Slashdot Mirror
Don't Be Evil — Hire It Done
MarkusQ writes, "The NY Times among others is reporting that Google is ramping up its lobbying clout (registration or bugmenot required). The 'Don't be evil' search engine company has hired the infamous astroturfing and dirty tricks firm Direct Connect, Inc. You may remember DCI from their recent attempts to pass off their 'Penguin Army' video as a product of some lone wit, unconnected with their client, Exxon. Or their involvement in Microsoft's 'even dead voters love Microsoft' campaign. With a staff of veterans in the biz (such as Chris 'Swiftboat' LaCivita and Jim 'Electioneering' Tobin), led by Tom 'Big Tobacco on the Dole' Synhorst, I'm sure DCI will be able to give Google whatever they're paying them for. The question is, what are they paying them for? And does 'Don't be evil' imply 'Don't pay professionals to be evil for you?' Or could there possibly be a non-evil reason to hire these clowns?"
Perhaps Google is just trying to balance out their lobbying efforts?
When you start handing out money to both sides of the aisle, you can get better results.
IIRC, Google was mostly throwing money at Democratic party people.
P.S. here's the No-Reg Required RSS Link
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Corporations do shitty things to increase their profit margins! Shocking, I know! Come on, do people honestly believe that Google is some sort of sintly organization? Their goal - no, their legal responsibility - is to maximize the profit of their shareholders. Same as any other company. Get over them already.
Just because you hire a firm known to have pulled dirty tricks for dirty companies like Exxon and Microsoft doesn't mean that they'll necessarily pull dirty stuff on behalf of all their clients.
If pulling crap would make their client angry, they won't do it. Not to mention, that irrespective of "dirty tactics" the firm might be simply the best at getting the job done.
Don't imply that Google is or will be doing anything wrong with this company until some negative action is taken. This company will do what it takes to make their client happy. If "Do No Evil" is what makes Google happy, then they will do their job within the confines of that model.
Let's just wait and see.
Sugapablo
I just love how innovative companies like Google are forced to spend all this money on lobbyists just so Congress doesn't screw them over. Why isn't it all spent on making a better product? Because some people gave the government so much power beyond its strict Constitutional limits, which given enough time would mean lobbyists would be fighting over all that juicy government money and to shackle their competitors. "It's okay though, we can give the government all this power, we just have to, you know, limit the lobbyists!" YOU CAN'T. With that much money at stake, they will steamroll over whatever petty contributions limits and ethics rules you set up.
Companies can compete on the market, or in lobbying ability. Thanks, voters, for making the latter so ripe.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
And does 'Don't be evil' imply 'Don't pay professionals to be evil for you?'
Actually, some would even say that it implies that you "Don't fatten the coffers of companies that do do evil". Even if you aren't planning on using them for evil purposes. It's not like they are the only game in town and Google should have more than enough clout to pick someone who was, at the very least, less "evil".
But that just goes to show what I've said all along, Google is all about marketing and making money. "Don't do evil" was perhaps one of the best conceived marketing slogans ever for a tech company. They know their market very well. Some, like me, would consider their ad spreading technologically incremental search "core" evil in and of itself. How much better is my web using experience due to Google, well, other than Groups (which they purchased) and Map, not much.
Just wait, the "real" Google will slowly show their hand and then everyone will understand.
Machine Politics is about graft. You vote for me, I'll give you a job. You don't vote for me, I'll make sure we pass a law to put you out of business.
Google probably started talking to some politicians about Net Neutrality(or something else that effects their business) and the politician said "Huh? I can't hear you. Maybe you ought to drop my buddies at DCI some ka-ching to help fix my hearing problem."
See: K-Street Project
Washington DC has vastly increased in size in the past six years, and it's all been lobbyists, shills and political hacks. Lot's of people profiting at the tax payers expense.
