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.
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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.