Google's Don't Be Evil Code of Conduct

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Poll question: Google's Don't Be Evil Code of Conduct

http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html

Code of Conduct
Preface

"Don't be evil." Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But "Don't be evil" is much more than that. Yes, it's about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it's also about doing the right thing more generally -- following the law, acting honorably and treating each other with respect.

The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put "Don't be evil" into practice. It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, who then build great products, which in turn attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.

So please do read the Code, and follow it, always bearing in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to incorporate, and to encourage other Googlers to incorporate, the principles of the Code into our work. And if you have a question or ever think that one of your fellow Googlers or the company as a whole may be falling short of our commitment, don't be silent. We want -- and need -- to hear from you.

[Junkdrawer]

1. Monsanto Organic Food = BP Green Energy = Google's Ethics n/t

[PanoramaIsland]

2. Google really is a progressive company on a number of issues - but sometimes, greed takes over. n/t

[Amerigo Vespucci]

5. With something this big...

...I'm not willing to give Google props. I don;t give a shit how progressive they are. This is wrong, and they know it. That's why they lied about it.

[PanoramaIsland]

6. It's wrong, and they probably know it, and should be ashamed. It's not the first time...

...they've done something majorly bad, either - look at the battle over their China policy. That being said, they really are a progressive company on a structural and cultural level. They're a really cool company tinged with some major downsides, such as their monopolies and near-monopolies in several fields, their cooperation with Chinese censorship and their opposition to Net Neutrality. They're not Halliburton, though - not by a long shot.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

8. That's why this is so disappointing...you're right, they're not Halliburton.

It would be a lot easier if they were...we could all mutter "Those FUCKERS" and let it go, because like that old fable about the frog and the scorpion, scorpions sting...that's what they do.

It's the dichotomy between this bullshit and the "progressive" side of Google that angers me. That and the fact that they lied...plain and simple, no way to put lipstick on that pig...they lied, they got caught, and they went right ahead with the thing they were lying about.

Maybe they'll become Halliburton, you know? Maybe they'll just "Do Evil" all the time, and the good stuff will fall and hit the ground like dead leaves on a tree, to be raked up and tossed on the fire. They certainly have laid the foundation for that kind of permanent change.

[PanoramaIsland]

9. I certainly hope not! The last thing we need is another soulless, monopolistic giant.

That being said, companies that are founded with a more unusual and innovative culture and governing philosophy do tend to change over time, and sometimes those unique traits fall away either partially or entirely. Look what's happen to Apple - many of the worst traits of the Jobsian personality cult have only gotten worse over time, their business practices have taken a turn for the nasty, and the old-school Apple fan subculture has grown apart from the company where it was initially very much integrated with company culture.

I feel very encouraged by the rise of the "socially responsible company" as a corporate identity and as an alternative method of negotiating capitalism, but I wonder at how feasible it is for these companies to remain progressive in the long term when so much of that progressive quality is a product of culture, and company culture tends to change over time as employees and leadership filter in and out and the company weathers different conditions, from attaining an almost unhealthy level of success and dominance - as with Google - to finding their market wither as technology changes (as with one of my favorite magazines, The Comics Journal) or waking up one day to realize that they've simply lost contact with what consumers want.

It's not easy trying to be ethical within the capitalist system, and the more unfortunate values of that system tend to slowly creep into a company culture that started out as critical to them.

None of this is to defend Google, of course - I'm furious at them. It's more perhaps in the way of a proposed explanation for what has happened to them.

[phantom power]

3. a couple observations...

1) Nobody ever thinks they're "being evil."

2) Power corrupts. And Google, for better or worse, finds itself in a position of considerable power.

[PanoramaIsland]

7. Yes. I think Google's reprehensible actions are a product of power and near-monopoly.

[sandnsea]

4. Google was never unbiased

Ask yourself why corporations are always at the top of your search results.

[AlabamaLibrul]

10. Because they get the most traffic and are most well-known. That's not a conspiracy. (eom)

[sandnsea]

11. No, not remotely true

They spend money on google ads which allows their link to show up in all kinds of sites and the more they spend the more their link shows up, and on and on.

I've been doing this for far too long to buy into the bullshit any of the so called SEO gurus try to sell.

[AlabamaLibrul]

12. And what is it you've been doing?

Google ads don't affect the number of backlinks (which is what you're talking about, a link that leads to a website and makes it more popular on google)

Under sponsored links, sure, those with money (corporations in particular) are going to be favored. But it's absolutely possible to be number one on a particular keyword if you know what it is you're targeting, and doing it well. I didn't spend a penny beyond hosting and domain fees, and I'm no SEO guru.

[sandnsea]

13. Yes they do

I know they do because I've done far too many backlink checks and found google ads to be the source of backlinks. Try it yourself.

Yes one can certainly get a highly targeted, and rarely searched, number one place in google. But that's not what I'm talking about. You can be #1 because you're a trusted site and have been in that spot for years. I've got some of those.

Let's do something totally random, like 2010 Ford Mustang. Now why does the Ford corporate site come up #1? Do you seriously believe it's just because it gets lots of links, and no other auto site or auto dealer has more?? Come On. Get Real. They're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to Google for all kinds of advertising, and you can damn well bet the algorithm is set to recognize that fact.

On edit:

One more thing. They *do* manually manage web sites. Ask anybody who has had a site kicked out of google unfairly. There's only one way to get it back in and that's for somebody to manually kick it back in. At the same time, they attach the keywords and key placements that the site had before the boot.

Google Lies.

[RandomThoughts]

14. Glad to hear they promote ideas like that.

Unfortunately my situation has removed following social laws as having any value, or for any need to follow them. Not because I am above them, but because they were made invalid by actions taken.

So to follow a law because it is a law would be false, since it would be following something shown unjust in a larger context, and until things are corrected such action would be to please that system that in totality is unjust.

I think it is possible that with a correction it is possible I could follow social laws, was hoping after the election that might happen, it didn't.

So anyways I agree with most of their codes of conduct, but do not, nor can agree with the one about following laws until they are recreated by a few things, non two tier justice, and for me personally compensation for wrong done.

Although most laws a person ends up following if they try and live by better standards, but that is not because they are laws.

Social laws are simply a support of status quo, if that status quo is broken, giving it any credibility by thinking any of the laws it makes have any meaning is counter productive.

[Cetacea]

15. Choice number three could certainly be applied to BP

Although I don't believe they cared all that much about getting caught by the "small people".

[Enthusiast]

16. "Small people" have

been systematically stripped of all power over the past decade. It no longer matters what small people think or do and corporations are behaving as if they know it.

[awnobles]

17. CIA is doing this

Hello!! Google has "worked with them" from the begining, reported to have been developed with CIA seed money and government expertise. Be curious, please.