Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Doctorow: Rivalry Keeps Google From Doing Evil

Posted by samzenpus on from the what's-my-motivation? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Writer and activist Cory Doctorow says competition keeps Google behaving ethically because it believes there are benefits to be had. However, as it moves into sectors where it faces fewer rivals this may not always be the case. 'It actually seems to be a quality metric. They believe they can attract customers, independent software vendors, resellers and an ecosystem around them by not being evil,' he says. 'Where they operate in narrower, less competitive markets — like where they’ve become an Internet service provider, for example — they abandon those commitments.'"

11 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Monopoly by PlasmaEye · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, they are acting like any other company when faced with the same market situation?

    1. Re:Monopoly by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Informative

      With reading TFA, I'm assume their fiber business is being referred to and their blocking 'Servers', which most other ISPs do. If that's the objection, it seems that that rule is only so a subscriber with an unlimited bandwidth plan does not run their own ISP on their connection. It seems quite fair, although there are probably a few other ways to enforce that than the more general ban, which I understand they do not enforce (also like most other ISPs).

      I've rarely seen Google approach evil other than some of the push with Google Plus, which I think is at least bordering on it, like embedding 'join Google Plus' function in a YouTube 'play' button.

    2. Re:Monopoly by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, they are acting like any other company when faced with the same market situation?

      While that is true, what's different is those other companies generally get reamed when they pull a switch like that - Google, on the other hand, gets a free pass from lots of people.

      We see it happen here on Slashdot all the time.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Google... gets a free pass from lots of people.

      Google, the Obama of the internet.

      Microsoft is the 'Bush'. They get blamed for everything that goes wrong

      Apple is a mix of Gore, Nader, and Perot on camera... Behind the scenes they are Kissinger and Rumsfeld.

    4. Re:Monopoly by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which frankly blows my damned mind, its like "do no evil" is some sort of RDF instead of just another slogan like "think different" and "where do you want to go today?".

      I mean from the nasty stuff we are learning from Snowden to the locking down the backend (where is the public API for Google+? Last I checked it didn't exist) to their using spammer techniques with Chrome like tying it to unrelated third party software which I would say is not only evil (because Joe and Jane don't know how to reset the default browser) but seriously douchey time and time again we have seen Google act just as nasty as MSFT and Apple yet...crickets. Hell it doesn't matter what they do, even ripping off the old "Requires IE" bit not only will people refuse to see this as nasty you will often see them charge to DEFEND whatever douchey thing Google does! When I pointed out on one forum that Google was using the old toolbar spammer trick of tying Chrome to programs like CCleaner and Defraggler I even had one defender say "Well I downloaded Chrome and didn't get CCleaner" because he was so fucking desperate to defend an obviously scumbag behavior he was grasping at any straws he could find!

      I don't know, maybe I'm weird but I don't believe in "flying the flag" of ANY company, especially not the megacorps. If they make a good product like Win 7 or Android 2.x? I'll be happy to give credit where credit is due. If on the other hand they put out a product I think is crap, like Win 8 or those proprietary as hell and NSA wet dream ChromeBooks? I'll be the first to start passing out the rotten tomatoes. I honestly do not understand this whole "corporations as ballclubs" mentality, first I thought maybe it was a form of buyer's remorse, you have invested all this money into something you really don't have a use for so you defend and try to justify it like the gal I saw struggling to use an iPad for a grocery list, but then you have the free products like Chrome and Google Search that are just as militantly defended...I don't know, maybe I'm one of the last sane guys in the nuthouse but jumping through flaming hoops to defend some supermegacorp that would happily shove them under a bus if it made the stock bounce 8% is just insanity to me.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:Monopoly by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Informative

      Every ISP I've ever used has had a "no servers" clause in their TOS. They also don't tend to enforce it, as I generally run SSH, etc. From what I can see, Google is no different other than having what looks like a well funded FUD campaign targeted at them. It's good to keep an eye on them, but I think they get a lot more abuse and a lot less praise than they deserve, compared to pretty much everybody else at least.

    6. Re:Monopoly by DuckDodgers · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is that they don't clearly define "server". If I use Bittorrent to download a Debian release, other downloaders are pulling the data from me. Will I be blocked? If I'm hosting a Minecraft server, will that be blocked? What about ownCloud, Tonido Plug, Gotomypc.com. Are they blocked? What if my home security system allows remote access, can I use that without violating my terms of service? What if I set up a simple S/FTP server for me and a few friends to access? I can understand an argument that I shouldn't run a node for newegg.com out of my basement, but I think Google should delineate more clearly between what kinds of home service are forbidden on a consumer plan - and if they really mean everything, it sucks.

      And in terms of Evil, Google complained that they couldn't query public posts on Facebook while Bing can, but can Bing or anyone else query public posts on Google Plus? Of course not. Are they opening Google Plus APIs to third party app developers so users can cross-read and cross-post content and comments from other networks? Of course not. I strongly suspect that Google circa 2005 would have done differently. But now that they've settled further into their position as an juggernaut, they've started to take pages from the Microsoft play book.

      I still trust Google more than I trust Microsoft. But the gap in credibility between the two companies is narrowing.

  2. Re:Google Do Do Evil by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's kind of it. Their business is in selling adwords and they do that by trawling as much data as they can about as many people as they can. All of their other businesses are either amusing side projects they haven't figured out what to do with yet, or they do evil in support of their main advertising business.

    Anything that can't either boost adsense revenue or make money directly is eventually going to get cut.

  3. Human flourishing is the ultimate "profit" by Drinian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Generally speaking, it's almost always more profitable in the long run to be ethical. As in most things, there are exceptions. Also, profitability has to be thought of in a broader way to accurately understand this issue. Human flourishing is the ultimate "profit" which includes wholeness in relationships which is always destroyed by being "evil".

  4. I remember this story by tuppe666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/07/30/2322253/google-argues-against-net-neutrality its a dupe. Its the same dumb points from anonymous cowards. Google want to charge businesses for attaching servers to the internet...and yet this has been twisted into a Net Neutrality argument, by changing the definition of Net Neutrality "discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality . I'm just shocked its not an Ars Technica...maybe they are still defending the iPhone launch.

  5. Re:Google Do Do Evil by tlambert · · Score: 4, Informative

    Right, Google's problems with evil are more on the ad side. They paid extortion to the tune of $500,000,000 as a penalty to the Department of Justice to keep Larry Page out of jail when Google offended the pharmaceutical industry cartel. That amount was sufficient to match the bribes paid by the pharmaceutical industry, and since it shut down most internet pharmacies being found via google, they didn't pursue the matter further.

    There, fixed that for ya.