If Google didn't hire them, then there's every possibility that a competing interest would hire them instead. There's a lot of legislation bouncing around that affects Google directly and its users indirectly by weakening privacy laws. When the lynch mob is headed into town, you better hire gunslingers, not the local minister.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
You would have to be a fool to try to take "high road" tactics with the US administration and congress. That's not a anti-republican jab, that's true no matter whose asses are in those seats. The game isn't played nicely there.
If we have to play dirty to protect net neutrality and the last semblances of online privacy - then we should get the dirtiest fuckers out there.
Sometimes the ends justify the means.
Let's look at this question from a philosophy angle. Let's say Google is bent on doing good, or at the very least, committed to avoiding evil. If they then employ or otherwise use the services of someone, like a lobbying organization, with a history of doing evil, is Google doing evil?
There are two possibilities here. One is that the lobbying organization with a track record of evil does no evil while being payed by Google. The other is that the lobbying organization continues its standard practice of evil behavior while on the clock for Google.
In the first case, one could perhaps argue that paying someone who used to do evil that no longer does evil is giving them a new start, a chance to make things right. However if the lobbying organization doesn't do evil on behalf of Google, but still does evil on behalf of other clients, then one could argue that Google is supporting the evil-doer financially, even if it isn't contributing to evil directly.
Let's examine the second case. If the organization actually does commit evil directly while on the clock for Google, and Google is aware of it, then one would have a difficult time arguing that Google is not at least guilty of contributory evil.
Of course, none of this says what good or evil actually are. I'll leave that as an excercise for the reader.
Given the lobbying firepower being deployed by the anti-net-neutrality side, if Google, usually portrayed as pro-neutrality, is serious about a pro-neutrality stance as something more than a quixotic PR stand, it needs the capacity to go toe-to-toe with the cable and telephone industries.
And that means you need people that are familiar with the broadest possible spectrum of lobbying tactics, capable of advising on how to counter them, and capable of deploying whatever tactics Google is willing to go with in response.
Anything less is bringing a knife to a gun fight.
The submission seems to say "Google may do something evil in the future, let's start the backlash now so it's over with".
Wake me up when there's something real.
This is an interesting take on the issue. In submitting the story, I intentionally focused on the part I object to (DCI's long history of unethical conduct) and did not mention either party by name. But, as you point out, there seems to be a sad assumption underlying this story (and reflected in many of the news reports about it) -- that the only way to gain influence with the Republicans at present is through corruption.
Think about it...Google hires a corrupt astroturfing firm, and your immediate response is that they are trying to balance out their lobbying efforts--that the way to balance out giving to Democrats is to give to Slimeballs too. I'm not saying that you originated this take on it; it seems to be pretty much universal.
--MarkusQ
This isn't about campaign contributions to parties, this is about hiring a company of professional astroturfers and generally dirty-tricks experts. You know, people who _are_ the evil kind that Google supposedly distanced itself from.
You can't balance _that_ like that, or not so easily. This isn't D&D. You can't say, basically, "oh, I've done 3 good deeds this month, for 4 'good' alignment points total, so I'm entitled to gut two orphans for 2 'evil' points each." RL doesn't work that way. Al Capone's kitchen soups, very good deeds as they may be, don't simply balance out that he was an evil psychopath the rest of the time.
But more importantly, Google's motto doesn't work that way. It says "do no evil", _not_ "keep the balance by doing as much evil as good stuff". So exactly how and what are they, in your opinion, balancing there? Surely not their motto and promise.
I don't care if it's for Google itself or for some political party or whatever. Evil is evil. Evil done to "balance" something else is still evil by any definition. And hiring evil people to do evil for you, is still doing evil.
We have a long history of laws and precedents, in both criminal and military justice, saying just that: you're personally responsible for the people you paid or commanded. We've had plenty of Mafia Dons trying to claim basically, "see, I never hurt a fly. It was my subordinates that shot people and threw people in lakes with cement shoes. But me? I never personally even slapped anyone." And society eventually decided that, no, it doesn't work your way. If _your_ goons did evil stuff, _you_ are responsible for that.
