comparison. China is strongly dependent on US companies for their economic viability. If a group of companies banded together and made demands, they could get the regime to bend.

Google and WalMart were just the two biggest names in my mind.
 
2008-03-27 01:04:30 PM
Can someone tell me if it's still cool to like Google, or has that changed. I want to be with the in crowd on this one.
 
2008-03-27 01:05:34 PM
t3knomanser: China is strongly dependent on US companies for their economic viability. If a group of companies banded together and made demands, they could get the regime to bend.

As awesome as that would be, I fear the consequences of corporations pushing governments around. I've played Shadowrun.
 
2008-03-27 01:07:55 PM
"Don't do unprofitable evil" is shorter.
 
2008-03-27 01:08:11 PM
Shrugging Atlas: Can someone tell me if it's still cool to like Google, or has that changed. I want to be with the in crowd on this one.


Take your pick. Being outside of the "in" crowd is always "in".
 
2008-03-27 01:12:40 PM
Memes Ate My Balls: As awesome as that would be, I fear the consequences of corporations pushing governments around. I've played Shadowrun.

Many large corporations are larger and more powerful than most countries in the world. They have a say in politics across the globe, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There are a great many risks involved, of course. But in either case, corporations can and do push governments around. It's the circle of life.
 
2008-03-27 01:20:41 PM
Shrugging Atlas: Can someone tell me if it's still cool to like Google, or has that changed. I want to be with the in crowd on this one.

I think Apple is the new circle-jerk word
 
2008-03-27 01:37:20 PM
Bold: It's not their job to make internet access equal for everyone.

Unless someone's threatening their unfettered access to your chunk of the Internet, in which case their cry is "ZOMG Net Neutrality!"
 
2008-03-27 01:38:36 PM
t3knomanser: Man, I remember watching Tienanmen Square on TV. With all the fall-of-communism stuff going on at the time, I really thought I was watching the end of the Chinese government. The last throws of the Establishment versus the people.

The timing was bad for everybody but the Chi-coms. The USSR was in it's death throws, but a war would have had the Soviets surge back to power.

Truth be known, I was in Okinawa, and talked to a couple of guys who were freaked out, because they had been lined up on the tarmac, ready to board aircraft in support of any direct action we might have taken during that time. It was a tense, "lock and load" moment for the infantry on the island, and if it wasn't Bush I in office at the time (and his time as the unofficial Chinese ambassador), another President might have overreacted.

China won't sprout vestiges of humanity overnight; civilization there has been brutal to the underclass for millenniums, and you simply don't change that overnight (the Chi-coms merely used that to secure their own regime and continue the oppression). On the other hand, there is a growing middle class, and unless there is another purge, things will change. There will probably be no purges, simply because China's economic prosperity desperately depends on the middle class.
 
2008-03-27 01:41:04 PM
drjekel_mrhyde: Shrugging Atlas: Can someone tell me if it's still cool to like Google, or has that changed. I want to be with the in crowd on this one.

I think Apple is the new circle-jerk word


Meh, earlier I saw Linux begging for a facial.
 
2008-03-27 01:44:31 PM
Memes Ate My Balls: t3knomanser: China is strongly dependent on US companies for their economic viability. If a group of companies banded together and made demands, they could get the regime to bend.

As awesome as that would be, I fear the consequences of corporations pushing governments around. I've played Shadowrun.


i live in America

CFTFY
 
2008-03-27 01:50:11 PM
linuxubergeek: Bold: It's not their job to make internet access equal for everyone.

Unless someone's threatening their unfettered access to your chunk of the Internet, in which case their cry is "ZOMG Net Neutrality!"


The US is based on free speech, ergo net neutrality. China has never been based on free speech. Why force the issue?

Net-neutrality here, censorship there.
 
2008-03-27 02:08:59 PM
You have to remember that the Chinese citizens are brainwashed and probably do not deserve freedom. They had/have no problem killing their own children because they were born female. What makes you think they are anything like the rest of the West?
 
2008-03-27 02:18:33 PM
Nemo's Brother: You have to remember that the Chinese citizens are brainwashed and probably do not deserve freedom. They had/have no problem killing their own children because they were born female. What makes you think they are anything like the rest of the West?

upload.wikimedia.org

Oh, nothing really. They obviously aren't interested in fighting for freedom.
 
