Slashdot Mirror
Google As Alphabet Subsidiary Drops "Don't Be Evil"
CNet, The Verge, and many other outlets are reporting that with the official transition of Google (as overarching company) to Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet, Google's made another change that's caught a lot of people's attention: the company has swapped out their famous motto "Don't be evil" for one with a slightly different ring: "Do the right thing." Doing the right thing sounds like a nice thing to aspire to, but doesn't seem quite as exciting.
Which road was that again?
Program Intellivision!
That being evil is the right thing to do. You know, ends justify the means and all that jazz...
Considering what they've been up to with GoogleIdeas featuring online harassers to help them strategize how to deal with online harassers, this was an obvious next move.
I guess if you've dropped "don't be evil" and adopted "do the right thing," the answer is pretty clear.
"....for the stockholders' wallets."
I know I won't be holding my breath here!
“Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably and treating each other with respect ref.
While I appreciated the sentiment behind "don't be evil", I was surprised that a company had the word "evil" in its motto, regardless of the context.
I smell Altavista coming back on-line. I remember the day when the telephone company tried to kill me....
they've swapped out their famous motto "Don't be evil" for one with a slightly different ring: "Do the right thing."
(... for the company.)
It's been obvious for several years they haven't been using "don't be evil" as any sort of guiding principle anyway. Then and now, it's just a motto - useful for PR purposes but not much else.
#DeleteChrome
Do the right thing... for whom? Without a specifier it does not tell us anything. It is definitely not the same as "don't be evil", although we've figured out that Google has not followed that mantra for a while now (not at Apple levels yet!).
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
They missed out a bit.
"Do the right thing. ???? Profit!"
In the new NBC series "Heroes Reborn", the big bad corporation, Renautas, is in effect torturing an "evo" (a person with powers) to use her powers to enable a system that can locate all other evos on Earth, so that they can be rounded up. Their corporate motto? "Doing good is good business."
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
Even though Google is underneath Alphabet, its own, more specific code of conduct remains largely the same, and it retains the "don't be evil" motto. And since most of Alphabet's employees work at Google, that means "don't be evil" is still very much alive and well in Mountain View.
It is just Alphabet that is dropping it.
Both are based on subjectivity. What is evil to some is good to others, what is right to some is wrong to others, etc. Google's behavior to date vs the criticisms it has received is evidence of this.
"Do the right thing" according to whose standard of ethics and morals? If as an example, a society believes that the weak should die 'for the greater good', and that 'might makes right', and that 'stealing is OK so long as you don't get caught', then "Do the right thing" means something entirely different than it would in a society where the opposites are true. My point being: "Do the right thing" is extremely vague to the point of being meaningless -- unless you back those four words up with specifications of what it means to you .
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
This enables Google to do the right thing for itself, even if the right thing is evil. Well played, Google, as always.
... has swapped out their famous motto "Don't be evil" for one with a slightly different ring: "Do the right thing."
So now, in true Machiavellian true-believer fashion, they can comfortably be evil as long as they're being evil to do the Right(eous) Thing... whatever that is.
... for who?
Can anyone explain to me why Millennials are so gung-ho about "codes of conduct", and why they're so hypocritical about them?
To see what I'm talking about, read these comments about the creation of an open source code of conduct template.
It's unbelievable. A number of the participants in that discussion claim to be against discrimination, yet they're actively pushing for it to be deemed completely acceptable to discriminate against people who happened to have been born with white skin and a penis!
To many Millennials, a "code of conduct" isn't something to help keep social interaction civil. It's actually a weapon that they use against those whom they dislike.
Conveniently right? "Right" is more nebulous than "not evil".
Evil, outside of special pleading for a particular belief system, is usually framed in terms of actively choosing the harm of others (even if it is masked in deniability). There's some very important meaning in 'don't be evil' that I always liked. Even if some evil is deemed unavoidable by sheer weight of circumstances in life, the general policy should still be to avoid it if at all doable, by any philosophy I'd respect..