Or we had military commanders willing to claim basically, "nah, I never shot a civillian. It was my soldiers that shot and raped civillians. I was just standing there and watching them." And again, society decided that it doesn't work that way. If they're your subordinates, you're responsible for them. It's your duty to stop them if they do something evil.
So, ok, astroturfing isn't subject to criminal laws or anything, but from a moral standpoint it's the same thing: if Google pays to get action X done, Google is morally responsible for it. You can't claim the moral high ground by just paying others to do your evil stuff.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I am glad to actually get a comment before the masses of Slashdot jump on their new favorite villain Google.
But let's be honest. The "Don't be Evil" motto was made when Google was a startup of 50 or less people. Everything is based off an ideal in a startup because you want to change the world. In order to do that you need passionate and idealistic people. It was the same in the two startups I have worked for as well and it will be the same in my current startup. Nobody changes the world without some ideals. Nobody wants to work like crazy without a sense that you are going to be doing something profound, something worthy. Everybody wants to be a knight in shining armor. Maybe that is a bad side effect from the amount of RPG's good software developers play.
The unfortunate part of it is when you become a big corporation you are pulled in a lot of directions and sometimes the ideals you were founded on take a back-seat. This becomes especially true when you are publicly traded and have wall street to deal with. The fact is Google is now headed by more than just the two founders as a matter of fact I think they are probably just content to sit back and do what they do best develop new technologies. The actual Google is run by a bunch of savvy businessman who are there to leverage every single aspect of the company and a large part of that is lobbying.
Software patents - check
Using their user's information for competitive advantage - check
Being secretive about changes to their product - check
Being one of the most secretive but somehow comes across open and sharing company - check
I think it's time to take the "Don't be Evil" slogan for what it is, just clever marketing. There is simply nothing most of us can do. I am tied into Google probaby more than others and I don't care because if it wasn't them it would be somebody else who is analyzing my data, hosting my emails, storing my chat's, selling me viagra (oh wait not that last part).
Software Defined RFID - The Rifidi Emulator
DCI is a full spectrum political consulting, PR, and telemarketing firm; while some of the work it has done certainly has been "astroturfing", a lot of it seems to be routine political consulting and marketing.
DCI is not an "astroturfing" company, but like most political consulting firms, most of their work doesn't make headlines. Its only when they are caught doing something controversial, like astroturfing, that anyone notices them.
It's hard not to be evil when you have shareholders (and a private party plane)
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1152227885"Direct threats require decisive action. " Dick Cheney
The 'The have to maximize profits' line is because in theory they have to obey the will of their share holders, also known as owners. To do otherwise is a breach of their fuduciary (sp?) responsabilities. It is assumed that the reason for purchasing the stock was for profit, and thus the need to maximize profits. Of course if at the time of the sale of those stocks, the company was being very loud about their 'do no evil' policy, it is reasonable to assume that the share holders (owners of the company) purchased their stock with the express purpose of providing a service to humanity while doing no evil. To go directly against the will of the stock holders is what is cause for lawsuit, not the lack of maximizing profits. In fact there is likely a case to be made that if Google chooses to 'do evil', they have breached their fuduciary reponsibility and thus are liable for 'damages'.
Of course if we get to the point that the real reason for liability is forgotten and we, through precidence, decide that corporations must make profit at any cost, we will have then set up a situation where by definition, corporations are evil. That would be disasterous for our economy as moral people would only do business with sole proprietorships, and sole proprietorships have far less potential for growth. Not to mention that they also would require the concentration of wealth.
I'll have you know that I spend close to an hour writing the story submission, and pointedly looked for the most non-partisan links I could find. I specifically focused on their corporate activities (with the exception of the Tobin, who I included because of the criminal activity involved).
For the record, I am a Republican, and have been all my life. But I've been an American for even longer, so don't assume that that means I will blindly ignore this sort of thing either just because "Republicans" are doing it. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what color jersey you wear if you are acting to subvert our democracy.