F42
2008-03-27 02:23:52 PM
Nemo's Brother: You have to remember that the Chinese USAs' citizens are brainwashed and probably do not deserve freedom.

There.
 
2008-03-27 02:33:38 PM
If people want to boycott China they should lobby Congress, not Google. If we're going to try to change China through sanctions it can't be done by one company.
 
2008-03-27 02:49:14 PM
F42: Nemo's Brother: You have to remember that the Chinese USAs' citizens are brainwashed and probably do not deserve freedom.

There.


Way to sway me with such a compelling argument.

/Has Fark made everyone dumber or are the dumb given a louder voice on Fark?
 
2008-03-27 02:56:53 PM
Well, durr. Every manifesto on morality eventually reduces to

"All animals are equal... but some are more equal than others."

//zOMG it's an Orwell quote that's not from '84!!!
 
2008-03-27 03:22:29 PM
Bold: So basically, the Board of Directors has decided to continue making money in China. Why would they stop doing that? Seriously. It's not their job to make internet access equal for everyone.

And you have just nicely summed up what is problem with being "American, Democratic, and Corporate Capitalis" in one very poorly thought out breath.

This is the problem with publicly traded companies, evil is built right into the equation.
 
2008-03-27 03:36:03 PM
Google only cares about freedoms etc when dealing with the American gov't. Chi-coms on the other hand....move along citizen
 
2008-03-27 04:07:36 PM
drjekel_mrhyde: Shrugging Atlas: Can someone tell me if it's still cool to like Google, or has that changed. I want to be with the in crowd on this one.

I think Apple is the new circle-jerk word


I tend to put those two together. I find that I just can't see what people go nuts over these two companies.

They both have a few things that are ok in my book, but overall, overrated.

But in many ways, they appear to have (or cause) a lot of a mindset mentality.

Neither have managed to really impress me, I always find something that does it better.(with very few exceptions) Just not my cup of tea.
 
2008-03-27 04:39:16 PM
BackAssward: Corporations (if viewed as an individual would be) act as a sociopath would, do anything to get what they want, if they can get away with it.

Sociopaths are primarily characterized by their lack of respect for the rights of others. This doesn't mean that they do anything "they can get away with." Frequently, they engage in behavior that endangers themselves as well as those around them.

It's all in DSM IV, section 301.7. Your local library probably has a copy.
 
2008-03-27 04:41:46 PM
You people actually think you know what's going on here?
 
2008-03-27 04:46:54 PM
moanerific: Google only cares about freedoms etc when dealing with the American gov't. Chi-coms on the other hand....move along citizen

Because Google can actually affect what the US does (say, with the 700MHz block of spectrum). The "Chi-coms" ... not so much. Hypocrisy? No. More like picking your battles, and making good business decisions. Or didn't you think that people atop multi-billion dollar corporations knew how to do basic risk-reward analysis?
 
2008-03-27 05:00:23 PM
Vacaboi: Because Google can actually affect what the US does (say, with the 700MHz block of spectrum). The "Chi-coms" ... not so much. Hypocrisy? No. More like picking your battles, and making good business decisions. Or didn't you think that people atop multi-billion dollar corporations knew how to do basic risk-reward analysis?

I think their lobbying efforts speak volumes about them - they lean on the government to help them protect people. Google _wants_ to be good, but they have to stay competitive, so they try to partner with the US government to help them be both.
 
2008-03-27 05:41:49 PM
Google does the same thing all the open source vendors do: "We're on your side. We love freedom." Makes naive Linux geeks and open-source fanatics feel all warm inside. It's an effective trick... But a trick nonetheless. In the end all that is just vacuous marketing rhetoric to serve the company's first and most important concern: money.
 
2008-03-27 05:44:24 PM
xkillyourfacex: In the end all that is just vacuous marketing rhetoric to serve the company's first and most important concern: money.

Or, to flip it around: since money is their primary motivation, and their target customers have certain values, companies sell to those values.

I don't mind if companies are profit driven; in fact, I'd prefer it (companies that aren't profit driven don't stay around long).
 
rpm
2008-03-27 07:15:16 PM
t3knomanser: I don't mind if companies are profit driven; in fact, I'd prefer it (companies that aren't profit driven don't stay around long).

There's a difference between "profit driven" and "profit over everything else"
 
2008-03-27 09:34:20 PM
rpm: There's a difference between "profit driven" and "profit over everything else"

Not really.
 