"Do the right thing", however, is utterly subjective. Genocide can be seen as the right thing, by a great many, many belief systems, as could complete elimination of all other belief systems. Complete stagnation lies down most 'pure' roads. Utter evil, the complete willingness to harm others at a whim, is constantly 'justified' in the name of most ideals taken in isolation.
I suppose that's a problem with business groups though - the more people involved, the more push to 'optimize' towards some ideal that gets so important, that 'evil' is no longer a limitation. All groups do evil, because there are people involved, but most businesses seem to become blind to their own evil as they grow, until they specialize in mostly doing that evil. Well, until those outside the group start reacting to their actions, then they seem to asymptotically bounce against, and push out the ethical line.
Fortunately, the end result isn't so horrible, by most standards, basically ever measurable aspect of culture has reliably improved over time, from freedom, to intelligence scales, to health and others - but it's just interesting how groups specialize and play such strange roles.
Ryan Fenton
"Google's more specific code of conduct remains largely the same, and it retains the "don't be evil" motto."
Is there something wrong with your brain Timmy?
Sure as heck not "Right" as in Conservative or Republican. Google is a big shareholder in the Obama White House.
TFA Says Goggle Retains "Don't Be Evil".
Just more Timothy being an idiot.
Until someone decides ... That being evil is the right thing to do. You know, ends justify the means and all that jazz...
(At the risk of precipitating a storm of posts misapplying Godwin's law...)
One of the big problems with tyrannical systems and the tyrants who end up running them is that they're attractive. The rhetoric sounds nice. The people setting then up and running them are sweet, reasonable-sounding, and persuasive (at least at first and/or to those they need to support them to obtain and keep power), and so on.
Then, after they've driven their "nice" ideas into their horrible, but inevitable, ramifications, and (if they) are eventually stopped, the historical record ends up showing you just their opponents' propaganda, painting them as obviously hateful. So people get the idea that bad uses of power LOOK repulsive. Then they don't recognize similar stuff when it develops in the future (or even the SAME stuff if it reappears - as one high-school history teacher showed by using Hitler Youth techniques on his class for a week, with just enough deltas to make their origin not recognizable until after the great reveal.
IMHO the change in motto from "Don't Be Evil" to "Do the Right Thing" is a (probably accidental, but nonetheless actual) giant leap down "The Road Paved with Good Intentions".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Maybe, just maybe, (sometimes, but only if the conditions warrant it), being evil is the right thing to do.
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
The Right Thing (tm) is to pass all your private information and communications to the government in a timely fashion.
"Four legs good, two legs better!"
Is it just me?
"Don't be evil" is like said "Don't commit crime".
It's stupid, obvious, and pointless to say. It should be obvious.
"Do the right thing" is much, much, much more difficult to do and something that happens much less often.
Not that it matters, it's a fucking company motto, which means nowhere near as much as they've spent on consultants to come up with that bollocks.
But in terms of semantics, this is an upgrade, if anything.
They did the right thing...and decided to be honest.
We have been doing evil for a long time now and it is time we come clean. We are a corporation and as such are legally obliged to make our shareholders money. Sometimes it comes as collecting data on you to sell better ads. Other times it is making spying software for the government using your tax dollar.
Really? Like charging them for a service that you won't fix the bugs in? (base)
Really? Like forcing everyone to remove their copyright info from images so you can use those images to benefit competitors who pay you more (base, again)
Really? Like never adding the most basic, 1990s-old commonly used features to GMail?
Really? Like classing websites according to your anti-sex moralistic bullshit and then locking those people out of earning a living?
It appears to me that not only do you (Google, Google employees) not apply "those words", you have no bloody idea what they mean.
You can go back to making your money-driven search results now. Cuz, hey, THAT is "serving your users" (up on a platter, that is.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
CNet, The Verge, and many other outlets are reporting that Alphabet, a new company, has a different corporate ethics logo than Google, which retains the existing "Don't be evil."
it doesn't really mean anything. that's my motto.
Without the "Don't Be Evil" mandate, Google can now do all sorts of wonderful things like collecting data on every mouseclick and page visit, correlate it with your credit card spending data, insurance records, search history, phone records, mortgage info, geo-tracking data, and use it to flood you with tailored ads. Oh, wait, they already do that.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
far from "slightly different", these are polar opposites.
this is mitosis. ...and as the hurricane said to the palm tree - guard your nuts, this is no ordinary blowjob
brendan o' carroll
'Don't be Evil' has been a sad joke since Schmidt joined - and yes, it was made 'official' only after he joined (the 2004 IPO letter).
