yes, they are worse than all those. Perhaps loot box companies are close and only less so because of current scale and not because of less sinister intent.
Google is not fbook, (not that I am a fan of big G - it's evil in other ways more so than fbook) -
Where is ethical in my mind is more shades of grey rather than place A is and Place B is not..
I think many people do not understand the immense power the fbook wields to truly get how damaging it is and can be. Some of us may not get sucked in by our evolving news feed, but that does not mean that it is not indeed sucking people in and keeping them hooked for it's benefit and to the detriment of other's lives.
It doesn't really matter if it's trivial. It's in Google's interest to do it so it tends to happen.
McDonalds isn't really uniquely bad. Burger King, Jack in the Box, et al are basically the same. They are a perfect example of what I described: a class of actors to whom there is benefit to acting in concert against the best interests of consumers.
There are much more examples like these. And then at some point Google seems surprised people hate them. There is a huge contrast between the outlook inside G (we're an ethical company, still based on do no evil unlike the rest) and how others see them.
By "less bad", I thought the comment was saying that Google/etc. actions are less objectionable. That's what I don't think is true. If I have misunderstood, then I apologize.
It is interesting to see the standard to which these big internet companies are being held lately. The mere fact that Google debated and waited many years before jumping into China with a censored search engine puts into the top of the most ethical for-profit corporations to ever exist, in my book.
All this bad-will seems to come from their advertising business models, which I find is loudly criticized with rather thin arguments, given that these companies are often the only ones defending the users from the dirty tactics of advertisers (who get none of the blame). I've neve seen criticism of coca-cola for using Google's targeting abilities to its advantage and shove ads down our throats for money without a moral concern.
It is interesting to see the standard to which these big internet companies are being held lately. The mere fact that Google debated and waited many years before jumping into China with a censored search engine puts it into the top of the most ethical for-profit corporations to ever exist, in my book.
All this bad-will seems to come from their advertising business models, which I find is loudly criticized with rather thin arguments, given that these companies are often the only ones defending the users from the dirty tactics of advertisers (who get none of the blame). I've neve seen criticism of coca-cola for using Google's targeting abilities to its advantage and shove ads down our throats for money without a moral concern. And rightly so.
Well I haven't seen them sacrificing children to Baphomet or anything, but I do believe they are ethical and morally in the wrong camp and have been for a few years now.
They take money from one industry and use it to crush/undermine competitors in other industries. Hence making a situation where no one can compete with them. IMO abusing market position i.e. they use advertising money to drive technology business out of business
They have also perpetuated a belief that you shouldn't pay for anything on the internet. You know that would be fine if we lived in some Marxist utopia, but we don't. Things are expensive to make and produce and Google is making it harder and harder on a daily basis to get returns off products.
They did what was needed, improved the world, but those days are gone.
Yes, but your point is? This is a thread about Google and their abuses, so it makes sense that is what is being discussed (not invalidating that there are much worse things happening in the world).
Most of them don't operate at the scale that google does, or have the amount of stakeholders that google does (and therefore don't need to expand into the chinese market aggressively). And yes, an organization whos goal is to make boatloads of money _is_ fundamentally morally tainted when that goal directly conflicts with taking what we'd call ethical action.
Sorry don't judge without hearing an opinion.
I don't share that guy's mindset. I've just pointed that the bad guy business model exists due to google's ranking algorithm, which has changed recently.
However it's clear that this is very bad practice and shouldn't be tolerated by the public.
For me personally, none of the 'really' major tech companies are; I don't desperately enough need to work on the very cutting edge to trade-off against morality. But I'm not innocent either, most actions have (ideally unintended, and later rectified) negative externalities.
It'd be an interesting discussion to have with someone who feels like they really need to stay at the very peak of private data accumulation - because in my view those actions are potentially very detrimental to wider society, certainly depending on the culture. I'd extend more respect to Google than the others from what I've seen, although opinions may vary elsewhere.
Regarding scandals and reactions - users and shareholders can and do care, and they vote with their feet, or wallets, or ideally both.
The battlefield in these cases is over how much truth about the scandal and resolution are published. A good organization will generally tend towards more transparency in both, while perhaps keeping a few cards close so that they can react to any potential retaliation (such is the world of rapid fake news that we live in).
Edit: s/data accumulation/private data accumulation/
1) Is Google more evil than a hypothetical benchmark company producing similar products?
2) Is the product space Google works in fundamentally bad?
(1) is a pretty clear no, Google is about the best we could hope for given that a single corporation is in the product spaces that they are in and trying to sell ads. (2) is much less clear, there are many historical instances where the existence of a Google would have magnified the damage done. Realistically it isn't just them either, the radical dropping cost of surveillance was raised the other day and Google's work is only a small component of that.
That is an extremely naive view of things, Google is a publicly traded for profit company, any good or ethical maneuvers they make are just surplus, they tend to do it more than most, I suppose if they were completely rotten no one would criticize them this much as people would expect the worst.
Your list doesn't really look that damning. All of them are true to a large extent (I suppose they wouldn't be enticing to smart people if they were completely wrong).
The actual cause of Google's bad behavior isn't on the list, though it's hinted by Assumption 6. Namely, Google decided to become an advertising business at its core. When your very essence is poisoned, it's only matter of time when ethics go out of the window, and business practices become increasingly abusive.
Google is not fbook, (not that I am a fan of big G - it's evil in other ways more so than fbook) -
Where is ethical in my mind is more shades of grey rather than place A is and Place B is not..
I think many people do not understand the immense power the fbook wields to truly get how damaging it is and can be. Some of us may not get sucked in by our evolving news feed, but that does not mean that it is not indeed sucking people in and keeping them hooked for it's benefit and to the detriment of other's lives.
reply