2008-03-27 09:57:43 PM
randomdragoon Quote 2008-03-27 09:34:20 PM
rpm: There's a difference between "profit driven" and "profit over everything else"

Not really.


{Quizzical dog}
Profit driven means that profits help drive you to do seomething. "Profit over everyhting else" means profit is the ONLY real motivator, when it is present.

With all others being equal, google, like anyone else, will usually take the side with more money, although google doesn't have to be that way if there's enough ethical consideration on the other side.

*

I really don't understand all this google-hate. The situation seems to be thus:

Chineese government: We're not really into this whole "freedom"
thing. Can we get a toned-down version of the internet?
Google: That's not what we do...
China: Then we'll take no internet at all.
Google: Wait, you said you'd buy some internet?
Americans: OMGH Google Cens0r$ip!!111eleventy

Would you rather China had no search whatsoever? I really don't see the problem.

China has announced that they will completly block access to any "free" sites. So you're saying google shouldn't provide the sites that China won't block access to? Why? What problem would that solve?
 
2008-03-27 10:05:17 PM
Sim Tree: I really don't understand all this google-hate. The situation seems to be thus:

And I don't understand the whole Google worshiping either.

It's a search engine with owners that have decided to make whatever they can come up with.

They are out for money, and that's fine.

I personally don't see the attraction, as most times I use Google it fails me, and I don't find what I'm looking for.

I hate the whole "Googling" thing, and any "snazzy" word that people use to be "hip".

A search is just that a frigging search. Just like a Podcast is a frigging file transfer.
 
2008-03-27 10:32:12 PM
imfallen_angel, I'd agree with you on googling. The same thing happened with "The Dotcoms". English is stupid sometimes. People are stupid sometimes.

Google seemed to get much of its popularity from posting nonintrusive text ads.

Some CS professor wrote a paper and found that most pop-up clickthroughs were from people trying to click the "X" and missing. These people then immediately hit the back button. Actual pageviews from popups matched actual pageviews from static advertising.

Google decided it didn't have to get in your face. If you were going to buy something, you'd buy it. If not, they weren't going to convince you by being annoying, so they went with it. It's a good business model (Unlike, say, X10 cameras, who went bankrupt buying expensive, annoying popup adds).

As such, google became a "friend" of customers instead of their "enemy" right off the bat (and this was back in the '80's, before fancy popup blockers).

It's all very Tzun Tzu. You make more money pleasing your customers than prying the money from the cold, dead fingers (ala AOL or paypal/ebay)
 
2008-03-28 11:16:41 AM
Sim Tree: Google seemed to get much of its popularity from posting nonintrusive text ads.

Well, my couple of first experiences with Google were that when I searched for something, I'd get 2-3 pages of nothing but ads and not a single actual relevant hit. Navigating sucks and I could barely get to the next page or not hit an ad by accident.

A few years later, they appear to have cleaned their act up, and actually look more like Yahoo than anything else.

And simply, Yahoo has never failed me. If I can't find something with Yahoo, then I'll check with other search engines, but overall, I think that I found something while using something other than Yahoo, maybe twice in the last 5 years.

It's not that I'm a Yahoo fan, but overall, it's always worked fine for me (including my email) so, if it's not broken.... why bother.

I just find that so many wanted to be "hip" with the small/new kid in town (Google) and they managed to make it into the financial monster that it is.
 
2008-03-28 04:41:34 PM
imfallen_angel: most times I use Google it fails me, and I don't find what I'm looking for

So you're venting the frustrations stemming from your own inadequacies? I mean, not being able to successfully use a search engine suggests some major cognitive deficiencies.

/I keed. I keed.
//Not really. You sound like a real tard.
///Don't type, "What time does the pool open?" The Google will do nothing.
 
2008-03-28 10:01:27 PM
Vacaboi: imfallen_angel: most times I use Google it fails me, and I don't find what I'm looking for

So you're venting the frustrations stemming from your own inadequacies? I mean, not being able to successfully use a search engine suggests some major cognitive deficiencies.

/I keed. I keed.
//Not really. You sound like a real tard.
///Don't type, "What time does the pool open?" The Google will do nothing.


Oh boy... you really are hilarious... better not tell your mom that you're playing on the computer, you might get grounded.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report