As long as you've got a Bond villain running the thing it's just a cynical publicity ploy, typical Bay Area 'activism'.
The old motto "Don't be evil" has always bothered me because the phrasing encompasses two negative things. It is my understanding that the subconscious mind tends to ignore words like "don't", and only focus on the rest of any statement that includes it --which in this case would be a statement that is still a negative thing! So, the new motto "Do the right thing" is, in my view, a vast improvement over the old one. Sure, the subphrase "right thing" is open to interpretation, and we can be sure that sometime someone will choose a problematic interpretation, but for the most part it is quite a positive motto.
Do the right thing... for whom? Without a specifier it does not tell us anything. It is definitely not the same as "don't be evil", although we've figured out that Google has not followed that mantra for a while now (not at Apple levels yet!).
Do the right thing is more appealing as a marketing slogan because it caters to people who are stupider and more plentiful. It's useful for reaching them. It doesn't even admit to the possibility of evil, It's much more cliche, it probably tests better with focus groups, it's not quite as easy from a communications standpoint to be mocked with it, and it's even easier to make it mean whatever you want and trot it out to use as part of product launches--better, it's designed to do that *without* making someone think about whether something is evil. So suppose you have a business model built around collecting all the knowledge on the planet, monitoring communications, monitoring web sites, fundamentally monitoring behavior... and you want a nice, innocuous little logo.
They're a good company, but their business model is inherently at high risk for evil and abuse of power. So shifting away from the idea of evil is a good marketing decision.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
C. S. Lewis
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Stage 1 "Don't be evil"
Stage 2 "Do the right thing"
Stage 3 "Don't not do the wrong thing"
Stage 4 "Do evil things to wrong people"
Stage 5 "Do evil things to everyone"
The right thing for whom?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
given that the morality of nations and corporations is not always the same as individuals.
I know of the quote, but isn't it ironic coming from a monotheistic Believer that penned the Chronicles? The Christian God is the ultimate tyrant. Was this quote a momentary bursting of his bubble?
Google As Alphabet Subsidiary Drops "Don't Be Evil"
Why are we still continuing the tradition of writing headlines in weirdly mangled and abbreviated English with stupid capitalisation?
Google, as an Alphabet subsidiary, drops "Don't Be Evil"
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
They've shown the past few years that they care more about profit than people. The is, by definition, Republicanism.
One must be evil to do the right thing.
And their donations to Internet access and demands to their employees for us to give to fund Internet access rather than provide healthcare or food to children is the worst example of Republicanism. Bill Gates called them on this BS. Gates is doing great things, but Google is only trying to provide themselves with even more customers. They are truly Republican.
According to opensecrets.org, Google gave $102,100 to that GOPper group. So this site now attacks people for posting the truth?
It's generally evil to insult someone without cause. In this case it is not evil to insult someone. You are a moron.
Now we're really gonna get it.
Why was this truth marked as a troll. Why try to hide the truth. The truth is that Google gave money to the Republicans.
The beauty of "do the right thing" is that you no longer have to be seen to be claiming the moral high ground. I wonder who they will be doing the right thing to or for. On the bright side, Goog's mission statement of doing the right thing will now be more accurate - literally and figuratively: if you are a shareholder.
The moderators may be able to censor you, but the people know the truth about Google. Know the truth.
Well, I guess I'm going to stop using Google in general. First a string of censorship on their part with multiple news bloggers, and now this.
Google is not a person, unless you buy into a sick legal fiction perpetrated for the benefit of such. And "without cause"? What cave have you been living in for the last five years of news about Google wrongdoing?
sometimes doing the right thing requires evil actions.
From:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000022008
National Republican Senatorial Cmte $102,100
The gave over $100k just at the OP claimed. Nice to see the biased moderators here that want to suppress the truth. Google went evil years ago.
"Do the right thing...for the shareholders, all all and any cost."
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Ganga Mata, consort of Emperor Shantanu the Great, threw her new born baby into the Ganges, not once but seven times. You see eight celestials, Guardians of the eight directions were sentenced to live as humans, for some crime[*] they committed. On appeal their sentence was commuted for seven of them, they were allowed to die as soon as possible and return as celestials. They appealed to Mother Ganges to serve as their mother and kill them before they get a chance to commit any sin and be caught in the perpetual cycle of sins and rebirths. The eighth one who had to serve a full lifetime as a human, was spared by Mother Ganges. Once you get the details, you see what mother Ganges did was not evil at all, but an act of utmost kindness.
What life the eighth one had!
He was the one originally named Satyaviradhan, later named Bheeshman and lived a long and illustrious life, torn between the allegiance he swore to his father's throne and the degenerate their Crown Prince Duryodhanan had become. He gave his life for the oath of loyalty, his blessings and love for the righteous descendants of his dynasty. He fell on the tenth day of the battle, shot by his beloved grandson Arjunan (and the first gender reassigned warrior recorded anywhere, Shikandi) and died on the following winter solstice, roughly five thousand years ago.
[*] Their crime: They stole a cow that gave ambrosia as milk for the benefit of a human friend, lied about it.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The real summary should have been: Google switches alignment, from Good or Neutral to Lawful.
The old motto "Don't be evil" clearly suggests a Good or Neutral alignment, whether lawful or chaotic.
The new one, "Do the right thing," implies a Lawful alignment. But that could be Good, Neutral, or Evil.
Considering that one possible Lawful Evil charachter is the archetipal Overlord, who values power over all else and uses the law to maintain control, I'd say we have a match. Darth Vader and the Emperor he served had this alignment.
I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords.
The real summary should have been: Google switches alignment, from Good or Neutral to Lawful. The old motto "Don't be evil" clearly suggests a Good or Neutral alignment, whether lawful or chaotic. The new one, "Do the right thing," implies a Lawful alignment. But that could be Good, Neutral, or Evil. Considering that one possible Lawful Evil charachter is the archetipal Overlord, who values power over all else and uses the law to maintain control, I'd say we have a match. Darth Vader and the Emperor he served had this alignment. I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords.
You are a troll. Go away.
Still better than a few alternatives I could name, such as:
1) redefine good.
2) redefine good to mean good for google.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Google was doing evil right from the beginning and has continued with that pretty much every step of the way. At the beginning the moto, together with all the "Free" software and "Free Software" gave them the benefit of the doubt, and encouraged people to simply trust them. So, it was a con and an effective one. As they took pictures of your house. As they drove down your street, photographing you, your house, your license plate without permission -- and even actively sniffing out your IP address so they could better tag you and exploit you.... As they collected your phone number, under pretense it was for your "safety". As they moved into the phone business in order to spy on you ever more effectively and add your contacts to their cross-referencing. Etc. Etc. Etc. (I know I am preaching to the crowd here, for the most part, but occasionally it helps to step back and connect the many dots to make crystal that Google has been doing Evil with clear intention (and a lot of bullshit rationalizations and fanboy fanning; Google as been deliberate and CUNNING and manipulative and misleading...in their EVIL. Anyway, what Google is doing is something commonly done when people and, especially, companies have burned through their "good will". It is called "rebranding" and it is a major tip off to their new plans for exploitation of the human race. Google and Facebook and Monsanto and Microsoft are like those pigs in Animal Farm. Consider how well THAT story of trust and goodwill worked out for the more ordinary animals.
I'll accept being good and not very evil.
I think the new could be viewed as better than the old. Not doing anything is not evil and would therefore qualify for the old but not the new. it would have been more clear perhaps if they had said: be (or do) good. The problem with that is that would only say what was wanted when compare to the old, since good is not just the oppeosite of evil.
I think any cynical reading was clearly not intentional (you need to be quite strange to tell people that you intend to be more evil in the future) but they should have seen it coming.
Google Proved That. Classic seduction tactic - hand out candy and whisper sweet things as you slide your hands down the little kids pants.
