It's great that Google is doing the right thing in this case, but it is still incredibly dangerous for society that one company has so much power over what people can find on the internet.
Google used to say "Don't be evil," but no company or individual should be in the position where they can sit there and think "Should I be evil or not?"
Any company CAN sit there and think "should I be evil or not?"
> it is still incredibly dangerous for society that one company
> has so much power over what people can find on the internet
That could easily refer to the RIAA / MPAA with their bogus DMCA takedown notices. Particularly when DMCA is misused to take down sites with no direct copyright infringement. Especially when it is obvious bogus, such as a DMCA takedown of someone's nature audio recordings, while the DMCA filer even doubles-down on the notice claiming it infringes the copyright on their music.
There should be a statutory large fine for filing a bogus DMCA notice just as their is a statutory high cost for copyright infringement.
The public has a lot more influence with policy than they do with internal corporate affairs. I'd much rather fight a bad law than an evil but legally operating company.
When they screw up, stop using them. The currency you're giving them is attention, which goes to the user activity counts they use to sell advertising opportunities to marketers. If they run out of eyeballs, they run out of money.
In most of these cases, they aren't filing an actual DMCA notice (which takes a lot of human resources from both the filer and the receiver side), they are using a lighter-weight platform-provided system (such as Google's content ID system).
So any crackdown on filing false DMCA notices will need to be extended to private-party DMCA surrogate systems also.
That obviously doesn't work or doesn't mean anything.
That's why a Statutory fine for specific things such as:
* not stating an actual copyright infringement
* not being the registered owner or agent of the copyright
Those two would get rid of a LOT of abuse immediately. Such as people using DMCA for something not copyright related, such as to shut someone up for saying something they don't like. To silence criticism. Etc. Those are beyond clear examples of DMCA abuse.
The other is when someone who has no actual interest in the copyright merely uses the DMCA to silence something because they recognize it might be a copyright infringement -- whether the actual copyright owner cares or not.
Google's code of conduct[0] still has "don't be evil" in it. The very last paragraph/line in the document:
> And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!
The big issue with a phrase like "don't be evil" is that it is ambiguous and highly depends on the understanding of the word "evil" to the individual that reads that line. Google at this point is 80k+ full-time-employees, that I can guarantee will read that phrase to mean different things.
The newer code of conduct tries to codify what "evil" means, to lay a clearer picture for everyone what it means. That way it can't arbitrarily be applied for or against the company based on your an individual's beliefs of what that word means.
And the big issue with trying to codify broad moral statements is that you either devolve into restrictive legalism or you get ever better at interpreting specific rules to meet your desired outcomes. It's almost like the problem of human behavior is complex and can't be solved by a tech company with good intentions.
...which rather defeats the point of having any systemic ethical statement. People are gonna follow their own ethics anyway, google just now pretends to have a say when actually just not considering ethics at all.
> Google's code of conduct[0] still has "don't be evil" in it. The very last paragraph/line in the document:
> > And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!
This really comes down to the lack of protections we individually have regarding: having a place to sleep, food, medical care, and more. No work means none of those.
> The big issue with a phrase like "don't be evil" is that it is ambiguous and highly depends on the understanding of the word "evil" to the individual that reads that line.
That's a feature, not a bug. If you think to yourself:
"Self, is this truly evil? Are there no redeeming factors or are the consequences more heavily tilting to the negative than the positive?"
And the answer comes back: "Yes this is truly evil. No, even from a consequentialist perspective you shouldn't do it."
Then you should speak up. Even if only 1% of Google's employees see something from a certain light and speak up, that's enough! It doesn't mean they get final say, but it encourages a conversation where there might have been none. At the end of the day they can always quit in protest.
Quitting in protest is overrated. It assumes a level of economic stability only available to the very wealthy. If you have a family to provide for and you live in SF, you ain't quitting nothing. Remember, quitters don't even get unemployment.
It’s also ineffective if you think you’re having an economic effect on the company by quitting. For most tech companies big and small, there is a long line of competent people out the door hungry for the opportunity to do whatever you’re quitting over.
