Is Google evil? (2017)(unixsheikh.com)
unixsheikh.com
Is Google evil? (2017)
https://unixsheikh.com/articles/is-google-evil.html
58 コメント
This is like saying the giant that could have squashed me into nothing has only stepped on a couple of my neighbors.
In the end, Google has unchecked power which it has used to sway politics, which is something its own employees have protested.
You can say either for good or bad, that it lets government authorities snoop and pry on emails and communications.
Many people remain convinced that Google is not all bad and I am in agreement. But also, Google is not your friend. If you get torn to shreds in the gears of its business logic, Google couldn't possibly care any less. Maybe this doesn't mean to you evil, per se, but I find any institution that is so large that it cares over its own good much and beyond that of its negative effects on society is evil.
There is a saying that "You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain". Google has lived long enough to see itself become the villain. Where once it was certain they worked for the active benefit of people, at this stage, this can most certainly be cast into doubt.
In the end, Google has unchecked power which it has used to sway politics, which is something its own employees have protested.
You can say either for good or bad, that it lets government authorities snoop and pry on emails and communications.
Many people remain convinced that Google is not all bad and I am in agreement. But also, Google is not your friend. If you get torn to shreds in the gears of its business logic, Google couldn't possibly care any less. Maybe this doesn't mean to you evil, per se, but I find any institution that is so large that it cares over its own good much and beyond that of its negative effects on society is evil.
There is a saying that "You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain". Google has lived long enough to see itself become the villain. Where once it was certain they worked for the active benefit of people, at this stage, this can most certainly be cast into doubt.
> something its own employees have protested
I imagine what those individuals have talked about publicly is only a fraction of what actually goes on. Over time, more and more has been revealed that is unsettling but not too surprising.
I also imagine that many of the employees who decide to manipulate politics also see themselves as the good guy, using the tools at their disposal to enact positive change. To them, the ends justify the means.
I imagine what those individuals have talked about publicly is only a fraction of what actually goes on. Over time, more and more has been revealed that is unsettling but not too surprising.
I also imagine that many of the employees who decide to manipulate politics also see themselves as the good guy, using the tools at their disposal to enact positive change. To them, the ends justify the means.
> which it has used to sway politics
Do you have any actual evidence to support this assertion?
Certainly Google could easily swing an election, if it chose to (which is sort of frightening in itself) but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it has done so.
Do you have any actual evidence to support this assertion?
Certainly Google could easily swing an election, if it chose to (which is sort of frightening in itself) but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it has done so.
Listen, if you saw the hearings about Google and search ratings, you know that a search should be a million different things to a million different people. By making a search engine you have to make A choice as to what is right, and you WILL make political decisions along with many others as to what people want to see.
Just like the cloud is "Just someone elses's computer", Google is "Just someone else's yellow pages". Someone rates the importance, and there will ALWAYS be a bias because bias ALWAYS exists.
Edit: I should correct and say someone has to create and curate the algorithms. Even if not a single person rates a single page personally, keywords can and will boost or lower popularity. Trigger words that in the US that mean "racism" but in other countries do not harbor racial aggression will bleed through search engine results, even if Google has a dedicated team in each country to resolving such things. These types of things, like it or not are very political in nature, and thus US politics is invasive in a sense, simply by being native to Google. This has the end goal (I think) of evangelizing a brand of politics to others. You can argue again whether this is good or bad. I would say parts of this are definitely bad. The major country that performs most poorly in many of its ways is exporting its bad culture to other places.
Just like the cloud is "Just someone elses's computer", Google is "Just someone else's yellow pages". Someone rates the importance, and there will ALWAYS be a bias because bias ALWAYS exists.
Edit: I should correct and say someone has to create and curate the algorithms. Even if not a single person rates a single page personally, keywords can and will boost or lower popularity. Trigger words that in the US that mean "racism" but in other countries do not harbor racial aggression will bleed through search engine results, even if Google has a dedicated team in each country to resolving such things. These types of things, like it or not are very political in nature, and thus US politics is invasive in a sense, simply by being native to Google. This has the end goal (I think) of evangelizing a brand of politics to others. You can argue again whether this is good or bad. I would say parts of this are definitely bad. The major country that performs most poorly in many of its ways is exporting its bad culture to other places.
Moral conviction? No idea what you're talking about.