1) Still got em, still awesome (for making a bit of a mockery of them)
2) You're right, needed to run my browser as an administrator
3) Left the wheel bits on, so I'm fine
4) SUDO make sandwich;
$user is not in the sudoers file. this incident will be reported. (with link to the obligitory XKCD, 838)
In short, dealing with it requires a sense of humor, and the willingness to ignore the kind of stupid that generates it.
Maybe now [after careful analysis, of course], "Being evil ..." is "Doing the right thing ..."
Like a good neighbor, fsck is there
I'm sure Hitler thought he was "doing the right thing."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The great thing with this new slogan is the ambiguity of it. Do the right think, but just don't say WHO you are doing the right thing for. Are you doing the right thing for customers and users? Or for shareholders and executives?
The difference between "Don't be evil" and "Do the right thing" is that it's okay to be evil if the end justifies the means.
To do the "right" thing Google Alphabet must always turn right, never left, which is likely to be a better description of their long-term path than the previous "don't do evil motto". Evil is too ambiguous to set the company direction and it relies on religious belief in Google's direction. Now Google's direction is clear without any fanaticism.
I don't see the abrahamic God (Yahweh, Allah, whatever you want to call him) taking a half of my paycheck in taxes, or enforcing my compliance with his laws using heavily armed, violent men. Dunno about you, though,.
Google's code is still 'Don't be evil.'
https://investor.google.com/co...
Alphabet, the new company that Google is a part of, has it's own code that is the 'Do the right thing'.
But that's a much less interesting headline.
I'm not sure that is the underlying intent; JC basically threw all the original commandments out and replaced them with but 2, the second one boiling down to "don't be a dick". It's the refusal of so-called Christians to relinquish the more fire and brimstone ones that creates the tyranny.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
It's like a litmus test for journalistic integrity.
"Alphabet Inc" should alter the slogan to "Do Things Right" -- that would be better, for one, it would save them some keystrokes. Cheers.
I wasn't talking about the rules of behavior for His Children; that's secondary. I was referring to the Author. I was referring to the tyrannical behavior of God himself as *ahem* "documented" in some detail in the Old Testament in particular. He Himself doesn't operate by the Ten Commandments; His behavior is worse than what is mandated by those. Dude is a full-on psycho tyrant.
You haven't been paying attention. God - or at least his minions - gets his pound of flesh.
I wasn't going to tell anybody, but I have a device that allows me to peer into the future. I came across a history piece describing the evolution of Google's moto. I'll share it:
Don't be evil.
Do the right thing.
Do the right thing if you can.
Do the right thing unless you must do otherwise.
Do what you must.
If you need to be evil, go for it.
Be Evil.
(||) Nehmo (||)
As a minister in the Universal Life Church, I say thanks Google for embracing our goal:
"To do that which is right".
Unfortunately Amazon already had 'Be Evil'
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
And this is where most companies fail. What most folks would consider immoral is twisted into something ethical, and staff are prohibited from making their own judgements about what is or isn't ethical.
"do the right thing for our sharedolders" ?
Absolute statements are never true
https://investor.google.com/corporate/google-code-of-conduct.html
First line, first words: “Don’t be evil.”
It seems some idiots at cnet.com are evil and create this FUD against Google.
Let's all pretend that for the past five years, Google hasn't been acting more like "don't be evil" was a patronizing directive to their less desirable users, basically equivalent to "do as I say, not as I do."
I'm sure they justify whatever they do as doing "the right thing."
We each have different moral compasses.
"Don't be evil" means something different to each person.
The same applies to "Do the right thing." We each have a different idea on what that means.
These difference come from many different areas in our lives. Culture, economic status, even which city we were raised in.
For example, I was raised in Nebraska. I've traveled the world and have seen how middle class people the world over tend to have similar beliefs on the big issues.
People with less economic power sometimes need to decide about the less-bad outcome - hence why petty theft of tourist may not be seen as "evil" if that leads to a meal for the family.
Super wealthy people sometimes have the same moral compass as the middle class, but not always. They may feel entitled to be paid outrageous salaries. After all, they have all the responsibility.
