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?"

Comments

can we just agree

[iocat]

that Google is really no longer a company that does no evil? Their business model is basically: "give us all your personal information and we'll store it on our servers. Nothing to worry about here! We're the company that does no evil ...unless the Chinese goverment asks us to."

The "it's all for the greater good" line sure wouldn't feel nice if you were the person who ended up tortured in some Chinese prison because Google gave up the contents of your gmail, or spreadsheet.

Anyway, I realize this post is coming off trolling, and I apologize, but I'm sick of the double standard vis-a-vis google vs. any other large company. Judging them by their actions, not their words, they are not significantly different these days than Microsoft (these days -- not necessarily MS's historical actions).

Not necessarily bad...

[electrosoccertux]

People at /. tend to mistake the prospect of being in power with being corrupted. The correlation% between the two is very high, but just because you have power or money does not mean you are evil.

I still think Google will be using their powers (or monies in congress) for good. It's ok to look to gain more power if it benefits others. Regardless of what the depressing "LOOK OUT!" books tell us, no one in history has managed to obtain that level of power, and keep it [if they had, we wouldn't be talking about this now]. I think Google may be the first company that sees not just the next several financial quarters, but the next several hundred. They're too smart to fall for the lock-your-customers-in-and-rape-them business method that is so popular now days. If you want to be a dictator, the people have to like you. If you want to remain dictator, people have to still like you and your policies. Regardless of what evil wants, it seems that it cannot have what it desires without some good. In this case, that good will be keeping us happy. I know this flies in the face of Huxley and BNW, but if we die happy, what gives?

But astroturfing is what they DO

[MarkusQ]

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.

This is a little disingenuous. Direct Connect is an astroturfing company; that's what their people are good at. They make things (like the Microsoft letters, or the Swiftboat ads, etc.) that are specifically designed to look like they are coming "from the people" when they in fact are not. While they have many ways of going about it, it seems to be the only service they provide.

If someone hires a high-priced specialist, it seems reasonable to assume that they want the specialist's services, doesn't it?

--MarkusQ

P.S. For the record, I like Google. A lot. I used it to dig up most the links in the story. But that doesn't mean that I blindly trust them and everyone who works for them, or want to possibly sit quietly by while some quislings pervert them from within. It is much easier to keep a basically honest company honest then to bring one back from the dark side once they've gone over.

Re:Surprise!

[truthsearch]

You're assuming the phrase "maximize profit" implies "any way possible." But that's not the case. They can choose what they consider an ethical route to maximizing profit and still avoid being sued by shareholders. AFAIK no company has ever been sued by shareholders for not lobbying the government.

What if Google isn't paying for lobbying?

[raehl]

What if Google is paying for not-lobbying?

Let's say you are trying to do good. But everytime you try to do good, some scumsucking lobbyists, who are very good at being scumsucking lobbyists, get in your way. How do you overcome that? Kill them? Can't do that, it's evil.

But, you could hire them and pay to send them on permanent vacation. Then the next time you try to do good, and Evil tries to hire scumsucking lobbyists, they can't, because they're in Tahiti. On Google-paid permanent vacation.

Got to be Net Neutrality

[mogrify]

Having seen some of those commercials sponsored by the telecoms denouncing Net Neutrality, I'd say they're planning a counterattack. Who better to help Google respond to intelligence-insulting, logic-reversing mumbo-jumbo astroturf scare tactics than the people who perpetrate such filth?

I still can't believe how they're trying to spin an evil attempt by massive corporations to charge consumers more money for the same level of service... as an attempt to save consumers from an evil attempt by massive corporations to charge consumers more money for the same level of service. It makes me want to take a shower just thinking about it.

The question is, if they use their power for good, is it still evil? I think we'll just have to see what they do....