For me, the issue here is simple: these people are good at only one thing, trying to manipulate our elected officials into thinking that they are doing our will when in fact they are not. I assume that their party affiliation is as flexible as their ethics, and don't put any more trust in it than it deserves.
--MarkusQ
No. The ends do not justify the means. I happen to run linux on all my machines at the present (*sigh* my BSD box finally went the way netcraft always said it would), but none of my grandparents (all of whom are dead) ever did. If I found out that they were busy writing posthumous letters to our Senator, extolling the Tao of GNU, I'd be just as upset as if it was pro-Microsoft BS.
The people can and should speak for themselves. Letting paid shills shape our public policy is a recipe for disaster, even if we happen to agree with them on the issue of the moment.
--MarkusQ
You can't possibly be a Republican.
The Republican party does not value someone like you. Virtually everytime a Candidate appears to be someone like you, the GOP pushes them to the side and or dumps them entirely from the party. Moral and ethical behavior is not a core value in the leadership of today's Republican Party. You can thank Tom "The Hammer" Delay and many similar 'leaders' in the GOP for that course change.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Er, wait, DCI have gone from making dumb home movies to fraud?? Can you actually prove the company has been involved in money laundering, fraud and electioneering? Because if you can it seems to me you should be doing something about it rather than posting it to Slashdot ...
It wasn't always that way. I keep hoping that someday it will change back. Of course, the first step is for those of us who still remember what values look like (not the word "values" printed on a campaign button, but actual values) to become a million little hammers, pushing back on the slime buckets that hijacked our party, making it increasingly uncomfortable for them to stay. There are certainly enough of us, though you wouldn't know it from the antics of our party's leaders and their morally bankrupt cheerleading squads. (Who knows, maybe they'll get sick of us and go join the Green Party.)
--MarkusQ
I consider politics, like religion, to be the playground of the small-minded
When large-minded people ignore politics, politics - which affects life on many, many levels, from labor laws to healthcare to the quality of food we eat and what entertainment is open to us - is of necessity run by the small-minded. Open your mind just a little further and get out on the playground!
That's just silly. That Google has hired them doesn't preclude a competing interest from hiring them anyway.
What? You think astroturfing scum are above talking money from both sides?
For the record, I am a Republican, and have been all my life. But I've been an American for even longer, so don't assume that that means I will blindly ignore this sort of thing either just because "Republicans" are doing it. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what color jersey you wear if you are acting to subvert our democracy.
If you're still a Republican at this point, then *you* by your support of these scum *are* acting to subvert our Democracy. Unless you're over 40, then given that you've been a Republican "all your life", you have always stood for exactly this sort of subversion of our Democracy.
Wake up and take some responsibility for your actions.
All that torture and murder based on lies and fear mongering? That's *your* fault.
Be a man, step up and have an ounce of personal responsibility.
Oh right, you're a Republican personal responsibility is like kryptonite to you.
What a crock....
Lets try and make black look white to fit our pathetic gullible little universe.
The whole do no evil thing is a load of horse shit, google is a corporation run by directors who have been selling off their stock as fast as they can. This is never a good sign of about the intentions of the directors.
If Microsoft was doing everything Google has done and is currently doing everyone would be crying out for the US justice department to do something about them. They control the popularity of sites, they collect data on your searches, the emails you send, the desktop search facility sends back information to google on the contents of your hard disk.
Personally I trust Microsoft more than I trust Google. Microsoft knows they can't get away with anything on the desktop, if they tried anything dishonest, tried to invade the privacy of their users they know they would be caught straight away by all and sundry. You simply can't hide packets across the internet. Google... they want everyone's data on their servers under their control, where they can pretty much do what ever they want to do with it.
It's quite remarkable just how gullible the slashdot crowd can be.
They're both corrupt. Both parties look out for their own interest above the common interest. Just because you agree more with a certain ideology does not mean that you should believe that the political party claiming to also hold that ideology has any moral advantage over the other. To believe that is stupid and blind. Agree more with one party, fine, but don't fool yourself into believing that they are any less corrupt than the other.
