LoneCoder: Google: Lawful Good or Chaotic Neutral?

[Ken Burtch]

On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 15:41 -0500, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> I have to side with Kihara.

Thanks for your comments, Evan.

> "Don't do evil" is _not_ a universal theme in business, unless you 
> extend it to "don't do evil to our shareholders". The compelling drive 
> is what is cynically referred to as "building shareholder value", 
> whether it's in dividends or the value of the stock. Serving customers 
> and obeying the law are merely methods to achieve the primary goal. 
> Being ethical, for the sake of more than PR, is most certainly not a 
> constant in the business world.

Remember we're talking about "evil" in two different senses.  In the
Google sense, this is not wrongdoing but questioning or going against
the will of the controlling body or people.  That is, perhaps, "Don't do
what the board of directors or CEO don't want."  In the wrongdoing
sense, I've worked in many businesses over the years and I've never
heard anyone say, "We're here in business to damage our customers, our
suppliers and the world in which we operate."  What I've heard is,
"We're forced to do damage because [insert some reason]."  Such
companies don't see the actions as active evil but see themselves as a
victim that has to do evil, as I suggested in the original article.

There is a difference between "don't do evil" and "be good".  The two
are not the same thing.  One has to do with avoidance and the other with
an active pursuit of a goal.  Many companies "don't do evil" but few
follow a "do good" policy.  To "do good" requires an investment.

So in both senses, "Don't do evil" is a common theme in business.

> There are most certainly businesses who, while successful, have made 
> ethical practise more than a slogan -- while the PR from such behaviour 
> is great for the bottom line, for the business it's a result rather than 
> a cause of "doing the right thing". One company that comes to mind 
> quickly in this regard is The Body Shop and its company-wide policy 
> against animal testing.

I didn't say there weren't ethical organizations, only that they were
rare.  If you've read my unfinished book, "The Big Online Book of
Running a Linux Startup", I address this in discussions on the 127 rule.

> Every company wants to be known as ethical, because not being seen that 
> way is bad PR. So the way to measure the seriousness of the claim to by 
> judging actions rather than words. By most metrics in this regard, 
> ethical comparison of Microsoft and Google is IMO downright absurd. 
> There is a big difference between "trying to do good but not always 
> getting it just right" and "doing evil while calling it good". I don't 
> see Google accused of using drug-pusher tactics in the developing world, 
> an analogy often (and IMO with good reason) applied to Microsoft.

Google never claimed to be good.  In what way do you see Google as being
good?  As I asked in my article, how are they diverting resources and
people into pursing the goal of being a good company?  Pursuing any kind
of excellence requires effort.

Microsoft, I don't believe, has an official policy on being evil.  In
what way is Microsoft different than Google?  Which has responded better
to decisions that hurt the community?  (I'm not suggesting Microsoft is
better than Google.)

> So Cringely had problems getting an interview in 2004. As has been 
> suggested, this may be more a matter of being overwhelmed than a desire 
> to create a compound somewhere with a big shark tank and a self-destruct 
> mechanism. I certainly had no problem getting access to Brin in 1999, 
> before the bandwagon effect set in:
> http://www.opticality.com/Press/ZopeCorp/ZDNet990723/view

If Brin is no longer able to make good decisions because he's
overworked, and Brin is the ultimate yardstick for what is evil, and
Brin is under increasing pressure trying to carry too big a stone on his
back, this raises very question I was asking in my article.  A person
with no time to weight the ethics of a decision is a person making
unethical decisions--it doesn't mean that he himself is unethical, only
that he hasn't employed the ethics that he has for whatever reason.

> Sure, Google is out to make a buck. But I don't see it trying to do that 
> through the advocacy of two-tier email, claims of "open" standards that 
> really aren't, or currying favour by voluntarily handling personal 
> detail to governments, as its competitors have been accused of doing.
> 
> It is valuable to continue to keep a cynical eye trained on Google? Of 
> course, if for no other reasons than the possibility that one day the 
> company's visionaries may get overwhelmed by the bean-counters. Once 
> upon a time Caldera, the company that is now SCO, was run by good guys too.
> 
> However, so far I have not seen much to indicate that Google has in any 
> significant way broken its motto. Complaint about their transparency may 
> be somewhat valid, though I would suggest that it's more accessible than 
> companies that are actually regulated for the sake of the "public good" 
> (broadcasters, utilities. etc.). Still, arguments with the company's 
> decision-making processes don't bear any logical relation to issues of 
> ethics.

This, sadly, is true.  It's also true that a _lack_ of ethics doesn't
guarantee good decisions either.  I don't believe that Microsoft made a
lot of money because of their ethics or lack thereof.

> They owe accountability for their ethics to nobody but 
> themselves; the rest of us are bystanders unless you own stock in them 
> or their competitors.
[snip]

I'm not sure what you mean.  Owning stock dictates weight in making
business decisions.  A corporate policy of ethics pertains to everyone
the company does business with, and is an example to the same.  I don't
see a connection.

KB

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken O. Burtch                                     Phone: 905-562-0848
Author "Linux Shell Scripting with Bash"            Fax: 905-562-0848
http://www.pegasoft.ca                            Email: ken-8VyUGRzHQ8IsA/PxXw9srA at public.gmane.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caution: Comments may be less negative than they appear.

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml