[jgilliam]

The Guardian's headline is very misleading. Google's mission statement is not "don't be evil" - it's "to organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Larry Page is clearly referring to the mission statement that may need to change, not "Don't be evil." This is all made very clear in the original FT article The Guardian cites, they just chose to go for a more inaccurate and salacious framing of the entire story. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/3173f19e-5fbc-11e4-8c27-00144...

[edit: the guardian changed the headline!]

[pmontra]

"Don't be evil" is the corporate motto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil That's a very difficult motto to change. Removing it would mean "we're free to do evil now" and that won't be received well. Anyway, I wonder if is there anyone left who thinks Google is still faithful to their motto.

[curun1r]

> Removing it would mean "we're free to do evil now"

It's a subtle distinction, but the motto is "don't be evil", not "don't do evil." The former allows you to do evil things in service to noble purposes. For example, "don't do evil" would have required the company to shut down services rather than sharing information with the NSA. "Don't be evil" allowed them to balance that evil action against the good created by those services to realize a net-positive societal benefit from offering those services.

[hawkice]

Perhaps a better example: Censorship in Google China. The "don't do evil" vs "don't be evil" was almost exactly how they pitched that conversation.

[wavefunction]

Doing evil is being evil. End of discussion.

[gtremper]

Well, everyone is evil then.

[shizcakes]

Given a sufficient cardinality of perspectives, everyone and everything is "evil".

[pmontra]

Yes, me too and knowing that I never wrote "don't be evil" on the door of my house. Google did it and they put themselves in the position of having to be more moral than anyone else, to everybody.

[gtremper]

Paul Buchheit wrote it on a whiteboard once, and it stuck. Blame him.

[logn]

Given their recent AI and robotics, how about:

"to make the world more accessible and useful for the benefit of humanity"

[SideburnsOfDoom]

Given that the robotics part is from the acquisition of Boston Dynamics, who aim to make robots for the US military, some people would disagree with that summary. It's a long way from "don't be evil" to "we're a defense contractor".

[seanflyon]

So buying a defense contractor and making them no longer a defense contractor is evil because that qualifies as being a defense contractor?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

If the Boston Dynamics division of google are no longer a US defence contractor, then that's news to me. Do you have a link for this?

[seanflyon]

Now that Boston Dynamics is part of Google they will finish their existing military contracts and then no longer take on military customers.

"Google told the Times it will honor Boston Dynamics’ existing contracts, including a $10.8 million deal with DARPA to develop its Atlas prototype for potential humanitarian use in disasters like the Fukushima meltdown. But Google added that it does not plan to become a military contractor itself."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/12/16/google_ac...

[gress]

So they're just giving up on organizing the world's information having failed?

[kllrnohj]

No, they are just doing a hell of a lot more than search these days.

[gress]

Yes, but they seem to have given up on organizing the world's information.