I'm fairly certain most Googlers (as with other FAANGM employees) aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck and, even if they were, you can carry out a job search while you're still employed at Google. I would expect that most Googlers could find employment elsewhere, especially in the current job market.
If we were talking about Walmart sales associates, I'd have more sympathy for your points.
Not to mention, for a lot of these companies that pay well, your position will be replaced by someone who is likely in a worse situation than you who could not afford to quit even if they wanted. Net result, an employee that is less likely to complain or leave when things start going off the rails.
Sometimes (not always) it's better to try effecting change from the inside.
>Quitting in protest is overrated. It assumes a level of economic stability only available to the very wealthy.
That would be "quitting in protest without that costing you anything special".
As for "quitting in protest" period, well, tons of people have quit in protest and risked their "food on the table" for ethical reasons...
Heck, tons of people have risked their lives (and even repercussions against their family), and quit or refused to do things they were ordered to for ethical reasons.
It doesn't take financial stability to do so -- just having a spine.
And here we're talking about sought after engineers at a major company (that can always get another job), and that already make cool 100,000+ a year and most have some savings in the bank.
It should be even easier for them to step down than to some poor guy with 3 kids and hand-to-mouth wages - that might even be blacklisted. And yet many people did the right thing under those circumstances.
If you're someone who likes to follow trends, then it should be clear to you that Google is trying to get rid of both such comments/values from the company, and will probably start purging the people that still believe like that inside the company, too, as the company starts working with authoritarian regimes and building weapons of death.
Having ethical people inside the company will be like shooting itself in the foot, as it tries to move forward with these projects.
>Google at this point is 80k+ full-time-employees, that I can guarantee will read that phrase to mean different things.
It's not like this matters. Those 80k+ employees are not the one's that take decisions anyway, their superiors are, and any major bad thing Google does is highlighted from way above.
And it's not necessary for those employees to understand "don't be evil" to mean something particular. It's enough that they moral standards. If they do, they can see what's evil and what's not. If not, whatever the code of conduct was writing wouldn't matter.
Seriously? Any person can go buy a gun and attack a mall. Ban guns and people can take a knife into a preschool. Ban knives and someone can go carjack a person with a tire iron.
Every single person and corporation is always in a position to act with evil or not. It is impossible to create a society where it is impossible to place people in a position where they have to rely on their morality to act correctly. You can only create a society which instills the right morals; you can support the entities which act with the right morals, and punish those who don't.
But go ahead and try to design a society where no one has the freedom to be evil; you might have missed the week of high school english where we read 1984.
Exactly. To protect ourselves from tyranny, the US established the second amendment. It is preferable if we are equally in a position of asking "should I be evil or not?"
It's arguably more dangerous when the power to be evil is centralized.
Yeah, that's why the US completely killed it in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mission Accomplished!
This is one of the least thought out arguments against the 2A you'll ever see. It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents. Turning the military, or even the national guard, against the people would be a recipe for a huge number of AWOL soldiers. And guess what; those trained soldiers and veterans, with dozens of guns at home and a love for the country, not the government, will be the ones leading the resistance.
> nukes
Yup. The tyranical government will rule over a hellish wasteland, with nowhere to grow food, no taxable income, and millions of human resources dead. Sure hope you're not the one in charge if an uprising happens, because it seems like you're more likely to shoot yourself in the foot than stomp out the rebellion.
It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents.
I’m sure the people of Germany never thought their fellow citizens would turn against them either.
There have been plenty of examples throughout recent history where citizens turn against each other because they believed in the cause of a charismatic leader.
Yeah, that's why the US completely killed it in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mission Accomplished!
And they were all funded by another superpower. Who is going to fund these rebels? The people in Waco thought they were fighting against a tyrannical government. How did that work out for them?
EDIT:
It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents.
Plenty of people in rural Tenessee don’t see those “god hating west coast liberals who are part of the war on Christmas” as “sharing their values”.
It’s only been since the early 80s that the South had to get rid of laws making non heterosexual sex illegal.
