Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct (gizmodo.com)

Posted by msmash on from the at-least-they-are-being-honest dept.

Kate Conger, reporting for Gizmodo: Google's unofficial motto has long been the simple phrase "don't be evil." But that's over, according to the code of conduct that Google distributes to its employees. The phrase was removed sometime in late April or early May, archives hosted by the Wayback Machine show.

"Don't be evil" has been part of the company's corporate code of conduct since 2000. When Google was reorganized under a new parent company, Alphabet, in 2015, Alphabet assumed a slightly adjusted version of the motto, "do the right thing." However, Google retained its original "don't be evil" language until the past several weeks. The phrase has been deeply incorporated into Google's company culture -- so much so that a version of the phrase has served as the wifi password on the shuttles that Google uses to ferry its employees to its Mountain View headquarters, sources told Gizmodo.

163 comments

  1. hello 2015? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they kill this years ago.

    1. Re:hello 2015? by msmash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they did not kill it. They had a new motto for Alphabet, but Google's CoC continued to have instances of "don't be evil." Here's a version of its CoC, captured in January this year by Internet Archive.

    2. Re: hello 2015? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It may have still been on paper, but that practice was not followed for years. Now the code of conduct is more aligned with what the organization actually does.

      The tail wagging the dog, so to speak.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re: hello 2015? by msmash · · Score: 1

      Good point.

    4. Re: hello 2015? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't ever embody it to begin with. They are now what they have always been.

    5. Re: hello 2015? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fish rots from the head down.

    6. Re:hello 2015? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of 2015, that's about when they went all in for Hillary. That's definitely evil. And this was in the primary, so no need for anyone to argue that Trump is evil too.

      https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/

    7. Re:hello 2015? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Could have been worse. They could have just removed the "Don't" part.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    8. Re:hello 2015? by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      > The phrase was removed sometime in late April or early May, archives hosted by the Wayback Machine show.

      Is reading even the summary passé these days?

    9. Re: hello 2015? by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought. It's actually a slight improvement. At least they stopped blatantly lying to us and themselves.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    10. Re: hello 2015? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      slightly funny lol ... like way back in 1830... there once was ...

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. OMG, FINALLY! by gdonald · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, now I can get a job there! w0oh0o!

    1. Re:OMG, FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some exec thought this phase was a liability, because people keep bringing it up, because Google keeps doing shady things, even though they promised themselves they wouldn't. So it's negative virtue signaling. The devil drops the disguise and dares the sheeple to act.

    2. Re: OMG, FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At last an evil organisation!

      I am heading to the elaborate death department. Got a few ideas involving sharks and lasers.

    3. Re:OMG, FINALLY! by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      Finally, now I can get a job there! MU-HAHAHA!

      FTFY!

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re:OMG, FINALLY! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Dr. Evil, is that you?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  3. Four legs good, two legs better! by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    Pretty much describes the life cycle of every country and corporation, from its idealized conception to its fall into the corrupt and greedy abyss.

    1. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DRUMPF, AMIRITE??

    2. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty much describes the life cycle of every country and corporation, from its idealized conception to its fall into the corrupt and greedy abyss.

      This is not true. Plenty of corporations start in the corrupt and greedy abyss right from the beginning. For instance, Microsoft never went through an "idealistic" phase. Oracle is another example of primordial slime.

    3. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's naive to say Microsoft never had an idealistic phase though.

    4. Re: Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsofts idealistic phase is actually now under Satya Nadella

    5. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by thomst · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ShanghaiBill observed:

      Plenty of corporations start in the corrupt and greedy abyss right from the beginning. For instance, Microsoft never went through an "idealistic" phase. Oracle is another example of primordial slime.

      I've never worked for Microsoft. It's certainly true, though, that Gates stole CPM from Gary Kildall, and (after modifying it to run on a then-incompatible filesystem) sold it to IBM, as PC-DOS, for mucho dinero. In spring of 1992, he screwed IBM, too, by buying up every floppy disk he could find, to delay OS/2 2.0's rollout, while Microsoft vacuumed up all the PR oxygen with Windows 3.1's much-ballyhooed release. On floppies. (Yes, OS/2 2.0 was released on 17 3/5" floppies - and you could get it in 5.25", as well. Eventually. But, from February 1992 through mid-July, you couldn't buy a box of floppies for love, money, or marbles, because Microsoft had purchased every manufacturer's entire output. And it was rare, in those days, for PC's to have CD drives, believe it or not.)