Lack of pressure? Whenever they get any orders from the government they operate under (like US National Security Letters or Chinese, uh, whatever it is the Chinese government issues) - they just comply with them.
"Apple a force for good"? Yeah, tell that to the Foxconn employees, I'm sure they'll be thrilled. Or, again, to the people whose data is made available to the NSA.
"mend the growing conflict between advertisers and users" - much of advertising is (mostly) hostile to the users, aiming to achieve results which are detrimental to them. So there's not much mending to be done.
Lack of pressure? Whenever they get any orders from the government they operate under (like US National Security Letters or Chinese, uh, whatever it is the Chinese government issues) - they just comply with them.
"Apple a force for good"? Yeah, tell that to the Foxconn employees, I'm sure they'll be thrilled. Or, again, to the people whose data is made available to the NSA.
"mend the growing conflict between advertisers and users" - much of advertising is (mostly) hostile to the users, aiming to achieve results which are detrimental to them. So there's not much mending to be done.
The fact that Google or Apple comply with a US law is not something that intrinsically makes them evil. They can fight it but they still have to comply eventually (if they lose). The choice is breaking the law. Would this make them less evil?
There are plenty of other things making companies evil. In short and perhaps superficially, it would be their tendency to choose to go against the best interest of users to make more money.
There are plenty of other things making companies evil. In short and perhaps superficially, it would be their tendency to choose to go against the best interest of users to make more money.
Google only complies with ~60% of government requests and frequently pushes back against suspect orders.
https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?hl=...
https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?hl=...
That's propaganda. I mean, it's probably true, in itself, but it's the 'small potatoes'. Why? Because, regardless of individual information requests, they funnel a copy of _everything_ to the NSA. All of it. Of course, regular government agencies have to go through semi-civilized procedures of spying on individuals, so they issue individual requests.
That's a pretty bombastic claim. Do you have any sources to back it up? Otherwise it's unadulterated conspiracy theory and FUD.
Here's an example of Google fighting a NSL in court https://www.wired.com/2013/04/google-fights-nsl/
"Google Takes on ---===[ Rare Fight ]===--- Against National Security Letters
Google has filed a rare petition to challenge a... national security letter... extraordinary petition... etc. etc."
I don't think they could emphasize rare and extraordinary more than that. Also, like I said above - they're still complying with funnelling _all_ data to the NSA, a practice which dwarfs the exercise of opposing some NSLs.
Finally - there's the fact that they don't leak all those NSLs. Why don't they? Those NSLs belong on WikiLeaks, for sure.
Google has filed a rare petition to challenge a... national security letter... extraordinary petition... etc. etc."
I don't think they could emphasize rare and extraordinary more than that. Also, like I said above - they're still complying with funnelling _all_ data to the NSA, a practice which dwarfs the exercise of opposing some NSLs.
Finally - there's the fact that they don't leak all those NSLs. Why don't they? Those NSLs belong on WikiLeaks, for sure.
True. It is pure luck that Rupert Murdoch or Larry Ellison etc didn't end up owning search.
That said Google shifted priorities from Search to Empire Defense many many years ago. And that has had many unintended "evil" consequences on Society well documented by Tristan Harris, Tim Wu, Jaron Lanier et al.
Could they have avoided that path of empire defense, as they grew in size and survived, I don't think so. Few companies or empires have. The golden age of Greeks or Persians or Indians would have lasted much longer if they knew how to defend their empires.
Now that they have successfully survived and own the market and have cash in the bank, what they do with their empire is going to be interesting. Reviving a golden age takes vision not just empire defense.
That said Google shifted priorities from Search to Empire Defense many many years ago. And that has had many unintended "evil" consequences on Society well documented by Tristan Harris, Tim Wu, Jaron Lanier et al.
Could they have avoided that path of empire defense, as they grew in size and survived, I don't think so. Few companies or empires have. The golden age of Greeks or Persians or Indians would have lasted much longer if they knew how to defend their empires.
Now that they have successfully survived and own the market and have cash in the bank, what they do with their empire is going to be interesting. Reviving a golden age takes vision not just empire defense.
> True. It is pure luck that Rupert Murdoch or Larry Ellison etc didn't end up owning search.
Even reading this line is horrifying. I don't even want to think about this possibility.