How easy was it to get a bunch of people thinking that their government was being taken over by a Muslim who wanted to impose Sharia Law and get Chuck Norrus all riled up thinking that the federal government was trying to take over Texas?
>I’m sure the people of Germany never thought their fellow citizens would turn against them either.
This is an interesting one, because this actually is more of an argument for 2A then you think. For one the Germans didn't turn against what they saw as their fellow citizens, they turned against a minority...and had that minority been armed...well I doubt it would have been as easy as the gestapo raiding houses in the night and putting them on a train to a camp. At least a few gestapo would have gotten some rounds in the chest for their trouble.
If anything, much like the LA riots when the police derelict of duty, chose to not protect the Korean neighborhoods, but white ones, Koreans as a minority, were able to protect themselves in the famous "roof Korean" incident. 2A if anything protects minorities (and women who are usually at a physical disadvantage from attackers and makes them equally lethal in a situation) from being targeted with outright violence, and the first gun control laws, like those in California were a direct response to minorities (e.g. black people, Black Panthers) arming themselves to protect/assert their rights.
You don't even have to go back that far in American history to see things like coal miners arming themselves against corrupt mining companies who were literally bombing citizens.
You have a short term view of human history, you assume the status quo is permanent, and its almost like the history you were talk in school or chose to read about is selective.
This is an interesting one, because this actually is more of an argument for 2A then you think. For one the Germans didn't turn against what they saw as their fellow citizens, they turned against a minority...and had that minority been armed...well I doubt it would have been as easy as the gestapo raiding houses in the night and putting them on a train to a camp.
You mean the same German army that it took multiple nations to defeat were going to be stopped by a minority of the population with guns? Again the Germans had tanks, WMDs, bombs, and planes.
At least a few gestapo would have gotten some rounds in the chest for their trouble.
Or they would have used the bigger weapons they already had. A government with more resources can always quash the little guy.
If anything, much like the LA riots when the police derelict of duty, chose to not protect the Korean neighborhoods...
And the Koreans or any of your other examples were going up against a government backed force with access to for all intents and purposes unlimited resources.
The Bill of Rights was ratified when none of those things existed. I absolutely believe the 2A is outdated, but you must consider the reasoning its creation.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
People seem to forget that first half is more important than guns.
And who deems the data too sensitive? I, for one, am thrilled by the notion that we should run from the arms of our corporate overlords and straight into the arms of our government overlords. ;)
>> it is still incredibly dangerous for society that one company has so much power over what people can find on the internet.
Someone could form an organization that's run by donations that could create a web index that isn't influenced by advertising or other third parties. Like a wikipedia type thing.
I applied to be a DMOZ editor of my niche and was accepted. I could freely put my website at the top and remove my competitors. I was a 17-year-old little shit and that's exactly what I did.
I'm not convinced that a "directory of websites" can work. If it actually becomes popular, then people are willing to pay a pretty penny to get listed. Essentially just becomes another advertising platform except far less fair than what we have with Google.
Imagine just how hilarious the "Payday Loans" or "Online Pharmacy" sections of a popular DMOZ relaunch would be. i.e. Industries that happily bid dollars (plural) per measly PPC click.
I had just read this essay which advocated for the FANG + Microsoft to be nationalized and taken out of the profit system like the post office. It really resonated with me. If anything, the removal of profits would return the things we like about these companies and remove the things we despise while giving their customers more of a say in how they do buisness.
Google attracts the top engineers in the world because it can pay them the most money in the world through its profits. Take away profits, take away the engineers that made google valuable in the first place...
The USPS is the only federal institution required to fully fund its retirement. It's also expected to act like an efficient, private business, but it's unable to set its prices.
The USPS is intentionally hamstrung so that conservatives can point to it as an example of how inefficient government is, and subsequently line their pockets thought privatization.
The phrase "don't be evil" is obviously open to interpretation when it comes to issues like these. Most of us agree on a common moral standard since we have conscience (don't murder people, don't steal from people, etc.). Even then though, societies can change their views on what is morally acceptable behavior.