      And it was interesting - in the ghoulish way passing a really bad accident on the freeway is interesing - to watch the collapse of IBM's otherwise-carefully-planned rollout of their vastly-superior OS. The panic in the IBM guys who came by our lab space at Wells steadily mounted, as the weeks since the official release date ticked by, and the continuing floppy shortage kept anyone but major potential customers (like Wells Fargo, where I was a senior technology analyst) from being able to get their hands on the darned thing anywhere but at IBM authorized dealers. And then only to kick the demo version around on the store's computers, not to buy a copy themselves. (In late March, our sales rep gave us an advance copy to evaluate, with the exhortation, "Take care of that. You probably won't see another one for quite a while." When I asked him if we could make a backup copy, he said, "Officially speaking, I should say 'No.' Unofficially, though, it's probably a good idea.")

      Once upon a time, however, I did work for Orace. (As a contractor, rather than as a FTE.)

      I had recently left Wells (this was at the end of 1992, before the swine who ran NationsBank ate them, jettisoned all the top execs I'd known, and assumed the Wells identity, even though it was a considerably smaller entity, because their own brand was absolute poison), and I naively believed that place had been a shark tank. I swiftly found out that Wells was full of mere guppies, instead. Oracle, by comparison, was a freakin' piranha swarm.

      As just one example of the work environment at Oracle: I had set up a shared, $10,000 Tektronix Phaserjet, wax-transfer color printer for an Oracle sales department. (Cost of consumables? About two bucks a page, depending. Even the special, clay-surface paper was expensive. And the four, separate, rolls of wax-surface, color printing medium? Yikes!) One day they called me to say that it had stopped working, and one of their employees needed to be on a flight to Europe pronto, with color printouts of his Powerpoint deck in hand an absolute priority.

      So I drove to Redwood Shores (which took nearly an hour), and, after visually inspecting the printer, determined that its power cable was missing. I substituted one from a nearby workstation (whose user was on a marketing trip to Asia, which meant he had no immediate need for it), and the marketing guy easily made his flight, 4-color printout in hand. Then I went looking for the missing power cable from the printer (which, with the Tektronix logo stamped on it, was pretty distinctive). I found it, too.

      Some guy from another department (in a different silo on that same floor) had filched it to supply power to his personal laser printer - and then walked away, without replacing it, leaving an entire department that depended on the Phaserjet with no way to print its slides.

      I confiscated the cable, of course, and took it ba

      --
      Check out my novel.
    6. Re: Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, replacing the OS with spyware and forcing installs against peoples wishes; that sounds like idealism. You just didn't specify which ideals.

    7. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's certainly true, though, that Gates stole CPM from Gary Kildall, and (after modifying it to run on a then-incompatible filesystem) sold it to IBM, as PC-DOS

      No, neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft did steal anything from DRI, including CP/M. If CP/M was ever stolen, it was by Tim Paterson, who had nothing to do with MS back then. And BTW, Paterson didn't steal CP/M; he merely created a CP/M work-alike OS, that ran on Intel 8086, and its APIs were designed to be backward-compatible with these of CP/M, which, together with the 8080-to-8086 source code compatibility, made porting software to the new OS almost trivial. Later, Paterson won a lawsuit for defamation against some DRI fanbois, who, just like you, accused him of theft, so, if you want to donate some money to Mr. Paterson, you may continue with your accusations.

    8. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same for Facebook, if you look closely at the initial investment funding they received you find out that they were evil from the beginning. Don't take my word for it, check FB's history for yourself...

    9. Re: Four legs good, two legs better! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Informative

      People like GP commenter cop an attitude like they were even around during the introduction of the PC. At the time, you could buy both PC-DOS and CP/M-86 from IBM to run on their PC. CP/M was about twice as expensive, and wouldn't really run the old programs from 8-bit CP/M anyway.

      There was some synergy in buying PC-DOS for the OS. Microsoft produced the built-in BASIC interpreter that booted up from the ROMs in the IBM-PC if you bought one without floppy drives or disk controller (a 180k SSDD floppy drive was north of $500) and ran your PC with cassette BASIC. (the cassette interface cable was standard equipment until the introduction of the PC/XT.) PC-DOS came with the extended Disk BASIC at no cost versus CP/M-86 which was twice the price and didn't have BASIC included. Microsoft BASIC was an additional package you has to purchase for CP/M.