I've seen Chinese grandmas do things in public that my grandma would have jumped all over - like cutting in line. I've seen the same from high-caste Indians in airport queues. I was highly offended by these acts, but it didn't seem that anyone else around me was.
Is my moral compass off because I think jumping a line is "evil"? I suspect people who grew up in huge cities would have a different view on that.
These motos are not for us, they are for the google employees. As such, perhaps the change is a good one? It allows freedom to decide, sets a reasonable standard, and should make googlers feel empowered.
I guess that sometimes evil might be the right thing to do?
"Don't be evil" was a great motto to use privately yourself because it reminds you that you can accidentally become evil, but it does not say "don't _do_ evil" because that's impossible. The old motto gives you freedom to make mistakes. It is because of _our_ evil here on slashdot that they had to change it: jeering clickbait press is one of the biggest evils of our time, and facilitating its creation is probably the most, or second most, evil thing Google has accidentally done. Every time someone wants to criticize Google, out trots the motto, which makes everyone look a little more like a peanut gallery and every criticism a little bit more snipey since aside from the useful content of the criticism you get to add this fake "hypocrisy" charge as well.
The new slogan is less useful internally but might make the press less evil. It reminds you that you do have a right to expect good intentions of them, but not perfection. It's about doing instead of being, so it reminds you that you don't have a right to expect automatic agreement or for them to otherwise share your vision of the world. They only offer you the right to expect their good intent.
Basically it is changing because all you/us suck.
On every single impression and search at the Google home page there have been trillions of chances for Google to make a difference with a simple link to something that could benefit mankind.
They could have helped end world hunger a thousand times over.
They could have saved the death and slavery of millions.
They could have raised enough money to likely cure most disease in the world, or at least eased the pain of those suffering a lot.
Today, they could take a fair amount of their saved fortunes and solved any number of migratory or other world peace type problems.
It is time... God's pissed off. God gave the leaders at Google these abilities and they chose to not use their abilities for good... Instead trying to not do evil. That in itself is evil. The way God works is simple... it's white or black. Gray = black. So in the body of an effort... if even one eyelash is a tiny itsy bitsy bit gray, then the body itself is not white, and God will reject it.
I believe God is going to start show who is in charge in these end times by crushing the biggest name out there - Google. They will be broke, and their leaders will all be broke also. This will happen soon... maybe one day, one week, or one year... only God knows when... but soon. It's not too late for Larry and Sergie to ask for forgiveness and change their ways... but it's not looking like that's going to happen any time soon. :(
The end times are here, you can see it on the news every day... All these big corps better start helping the world... or they will be next.
- David
(yea... *that* David... I'm here on earth now.)
At least they dropped the hypocrisy.
Not doing evil is NOT the same as doing right.
Corporations that eliminate jobs to make the books look good at the end of the year may not be evil, but it's not right.
Banks doing whatever might be legal to make money may not be evil, but it's not right.
People who spin facts to present a skewed truth may not be evil, but what they do is not right.
It is more important to do right than to not be evil.
...the point of view. I am quite sure the Nazis we executed after WW2 had a completely different point of view on evil from ours.
The same can be said about good and right and truth.
Well, they're already thinking about censoring anyone who disagrees with someone else (mainly anyone who disagrees with feminists will get censored), so what else will they do in the name of doing 'the right thing'?
Sounded childish, but "Do The Right Thing," is highly subjective. Don't be Evil OTOH is not open to question. Here are a couple hypothetical back-and-forths:
Don't Be Evil: Here's the plan... Wait, is it evil? Yes, but... NO! NO BUTS.
Do the right thing: Here's the plan... Wait, is it evil? Yes, but it's the right thing to do FOR OUR SHAREHOLDERS... Oh, well, that's okay then. Yes, let's do that.
Of course it was only ever a motto anyway, which is not like part of their corporate charter, but I guess they didn't want that hanging over their heads with every decision.
"Do the right thing" was commonly said to be the motto of DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) back in the early years of the computer business.
Just like Old Testament to New Testament.
If only Jews understood it either way.
they have to do the righ thing because if they don't bet on the wrong projet in the future they to do the right thing....
My Alphabet : Skynet.