Can you really say that a private company blocking a website that helps facilitate illegal activities is "evil"? It might be something you don't like, or it even may be unwise for our society to allow companies to have this much power (as you said), but I don't think I would classify this as "evil".
"Dont be evil" is nothing but a cute marketing statement. It has never been a serious principle in the life of the company and ceases to hold any meaning once it became a major multinational corporation.
I dont understand why this phrase keeps being brought up by the HN community which usually doesn't buy marketing gimmicks but in this case seem to be completely befuddled that a company that just said 3 words could somehow do things they may dislike.
After I read certain Brandon Sanderson fantasy book every time someone mention "Don't be evil" I starting to think of certain sapient magical item. Item in the book was given command to "Destroy Evil" and it's intelligently follow the command.
Very unfortunately neither this item from fantasy book nor corporation like Google can really provide clear statement on what "evil" is. Depend on whoever is in control Google can do whatever they want without ever going against this principle.
The day it happens be sure to read 229434093 thought leader articles how this is "the right move" and "a step into the future" and other such nonsense.
But I think the Pirate Bay is unique in that it keeps losing its domain, getting blocked, etc. and Google tends to direct you to the latest working version of it.
What I meant is not to search for torrents via google, but go to the website specialized for torrent search and search there. It doesn't really matter how you'll find the website's url in the first place, but don't make the search engine your only entry point to the web.
10 We should stop Google!
20 Google are acting within the law
30 Then the law is wrong, let's change the law
40 We have laws already about this
50 But those laws are bad, if only we had someone who could stand up for genuine rights
60 Google are standing up for rights
70 But they are abusing their position
80 GOTO 10
Not quite, the top comment here is about Google's don't be evil motto and that thread has 45 out of the currently 64 comments here. Along the way someone mentioned this depends on what the reader thinks is evil, so yeah, mostly pointless discussion.
I can see where you're coming from. But the fact that Google puts so much effort in to ensuring they hold the only vote in decisions like this makes me wonder how much respect they really deserve.
I'm surprised this doesn't mention the European Court of Justice's decision that The Pirate Bay does directly infringe copyright. I'm paraphrasing the decision but there's a detailed writeup here: http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/06/30/cjeu-decisio...
Ha, I assumed for a moment that you meant that the code for the Pirate Bay website itself is actually under copyright and that Pirate Bay did pirate it from the original rightful owner.
88 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 160 ms ] threadGoogle used to say "Don't be evil," but no company or individual should be in the position where they can sit there and think "Should I be evil or not?"
> it is still incredibly dangerous for society that one company > has so much power over what people can find on the internet
That could easily refer to the RIAA / MPAA with their bogus DMCA takedown notices. Particularly when DMCA is misused to take down sites with no direct copyright infringement. Especially when it is obvious bogus, such as a DMCA takedown of someone's nature audio recordings, while the DMCA filer even doubles-down on the notice claiming it infringes the copyright on their music.
There should be a statutory large fine for filing a bogus DMCA notice just as their is a statutory high cost for copyright infringement.
You have more faith in the power of your vote than in the power of your dollar, I take it.
So any crackdown on filing false DMCA notices will need to be extended to private-party DMCA surrogate systems also.
That's why a Statutory fine for specific things such as:
* not stating an actual copyright infringement
* not being the registered owner or agent of the copyright
Those two would get rid of a LOT of abuse immediately. Such as people using DMCA for something not copyright related, such as to shut someone up for saying something they don't like. To silence criticism. Etc. Those are beyond clear examples of DMCA abuse.
The other is when someone who has no actual interest in the copyright merely uses the DMCA to silence something because they recognize it might be a copyright infringement -- whether the actual copyright owner cares or not.
> And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!
The big issue with a phrase like "don't be evil" is that it is ambiguous and highly depends on the understanding of the word "evil" to the individual that reads that line. Google at this point is 80k+ full-time-employees, that I can guarantee will read that phrase to mean different things.
The newer code of conduct tries to codify what "evil" means, to lay a clearer picture for everyone what it means. That way it can't arbitrarily be applied for or against the company based on your an individual's beliefs of what that word means.
