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.
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.
When you ask someone whether they want their search results or ads to reflect their browse and search history they say no but when presented with the two options, users nearly always select the personalized version.
Remarketing works. It's not what people say, it's what they do.
And why shouldn't it be that way. I go to a local Peet's. They know my order now. Is that bad? Should I tell the barista to wipe my order history out of her memory?
I'm not saying there isn't a issue of privacy but the line is not where most think it is IMO. People are very willing to give out personal information in exchange for a chance to win a car in the local mall.
Taken in another direction: product. Users often don't express their real needs or can't identify them. One of the more interesting cases was the introduction of the mini-van. It tested miserably when they asked users. But Ford (I think it was Ford) decided to go ahead anyway and ... users wound up LOVING it.
I don't think people understand what Google is doing though. Your results may look very different once everybody understands the extent of Googles data collection.
This is very new territory still. I don't think we can predict what is going to happen if there is some massive repository of personal data that lives forever. So I'd rather we going at it with baby steps.
It's interesting. Sometimes the argument is that people are more savvy than we give them credit for and then it's that they don't really understand.
I'm not saying you're doing this now (not at all), but I do see people trying to have it both ways when talking about this issue.
The thing is, I'm old so I worked offline before the Internet. The personal information that is accessible offline is ... incredible, even to this day. It's what has powered the direct marketing revolution for decades.
So while I don't think people understand the details of how things work online I think they have an intuitive sense that the same way they get targeted offline is what happens to them online.
Facebook is actually letting people marry the offline and online information which I find super intriguing yet goes relatively unnoticed.
And I'm still shocked that we willingly present ID when we buy something with a credit card since we're not really required to do so.
Going slow wouldn't be a bad thing but I actually think we've been doing that already.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.