Slashdot Mirror
Google vs. Evil
wideangle writes "'The world's biggest, best-loved search engine owes its success to supreme technology and a simple rule: Don't be evil. Now the geek icon is finding that moral compromise is just the cost of doing big business. Take Brin's decision to refuse all alcohol and tobacco advertising. The fact that Google accepts advertising for adult content sites is an intriguing commentary on Brin's morality: Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not. It's a policy that would become progressively harder to defend were Google to go public.'"
To be even stranger, the advertisements are usually not even about guns - just the company may happen to also sell parts.
One case comes to mind of an outdoorsman shop wanted to advertise its dehydrated food wares. In addition to hundreds of other outdoors materials, they sold replacement pistol barrels (they did NOT however, sell actual guns)
Google refused the ads on food on the premise of this.
-
Porn is religiously 'evil', whereas cigarettes aren't.
Go figure.
porn is not. We all look at porn, no matter how much you guys deny it. I found my first porn on yahoo when I was 11 years old and I havn't stopped. I don't think I'm too screwed up, or any more so than if I'd never found the porn. How many kids get through there childhood without one of their friends showing them a dirty magazine or something? not too many, its a just a part of life. Porn isn't evil, just like masturbation isn't evil, I think these are outdated views that need to be revised.
The owners can set whatever policies they see fit. It is, of course in their interest to set policies that do not alienate their userbase, and do not drive away advertisers. Given google's past success, it's reasonable to assume these sorts of considerations play into all their business decisions.
Specifically, on the issue of accepting ads for adult content, this is reasonable in the specific case of a search engine and especially in the case of google's AdWords mechanism, because the users who will see the ads for adult content, will only be those who are specifically searching for adult content. Google has been quite successful with their targeted advertising program, which makes it all the more valuable to it's niche advertisers such as adult content providers. So long as the ads are effectively targeted to users who are currently viewing search results containing sited having such content, ads for similar content shouldn't be an issue.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Do I really care? As a private company, it is their choice. It's free to me, so no skin off of my back.
I predict that going public would be the demise of Google as the top search engine anyway, what does it really matter to geeks?
The fact that the default SafeSearch setting prevents these ads from showing up seems reasonable.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Over use of tobacco and alcoholic products kill people. General pornography of the mainstream such as playboy does not. However, taken to extreme, organizations as NAMBLA is something of another stinch. While funny portrayed by pieces of paper and whacky voiceovers on Southpark, the organization raises several moral issues regarding its primary goals:
NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationship...
You can search for it on Google and surely enough, it's right there on the top. So what does this say about Sergey Brin? Things that make you go hmmm....
I don't care what Google will or will not advertise; it's Google's site, it's Google's decision.
(Myself, I wouldn't advertise sugary children's cereals, although I enjoy Sugar-Bombs, booze, smokes, and tasteful images of goats getting it on.)
I would care if Google were censoring or slanting search results.
(Yes, I'm aware they've removed certain links after being compelled by law suit; as i understand, Google's results also make it clear when that's happened.)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Sorry, but that's not very well thought out. There is nothing childish about sticking to your morals. Anyone who compromises their morals and ethics for profic is someone I don't trust. If the CEO is a racist, I'd like to know it. I decide where I spend my money, and given the choice of pockets, I'd give it to the guy whose morals I agree with. Oh, and what the hell are you basing your 'Brin can/will become a racist' point on? What's the difference, anyway? If he becomes a racist, then change. You can't go around not trusting people because of what they can or might do. Cynicism is fine, but not when you make it so extreme.
You say you can't trust someone for being honest? That's preposterous. Would you do business with a lying money whore?
I have long said that there is nothing worse than a lie, and I stand by it. If you're a racist, I'd rather know it than have you keep it secret. If you want me dead, let me know, then at least I can defend myself.
"Poorly though-out" is the definition of your comments. I choose to do business with people who are honest and stick to their guns. I may not agree with Howard Stern, et al., but at least they say what they think, and don't change to make more money.