[0] https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
And get fired for doing so.
http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/02/google-employee-fired-aft...
出る釘は打たれる
"The nail that sticks out gets the hammer."
This really comes down to the lack of protections we individually have regarding: having a place to sleep, food, medical care, and more. No work means none of those.
That's a feature, not a bug. If you think to yourself:
"Self, is this truly evil? Are there no redeeming factors or are the consequences more heavily tilting to the negative than the positive?"
And the answer comes back: "Yes this is truly evil. No, even from a consequentialist perspective you shouldn't do it."
Then you should speak up. Even if only 1% of Google's employees see something from a certain light and speak up, that's enough! It doesn't mean they get final say, but it encourages a conversation where there might have been none. At the end of the day they can always quit in protest.
If we were talking about Walmart sales associates, I'd have more sympathy for your points.
Sometimes (not always) it's better to try effecting change from the inside.
That would be "quitting in protest without that costing you anything special".
As for "quitting in protest" period, well, tons of people have quit in protest and risked their "food on the table" for ethical reasons...
Heck, tons of people have risked their lives (and even repercussions against their family), and quit or refused to do things they were ordered to for ethical reasons.
It doesn't take financial stability to do so -- just having a spine.
And here we're talking about sought after engineers at a major company (that can always get another job), and that already make cool 100,000+ a year and most have some savings in the bank.
It should be even easier for them to step down than to some poor guy with 3 kids and hand-to-mouth wages - that might even be blacklisted. And yet many people did the right thing under those circumstances.
Compare that to this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180421105327/https://abc.xyz/i...
If you're someone who likes to follow trends, then it should be clear to you that Google is trying to get rid of both such comments/values from the company, and will probably start purging the people that still believe like that inside the company, too, as the company starts working with authoritarian regimes and building weapons of death.
Having ethical people inside the company will be like shooting itself in the foot, as it tries to move forward with these projects.
It's not like this matters. Those 80k+ employees are not the one's that take decisions anyway, their superiors are, and any major bad thing Google does is highlighted from way above.
And it's not necessary for those employees to understand "don't be evil" to mean something particular. It's enough that they moral standards. If they do, they can see what's evil and what's not. If not, whatever the code of conduct was writing wouldn't matter.
Every single person and corporation is always in a position to act with evil or not. It is impossible to create a society where it is impossible to place people in a position where they have to rely on their morality to act correctly. You can only create a society which instills the right morals; you can support the entities which act with the right morals, and punish those who don't.
But go ahead and try to design a society where no one has the freedom to be evil; you might have missed the week of high school english where we read 1984.
Exactly. To protect ourselves from tyranny, the US established the second amendment. It is preferable if we are equally in a position of asking "should I be evil or not?"
It's arguably more dangerous when the power to be evil is centralized.
And for all intents and purposes, unlimited resources.
This is one of the least thought out arguments against the 2A you'll ever see. It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents. Turning the military, or even the national guard, against the people would be a recipe for a huge number of AWOL soldiers. And guess what; those trained soldiers and veterans, with dozens of guns at home and a love for the country, not the government, will be the ones leading the resistance.
> nukes
Yup. The tyranical government will rule over a hellish wasteland, with nowhere to grow food, no taxable income, and millions of human resources dead. Sure hope you're not the one in charge if an uprising happens, because it seems like you're more likely to shoot yourself in the foot than stomp out the rebellion.
I’m sure the people of Germany never thought their fellow citizens would turn against them either.
There have been plenty of examples throughout recent history where citizens turn against each other because they believed in the cause of a charismatic leader.
Yeah, that's why the US completely killed it in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mission Accomplished!
And they were all funded by another superpower. Who is going to fund these rebels? The people in Waco thought they were fighting against a tyrannical government. How did that work out for them?
EDIT:
It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents.
Plenty of people in rural Tenessee don’t see those “god hating west coast liberals who are part of the war on Christmas” as “sharing their values”.
It’s only been since the early 80s that the South had to get rid of laws making non heterosexual sex illegal.
How easy was it to get a bunch of people thinking that their government was being taken over by a Muslim who wanted to impose Sharia Law and get Chuck Norrus all riled up thinking that the federal government was trying to take over Texas?
This is an interesting one, because this actually is more of an argument for 2A then you think. For one the Germans didn't turn against what they saw as their fellow citizens, they turned against a minority...and had that minority been armed...well I doubt it would have been as easy as the gestapo raiding houses in the night and putting them on a train to a camp. At least a few gestapo would have gotten some rounds in the chest for their trouble.
If anything, much like the LA riots when the police derelict of duty, chose to not protect the Korean neighborhoods, but white ones, Koreans as a minority, were able to protect themselves in the famous "roof Korean" incident. 2A if anything protects minorities (and women who are usually at a physical disadvantage from attackers and makes them equally lethal in a situation) from being targeted with outright violence, and the first gun control laws, like those in California were a direct response to minorities (e.g. black people, Black Panthers) arming themselves to protect/assert their rights.
You don't even have to go back that far in American history to see things like coal miners arming themselves against corrupt mining companies who were literally bombing citizens.
You have a short term view of human history, you assume the status quo is permanent, and its almost like the history you were talk in school or chose to read about is selective.
You mean the same German army that it took multiple nations to defeat were going to be stopped by a minority of the population with guns? Again the Germans had tanks, WMDs, bombs, and planes.
At least a few gestapo would have gotten some rounds in the chest for their trouble.
Or they would have used the bigger weapons they already had. A government with more resources can always quash the little guy.
If anything, much like the LA riots when the police derelict of duty, chose to not protect the Korean neighborhoods...
And the Koreans or any of your other examples were going up against a government backed force with access to for all intents and purposes unlimited resources.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
People seem to forget that first half is more important than guns.
Someone could form an organization that's run by donations that could create a web index that isn't influenced by advertising or other third parties. Like a wikipedia type thing.
And I think that is a perfect spot for EFF.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMOZ
I'm not convinced that a "directory of websites" can work. If it actually becomes popular, then people are willing to pay a pretty penny to get listed. Essentially just becomes another advertising platform except far less fair than what we have with Google.
Imagine just how hilarious the "Payday Loans" or "Online Pharmacy" sections of a popular DMOZ relaunch would be. i.e. Industries that happily bid dollars (plural) per measly PPC click.
https://catalyst-journal.com/vol2/no1/between-cambridge-and-...
How's the USPS doing these days? Answer: it's being propped up like Bernie from Weekend At Bernie's. Spam mail is the only thing keeping it afloat.
A nationalized Microsoft full of federal employees would be an ineffective, bloated mess.
The USPS is the only federal institution required to fully fund its retirement. It's also expected to act like an efficient, private business, but it's unable to set its prices.
The USPS is intentionally hamstrung so that conservatives can point to it as an example of how inefficient government is, and subsequently line their pockets thought privatization.
Can you really say that a private company blocking a website that helps facilitate illegal activities is "evil"? It might be something you don't like, or it even may be unwise for our society to allow companies to have this much power (as you said), but I don't think I would classify this as "evil".
I dont understand why this phrase keeps being brought up by the HN community which usually doesn't buy marketing gimmicks but in this case seem to be completely befuddled that a company that just said 3 words could somehow do things they may dislike.
Or trusted to be able to tell the difference 100% of the time
Very unfortunately neither this item from fantasy book nor corporation like Google can really provide clear statement on what "evil" is. Depend on whoever is in control Google can do whatever they want without ever going against this principle.
https://proxybay.bz
https://thepiratebay-proxylist.se
https://thepiratebayproxylist.net
http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/ I think it was.
Or copying the search results from Google and pretending your own engine created them. http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/02/google.bing.sting/ind...
10 We should stop Google! 20 Google are acting within the law 30 Then the law is wrong, let's change the law 40 We have laws already about this 50 But those laws are bad, if only we had someone who could stand up for genuine rights 60 Google are standing up for rights 70 But they are abusing their position 80 GOTO 10
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17660872