Even reading this line is horrifying. I don't even want to think about this possibility.
>It is pure luck that Rupert Murdoch or Larry Ellison etc didn't end up owning search.
Why would that be any different?
Why would that be any different?
Lol, in my personal evil ranking, Rupert Murdoch is certainly Top 10.
Larry Ellison is a greedy jerk too. But at least he‘s content in being jealous of Google, Amazon and Microsoft and stops short of keeping a harmful conservative media empire alive. As far as I know.
Larry Ellison is a greedy jerk too. But at least he‘s content in being jealous of Google, Amazon and Microsoft and stops short of keeping a harmful conservative media empire alive. As far as I know.
Well, okay you don't like their politics, but I was talking about money. It doesn't seem like Google is passing up any opportunities for making money. People might be tempted to think that they could be much more evil, sure, any company could, but you end up killing the golden goose. With google the goose is public trust, and they are clearly stretching whatever trust they have left. I wonder how many Google employees actually believe that ads are anything but an annoyance that nobody wants, or even that what they're doing is ethical.
What exactly is the contrast with Facebook and Uber here?
So declaring that you are doing evil things makes you not evil? What a bizarre logic.
What is evil? The dictionary defines it as "profoundly immoral or wicked". It also states that morals are "concerned with or derived from the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society".
So, as a society, do we consider it right or acceptable for a this private information to be collected and utilised in this way? If we deem it unacceptable (which I personally do, but I don't speak for society), then google is evil - along with all those others doing the same thing.
What is evil? The dictionary defines it as "profoundly immoral or wicked". It also states that morals are "concerned with or derived from the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society".
So, as a society, do we consider it right or acceptable for a this private information to be collected and utilised in this way? If we deem it unacceptable (which I personally do, but I don't speak for society), then google is evil - along with all those others doing the same thing.
The article argues the information collecting people agree to isn't evil.
It then goes on to describe a whole other set of activities and their consequences, but doesn't characterize that one way or another. I don't need the author to draw a conclusion here, but it's odd they don't.
It then goes on to describe a whole other set of activities and their consequences, but doesn't characterize that one way or another. I don't need the author to draw a conclusion here, but it's odd they don't.
There are two questions here:
1) Is Google more evil than a hypothetical benchmark company producing similar products?
2) Is the product space Google works in fundamentally bad?
(1) is a pretty clear no, Google is about the best we could hope for given that a single corporation is in the product spaces that they are in and trying to sell ads. (2) is much less clear, there are many historical instances where the existence of a Google would have magnified the damage done. Realistically it isn't just them either, the radical dropping cost of surveillance was raised the other day and Google's work is only a small component of that.
1) Is Google more evil than a hypothetical benchmark company producing similar products?
2) Is the product space Google works in fundamentally bad?
(1) is a pretty clear no, Google is about the best we could hope for given that a single corporation is in the product spaces that they are in and trying to sell ads. (2) is much less clear, there are many historical instances where the existence of a Google would have magnified the damage done. Realistically it isn't just them either, the radical dropping cost of surveillance was raised the other day and Google's work is only a small component of that.
It isn't at all clear that (1) is true. Until recently, no-one was particularly concerned about companies which link advertisers and purchasers. Unless you say the hypothetical benchmark company is a company which tries to track you and build a database on you and basically spy on you, Google seems to be overtly more evil than any hypothetical benchmark company.
Effectively you've defined yourself into a corner were the hypothetical benchmark company is Google, since they must be substantially identical in all relevant ways. It isn't sufficient that they are advertising mediators: no, they must be advertising mediators who track every detail of their users life.
But even if we decide to compare within their business methods - not just their product space - and say, "given that they're Big Brother, are they an evil Big Brother or relatively more benign", it's not clear that they're benign. I have heard stories that leave my concerned (trying to produce a censored version for China, for instance, and gagging former workers who don't feel comfortable with that). I cannot provide evidence that they operate an evil business in an evil way, but it isn't clear that they don't. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Google worries me more and more, even though I'm tied to them more and more.
Effectively you've defined yourself into a corner were the hypothetical benchmark company is Google, since they must be substantially identical in all relevant ways. It isn't sufficient that they are advertising mediators: no, they must be advertising mediators who track every detail of their users life.
But even if we decide to compare within their business methods - not just their product space - and say, "given that they're Big Brother, are they an evil Big Brother or relatively more benign", it's not clear that they're benign. I have heard stories that leave my concerned (trying to produce a censored version for China, for instance, and gagging former workers who don't feel comfortable with that). I cannot provide evidence that they operate an evil business in an evil way, but it isn't clear that they don't. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Google worries me more and more, even though I'm tied to them more and more.
> 1) Is Google more evil than a hypothetical benchmark company producing similar products?
My military dictatorship is well above category average as far as totalitarian states go! We put -0.2% less of our population in jail, and assassinate less than one third of our closest competitor! Now bow down before my statue please.
My military dictatorship is well above category average as far as totalitarian states go! We put -0.2% less of our population in jail, and assassinate less than one third of our closest competitor! Now bow down before my statue please.
>The control and power of companies like Google and Microsoft is devastating to governments around the world because they have the power and the right to control whatever data they provide via their search engines.
Actually, it's the exact opposite. They are tools of control. Google and Microsoft happily provides the governments of the world with whatever information they want about their users.
Actually, it's the exact opposite. They are tools of control. Google and Microsoft happily provides the governments of the world with whatever information they want about their users.
It’s weird how we still attach ideas of morality to a corporation.
You could say google does evil but it can’t be evil in the normal sense of the word. It’s not a person.
And you could say a Corporation is amoral. They just care about nothing except profit. The CEO and board have no duty higher than that.
You could say google does evil but it can’t be evil in the normal sense of the word. It’s not a person.
And you could say a Corporation is amoral. They just care about nothing except profit. The CEO and board have no duty higher than that.
I’d like to point out that the idea that corporations “care about nothing except profit” is a fairly radical and new idea that would have been completely alien to anyone from more than a few decades ago.
It’s a testament to the success of the propaganda of the people who pushed this idea that, whether a good idea or not, the majority of people today consider it fundamental and will probably be surprised to learn how new it is.
It’s a testament to the success of the propaganda of the people who pushed this idea that, whether a good idea or not, the majority of people today consider it fundamental and will probably be surprised to learn how new it is.
I’m genuinely interested, can you provide a source for this?
My understanding of companies is they have always been exploitative. Any large company from the gilded age is a good example (now almost a century ago).
Further back, the companies of the industrial revolution were legendary for their amorality. Another example I’m familiar with is coal companies in Scotland before WWI.
My understanding of companies is they have always been exploitative. Any large company from the gilded age is a good example (now almost a century ago).
Further back, the companies of the industrial revolution were legendary for their amorality. Another example I’m familiar with is coal companies in Scotland before WWI.
This is an interesting article on the subject https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... (2015)
This is another one https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-talent-management/colum... from 2011.
The points are
* Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value
* Profit, but not Profit Maximization
This is another one https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-talent-management/colum... from 2011.
The points are
* Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value
* Profit, but not Profit Maximization
The Shareholder Value Myth is a good recent-ish book laying out the case that maximizing profits no matter what is not in fact a requirement. There's been discussion of it occasionally on HN. For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17529520
You say this idea is new and radical. Where would you say this idea comes from?
In this case, what other things do companies generally "care" about?
In this case, what other things do companies generally "care" about?
Companies can be more or less harmful than normal. We call humans evil not because they are the embodiment of a platonic ideal, but rather they do some list of horrid things. Similarly, some companies on net are just worse than others.
To use a strait forward example workplace safety issues are often both detrimental to a company and harmful to it’s workforce. Amazon for example will store heavy objects at their warehouses under low overhangs forcing people to carry stuff while bent over, which regularly causes back injuries. That’s actively causing the company to lose money and gets people hurt regularly.
In many ways companies are a set of policies than can and will change. But, nothing says those polices are neutral or optimal.
To use a strait forward example workplace safety issues are often both detrimental to a company and harmful to it’s workforce. Amazon for example will store heavy objects at their warehouses under low overhangs forcing people to carry stuff while bent over, which regularly causes back injuries. That’s actively causing the company to lose money and gets people hurt regularly.
In many ways companies are a set of policies than can and will change. But, nothing says those polices are neutral or optimal.
I actually disagree here. Majority-Owner/CEO‘s like Page/Brin, Bezos and Zuckerberg absolutely might have idealogical ambitions and not just monetary gain. I kind of buy that Page/Brin want to create real AI to bring humanity forward. And that Bezos uses Amazon as a money machine to fund humanities future in space. Not sure about Zuckerberg but he‘s certainly not motivated by money I think.
I‘m not saying their motives are pure obviously. They still want to be in charge of that future. But money seems like an incredibly boring goal.
I‘m not saying their motives are pure obviously. They still want to be in charge of that future. But money seems like an incredibly boring goal.
As long as we attach personhood to a corporation, it is correct to attach morality to it.
"Evil" is not a useful category.
But Google is definitely maximizing the narrow interests of its share-holders at the expense of users and (what I consider to be) fundamental social interests, such as privacy, avoidance of undue psychological manipulation, limitation of government power etc.
But Google is definitely maximizing the narrow interests of its share-holders at the expense of users and (what I consider to be) fundamental social interests, such as privacy, avoidance of undue psychological manipulation, limitation of government power etc.
Google is a large organization, and many large organization is both evil and not-evil. (Also, such things as "evil" and "not-evil" is not always so clear, anyways.)
But, often you can use services and software other than Google, anyways; or at least, I can.
But, often you can use services and software other than Google, anyways; or at least, I can.
The question is not whether Google is evil or not. They have a business model that is mostly legal (there are probably some corners where they do not fully comply with GDPR and national data protection and consumer protection laws in Europe). So I wouldn't care how they run their business. If I don't like them I don't do business with them. The problem is that they are a monopoly and it's hard to avoid them. I know what I am talking about, because I use a Google-free mobile phone (not Apple either). I cannot rent e-scooters (which doesn't bother me) and I might have difficulties to buy/have to pay higher prices for public transit tickets in many European cities (which sometimes does bother me).
The big failure is lack of antitrust enforcement. Google needs to be broken up like it happened to ATT in 1984.
The big failure is lack of antitrust enforcement. Google needs to be broken up like it happened to ATT in 1984.
on a scale from zero to Facebook.... I would say its an 7.
But is a 7 with lots of power, and plenty of people with good intentions. And the hell is full of people with good intentions.
But is a 7 with lots of power, and plenty of people with good intentions. And the hell is full of people with good intentions.
As long as it's either / or we're not gonna get anywhere with this conversation.
Yes. Next!
I would argue putting ads that pops up next to your emails is evil
Author lists some potential solutions but fails to mention the Brave browser (brave.com), which I think is pioneering much of what they're talking about.
Is being evil profitable?
So google’s not evil because they disclose that they’re a wolf??
The recent(?) screwing down of results page that do not allow jumping to the n-th page or do not disclose any results past the 2 or 3 pages of paid results impels me to believe Betteridge's Law has been broken.
[deleted]
No, they simply function in an amoral capitalist system which demands the maximum amount of profit.
There's nothing wrong with the system. You're free to use any of the alternatives. You think you would have that freedom in a non-capitalist system?
> You think you would have that freedom in a non-capitalist system?
Obviously depending on which system, but - yes. Even kind of rotten systems like the state-capitalism of East Germany had different "freedom trade-offs". A local once described it this way: "Under the DDR you had an apartment, but you couldn't speak out on things. Now you can say whatever you like and nobody will care, but you can't afford an apartment."
Obviously depending on which system, but - yes. Even kind of rotten systems like the state-capitalism of East Germany had different "freedom trade-offs". A local once described it this way: "Under the DDR you had an apartment, but you couldn't speak out on things. Now you can say whatever you like and nobody will care, but you can't afford an apartment."
This article predates the removal of "Don't be evil" from Google's Code of Conduct by about half a year.
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...
Unfortunately, there's no guarantee those favourable conditions persist. So despite not being evil, Google is suspect just due to it's size.
And even though Google has been actively good in many of the things it does (Summer of Code, their work with non-profits, Alphabet's various moonshot projects in the environmental or medical space), Apple has lately been giving them a run for their money in being actively and creatively a force for good in its core business, especially around privacy. It's not really something has the right to demand from them, but it does seem like they should have the potential to surprise us on occasion with technology aimed to solve the myriad problems societies are experiencing with the rising role of the web. A high-performant, hassle-free and verifiable alternative to TOR, say. Or a new paradigm that mends the growing conflict between advertisers and users, similarly to what Apple is doing with it's pseudonymous targeting scheme.