The biggest issue I have with your post is actually one that most people overlook. You list "without religion" in your list of 'evil' traits. It's no secret that religion has nothing to do with morality. Atheists are no more 'evil' than priests, rabbis, or any other religious folk. Your statement is a prejudiced one, and one that I don't agree with. But again, I'm happier having heard it, because it lets me get a clearer picture of you and your mind. I can easily tell, by that statement alone, that you aren't my kind of person. I'm honest, I'm atheist, and I'm moralistic (The Pierce Code). Deal with it. Religion isn't all it's cracked up to be, and your point isn't either.
GL
There is this (Milton Friedman I believe) argument that public companies must only do the most profitable thing for their investors.
More and more as companies grow from small to large, they must sacrifice the moral visions of their founders and early years to always take on the next most profitable venture.
Paraphrased, "It is better for investors to give their money to the charity of their choice than for a company to do that for them."
Screw long term environmental projects and the better return and new (and better?) opportunities for the company. Go for the short term payoff. Screw long term employee productivity and how that can add to the bottom line. Go for hard working, miserable, short term employees. Go for CEO to avg wage ratios of over 400.
When Sergey Brin says no to meta-tags in 1999, that is controversial but visionary. When Sergey Brin says no to cigarette ads, that is controversial and offensive to the free market.
And we wonder how the CEO/CFO/board became so disconnected and downright corrupt?
It's Milton Friedman and this chain of logic, that begins by saying that public companies should have no morals other than make the most money in the quickest time.
Scr*w you Milt and your Nob Hill apartment.
Thank you Sergey Brin, and even, thank you Bill Gates (tenuous reach?): for creating companies that have definite personalities, and definite moral stances (though you and I may not agree with all of them.)
I can tell you that thousands of people at least find my site daily! And let me tell ya', if you can get your porn site in good with Google, well, let's just say that money won't ever be a problem again.
1. People who created, run and privately own Google think guns are bad.
Cool, everyone has an opinion.
2. Google won't advertise guns.
Ok, fine.
3. Outdoor shops who do a little gun-related bid'ness are enticed to get rid of it.
Really? Just because Google wont carry their ads? How is that?
Time-Warner won't carry ads for porn sites but I belive those business are doing quite well and do not feel enticed to eliminate porn from thier business. They just find other ways to advertise that do not involve that company. Time-Warner's doesn't get their revenue but the do get to stick to their policy.
4. There is one less place to buy parts for things used to kill other people.
Several problems with that theory. First is the assumption that if a company doesn't advertise on Google they can't do business. Advertising on Google is not such an important thing that it will determine if a gun parts business remains profitable.
Another problem with your theory is the fact that most guns are not used to kill people.
Assuming your theory were correct it would also mean that there were fewer parts available for guns to defend people.
Cars kill more people everyday than do guns. Google still advertises companies who sell car parts.
Please rethink your theory.
5. Google still makes profit, society gets a little more like creators, maintainers and private owners of Google want it to be.
Google still makes profit, that's a good thing. Standing up for what they believe in is a good thing. They set an example and that is a good thing.
But I think you overestimate their impact on society. Google is important, and they do have an impact. But if Google went away, or people use another service, it doesn't harm society. Despite what they may tell you they just aren't that important.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
You can buy a rackmount machine with the google software on it from google.
:)
They market these to companys for search engines just for their site, but obviously you could configure it however you please.
http://www.google.com/appliance/index.html
(Or click Search Solutions link on their main page)
Granted this isnt just the software, but it proves there is no need to rely on googles configuration or hardware if you dont want to.
Something to look into atleast
You know, as a liberal, I find the idea that I'm supposedly so weak-willed that I can't look at Bad Things without being "changed" against my will really offensive, or that anyone should have the right to change what I have access to under the pretense of acting in my interests.
Guess what? I have a mind of my own, just as the women who decide to do pornography do. Some of them do it because of their financial or social circumstances, some do it by choice. Neither the producers nor the consumers of pornographic material are doing something inherently wrong in interacting with the porno industry. There may be instances of wrongdoing, but they do not mean that every piece of porno is somehow terrible.
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience
He regards optimizers the way a mother grizzly might regard a hunter jabbing at her cub with a stick.
He sounds like he means it!
My site: Free Nature Pictures
... that porn is not addictive? (that's what we call a rhetorical question. it's nature of not requiring an answer, handily, shall save my humor from replies by non-addicted pr0n-viewers) I say it's right up there with nicotine and alcohol, for an alcoholic.
And what about the false representation of lifestyle? Just like cig. ads would like you to think it's all good when your life is a smoking life, pr0n doesn't show it's viewers the gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia and herpes infections (or at least I've managed to stay away from the fetish work that does) one would be likely to get if they actually went around f&sck'ing like the monthly std-checked pr0n stars do.
Seems like Google's going down the slippery, KY-lubricated slope of morality.
Why can I now read the stories posted on /. weeks earlier in paper form? Isn't the point of digital news, that is should be faster than print? I read this story early last week in my magazine subscription, delivered by snail mail.
Well...atleast I will be able to read it again next week when it is duped.
Sigh,
Scott
I don't quite understand why people are upset over how google acted in the cases of scientology and China. I must admit I like that the link goes to a page which arguably not only provides the site, but wakes up people to how slimey those people are. That's an elegant solution. As for China, they altered their hardware, not googles. Google didn't do anything. It is not google's job to fight China on internet freedom. That is not their purpose. China has to resolve that issue itself - not wanting links visible is just a symptom of the larger problem.
People, companies are not set up to fight ideological wars, no matter how justified. They are supposed to produce good products and market them fairly. They should adhere to standards about what type of characters they deal with and how their workers are treated to avoid being guilty of crimes themselves, but it is not their job to reform foreign governments or support political revolutions. They control their conduct, not others conduct. If China wants to block google that is China's business. If people don't want China to do that then raise the issue directly and fight, but don't try to use google as a way to sneak things in under the radar. They aren't a weapon in this battle, they are just a company doing their job, and it is not in their interest to invite conflict over ideological issues. So far the result has been quite impressive technically, and while I believe they should have made Europe do the filtering on their servers it's understandable that they don't want to antagonize their customers. Don't make google out to be something it's not. If you want to fight oppression than form or join a group for that purpose - that's not what business is for. They should not support the practice, but it is not their job to be activists.
Most of the posts I have read so far seem to believe that porn is not evil, basically because it does not harm or kill.
I think that view is based on taking into consideration only the "viewer" side of porn.
I tend to think that porn is evil/wrong/harmful basically if looked at from the point of view of people who are forced (sometimes with brute physical force, but often with force and power of money) in "performing" it.
How many of us would like a couple of dildos/dicks stuffed into all of our holes, and cum showering our faces? On top of that these so-called actors are supposed show that they like and enjoy it.
The degradation meted out not only on children but also adults in pornography (which is different from eroticism) is worse than being killed, because it kills one again and again for the rest of ones life.
That some people enjoy seeing all that and are not killed watching pornography is perhaps a less relevant point.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Advertising always shows the positive sides of the product not the negative. How many car ads show graphic automobile accidents? How many show people changing tires in the rain?
Well, alcohol and tobacco advertising is illegal now in most democracies, including most of the EU, Internet biggest market, so I guess they are all right: they agree with the mayority of a 300+ million union, good enought for a One Person World View.
After reading the article, I must said that I think Brin is all right. Lets hope he have the streng to resist commercialization's dark side. They have showed signs of weakness recently, anly partially corrected now.
Muslims? I guess strapping a bomb onto your body isn't difiling it... rather, detonating said bomb isn't? Yea, I know, very small % do the bomb thing, but... *shrug* those people are the most devout.
It is pretty hard fact that cigarettes and booze are evil as far as health is concerned. However, porn is evil only as much as ideology / morality flags it as evil.
First off, most of the posts here on Slashdot seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter whether any of the above are evil under your idealogy. What does matter about Google is that despite the extra revenue it might provide, they've chosen to incorporate their moral beliefs into a business they've created. They have some beliefs that are higher than the mighty dollar. The submittor almost seems to question this, and insinuates a public businesses doesn't have this luxury, and the sum of its morality is return to shareholders. Frankly, that meme more evil than porn, alcohol, and cigarrettes combined. Once your values are completely based on financial return, the commission of some kind of crime (legal and/or moral) is pretty much inevitable, because there's just so many good ways to make money by screwing others over.
I personally think that porn can distort reality and hurt people and it's a substitute for things that could legitimately fill human needs/desires. I side with Bill Cosby's statement that it's more than a little word -- when you feel hungry, do you go and look at pictures of steak? Videos of people eating pizza? Carefully teasing you with glimpses of halibut, people making satisfied noises while in the throes of a sublime burritto? But my judgement of porn or substance abuse is not really the point of this whole discussion. If you built a business, and believed that porn was an evil, I'd hope that you'd incorporate that belief into the operation of the organization you create -- same goes with guns, marijuana, tobacco, bibles, scientology, Nietsche, Quake, Nethack, whatever. The guys running google have moral beliefs, and they're willing to stand for them despite financial incentives to the contrary. How can that be anything but good?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
There was recently an ad for a job with google
on the East Coast for a software engineer to
interact with a big "corporate" customer.
One of the requirements was high security
clearance. You can guess who the customer was and
make your own judgement.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Private companies are the only ones allowed to have their own moralities today.
All others have the morality of the marketplace. The fact that the ownership of public companies is traded around so frequently shouldn't make this shocking. Large institutions such as mutal funds, pention funds and banks own the majority of all public companies. Any company is one out of a portfolio of maybe hundreds of others and is dropped at the first hint of trouble. They're chits, peices of paper and the purpose is to build a strong portfolio. The only question anyone would be asking is "What's Yahoo doing?" or "What is MSN doing?" Protecting themselves from liability is the closet thing to morality in most times. They are quite willing to accept the law as their moral code. Why you decided to make money for your clients and stay in buisiness is a lot easier to explain to the boss than the ethical problems of buying a profitable company that advertises legal products. Google's owners might be better off keeping it private. However, since the company isn't hugely profitable (except for an internet company), they might be giving up the only real change to grow it. You exchange a share of your personal morality along with everything else when you sell the company. They could sell stock with limited voting rights though. Would people buy it? Probably for far less. The assesment is usually that the best thing to do take the mavericks who started the company out of a lot of decisions that 'professional' management could do better.
Slashdot them with feedback! I did.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
We need a google icon. This is like the third google-related story in a week.
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
Religion is not a powerful tool, it is merely a crutch for the weak minded.
*sigh*
I know I am going to get killed for saying this... but here we go...
Who decides what is effectively the moral authority. In my personal opinion the only reason the bible exists and other "moral authorities" exist is because people don't want to take it upon themselves to make the hard decisions as to what is right and what is wrong. If a person can blame his decisions on a book, person, church, etc. that's even better, because he never has to take it upon himself to accept when what he did is actually wrong.
Well, here's the reality check people... Let's remove everything that you need to have "faith" in to believe, and reduce it to what the real world is. There is no more afterlife, there is no more God, nothing, let's say all of that is wrong (not saying I believe that.) What do we have... well, we have the world as you experience it right now. Your decisions are judged almost solely by you, if you feel bad after doing something, that is because you feel it is wrong, not because some book tells you so. If you don't feel bad, then you don't feel it's wrong... Wow, simple, eh?
Now, how's this for a reality check. You do something, then you evaluate the "morality" of it, based on what you feel is right or wrong. Now, if you feel guilty, than to you it is morally wrong (even though to someone else it may not be.)
Okay, so now we have a theory of morals that works with an individual, lets work with a group.
Now, let's say for example that a person feels killing is not morally wrong, yet overall the group disagrees. What happens, well the group will in someway punish the person who is harming the good of the group. Thus, the person will feel wrong about what he did because he knows he'll be punished. (this is for those people who need rewards and punishments to do things.)
So, what do we create. We create a "Moral Structure" in which the person need not be immediately punished to fear doing something that overall the group considers wrong... What is this... this sounds like religion... hey.. That's odd..
Something to ponder. (and by no means is this a complete thesis of my ideas... I'll probably write about it in my journal sometime.)
~ kjrose