Slashdot: You will never find a more wretched hive of spam and zealotry. We must be cautious.
Second, Being a republican does nothing to subvert democracy. Simple association with an organization doesn't mean you are automaticly supporting the finge or worst things someone in that organization has done.
Given that the criminal immoral actions are coming from the top, describing them as "fringe" is totally dishonest and/or insane.
Further, it's not "simple association" I'm talking about. Republican voters chose to put those people in power. Their support is all that is keeping them out of prison or away from execution for their crimes.
That's not "simple association", it's active collusion, it's cowardice, and it's treason.
Seeing that you are a liberal, probably vote democrate, I can see your frustration, Your party has lost some big races in the past few years
Typical of the inherently deeply dishonest approach spearheaded by your ilk.
"Durrrrrrrrr... if you disagree with torturing and murdering innocent people you must be a Democrat".
I deeply dislike the Democrats as well. That doesn't change the fact that the current Republicans are treasonous murdering torturing scum. All it takes is integrity to notice that, not a Democratic voter card.
But I wouldn 't call you a pedifile because NAMBLA purports to be a democaratic supporter and tends to contribute to democrate campains. Or because thier news letters often have interviews with democratic legislators about pending laws that effect sexual offenders (mark leno is a recent one) and how they opose the evil republicans.
But if I actively worked to give massive power to pedophiles and then ignorantly defended their pedophilic actions against all sense and decency as well as paying them to rape children, then that's a different issue. In fact it's the same core issue we're discussing minus the particulars of the crimes, so try to keep on topic and leave the red herrings and straw men at home.
What torture and murder?
You're an idiot. Bush has even admitted to the torture camps. Your new talking point is "torture is good it keeps the evil terrorists at bay". Seriously, keep up. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
It definatly isn't my fault and I voted republican last election. I did so because the democrates and one green party official that ran were worse then the republicans I had to choose from.
Yes, it absolutely is your fault. You voted for a known criminal traitor thereby allowing his crimes to continue and accelerate. It's called personal responsibility. Look into it.
The idea that any of the candidated would have been worse than Bush could only be held by a fool at this point.
The simple fact that the president and the congress are from the same party proves that one absolutely regardless of the people involved.
Look at Bush's unbroken record of incompetence proves it as well.
Wake up Sparky.
How could any of the other candidates possibly have been worse?
Hell, you knew full well how bad Bush was after the first term, so even crazy ignorance isn't an excuse.
Picking the lessor of twp evils seems to be the norm in elections nowadays.
And you're a miserable failure at even that.
This reminds me of clinton's term in office.
Delusional frothing Republican hate campaigns? Sure, just because they're in power doesn't mean they'll give up that tactic.
It seems that Google has gotten more attention for doing rather minor things just because they have the motto "Don't be evil". Google really does a good job of not being evil. Look at it this way. Google's summer of code has tremendously helped both new programers and FOSS alike. They helped several linux projects (famously for doing so with Ubuntu) along. They ported Google earth to linux. They ported picasa and helped Wine out a lot. They support the open Jabber protocol. They help Gaim. They have several webified apps. They support Firefox and ported their toolbar to Linux. They have encouraged the use of nonobnoxious text ads. They clearly disclose privacy information. They even fought with the government over disclosing this information (for those of you who are obsesivly parinoid, I though I would mention that). They have been a famous example of the power of Linux in buisness. Even their deals with China aren't evil. What do you think China would have done if Google refused to compromise. Would they have been like "OMG we much change to suit Google" or could they possibly have just said, "Hell, screw Google, just block em"? At least they get some information throught Google and MSN and Yahoo sure as hell did it too. WHat "evil" have they done? They hired a questionable company? So what? Guess what they are probably doing with this lobbying firm? They are probably fighting for net neutrality with this firm.
The Gospel according to lolcat
Google turned into an evil company roughly three years ago. Now they're just evil and hypocritical, like most big companies. They still have a fairly good search engine, but the veneer has long since worn off.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban