[ProcessBlue]

This is a good example for how far Google has drifted away from having "Don't be evil" as a core tenet. No PR or marketing person with those words in mind would go near a company like Nestle. Dealing with a company whose CEO views the human right to access to clean water as "extreme" is not something Sergei or Brin would have done ten years ago.

I wonder how many Google employees today would know the meaning of "Don't be evil".

[vdaniuk]

Google literally didn't do anything evil by releasing an update to Android with the codename same as a popular chocolate product, which is owned by a company with unethical practices. This is not evil unless you specifically redefine a meaning of the word.

Oxford dictionary

evil noun

profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force: his struggle against the forces of evil

a manifestation of this, especially in people’s actions: the evil that took place last Thursday

something which is harmful or undesirable: sexism, racism, and all other unpleasant social evils

[icebraining]

Playing Devil's advocate, one could make an argument that by promoting Nestle, they are accomplices in their harmful (and often illegal) activities.

Personally I don't think Google is any more guilty than any other company where Nestle has advertised on, including TV channels or newspapers, but I do think the world would be a better place if companies with Nestle's track record were to be ostracized by both consumers and other companies.

[vdaniuk]

Yeah, the world really would be a better place. But it is nash equilimbrium all over again and its absolutely pointless to shame one of the players(corporation or consumer). The only effectively viable path to making a world a better place is to change the rules of the game.