      BASIC was important in that era, and Microsoft was mostly a 'language' company in that era, producing thd BASIC interpreter for most computer brands.. A lot of early PC users wrote their own software in BASIC or typed it in from listings in magazines targeted to all the different personal computers like the Atari, Commodore and Apples, etc.

      The above details are just some of the wrinkles in the history that are often overlooked. It's far more complex than 'Microsoft stole CP/M' and the history is even interesting (if you're a nerd and not some IT dude reading a 'tech' site who took CS in college to 'make money.')

    10. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's naive to say Microsoft never had an idealistic phase though.

      You're kidding, right?

      While RMS was battling for Freedom with Free Software Manifestos, BG was writing manifestos which amounted to "Don't pirate my software!", "You're stealing my profits" etc.

      Very idealistic... NOT!

    11. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's certainly true, though, that Gates stole CPM from Gary Kildall, and (after modifying it to run on a then-incompatible filesystem) sold it to IBM, as PC-DOS, for mucho dinero.

      It certainly isn't true, not even remotely.

      Microsoft bought MS DOS from Seattle Associates, a seller of 8086 cards for S-100 systems, which had called the OS QDOS. QDOS itself had little to do with CP/M, it had an entirely different filesystem (Microsoft's FAT file system, which was written for early standalone Microsoft BASIC implementations intended to run without needing a seperate operating system), had a different toolset, different CLI, and was only similar to CP/M in one respect: it exported a similar, but not identical, API for applications to use. The latter was to make it easier to port CP/M applications to QDOS.

      That part, like the rest of the operating system, was written from scratch, but if it hadn't been, the amount of code Seattle Associates would have "stolen" would have amounted to a tiny percentage of CP/M, literally a few hundred bytes of code, because all the complexity was in the file system and command line tools. I mention this not to suggest that if they did it it wouldn't have been a problem, I mention this to give you some idea of how ludicrous the allegation is: "Let's write a whole new operating system, but for no reason let's illegally copy a few hundred bytes from CP/M when it would be easier for us to write the same code afresh." That's how stupid the allegation is.

      Microsoft's first product was BASIC. They bought MSDOS. MSDOS was not a copy of CP/M or based upon it. IBM knew what it was getting into when it bought a license. Compaq, not Microsoft, started the clones movement (Microsoft sold MS DOS to companies like ACT/Apricot before that, who were producing machines completely incompatible with IBM's.)

      Microsoft was fairly neutral as a technology company until the Windows vs GEM thing started up. That snowballed into DOS/Windows vs DR DOS, Windows vs OS/2, and all the other slimy things they did. But for the first 10-15 years they were relatively normal.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much describes the life cycle of every country and corporation, from its idealized conception to its fall into the corrupt and greedy abyss.

      This is not true. Plenty of corporations start in the corrupt and greedy abyss right from the beginning. For instance, Microsoft never went through an "idealistic" phase. Oracle is another example of primordial slime.

      That's cruel and uncalled for.

      What did slime ever do to you?

    13. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot sell products with a copyright of other companies. IIRC this was shown in court, M$ products with Digital Research copyright lingo.

      Whoever stole doesn't matter. Who benefits from that? Certainly I can do the same thing, buy stolen goods from someone. If done once, it might be a mistake. If I go on selling a lot of copies, and manage to create a monopoly -- that is definitely not cool.

      And what's with defending Microsoft. We were there and we saw it all. There were those who came up with new concepts and those who copied.

      Microsoft copied. To be honest, we did pay less for their products. So, thanks, in a way. But the quality was shoddy, to say the least. And when they got a tad better (after shoving lots of money for that, of course), they still kept on copied things -- if not directly the products, then at least the concepts.

      Then it came Linux. And they cannot copy it, because it evolves so fast it's dizzying. Then they got enraged, then upset, then sober, then accepting and now they're even using it. But it took them two generations in management to reach that stage. And they're even better than their users who seem not be able to evolve at all. Luckily for M$...

    14. Re: Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were around in MS's early days, the company they were (secretly at first) fighting was so powerful and evil that they appeared to be out to free us from lock in and championing choice. Then they defeated them and showed their true colors. Today, the evil they defeated, IBM, is just a shadow of their former selves and you younglings don't see this cycle of 'start off as a hero, then turn evil' that keeps recurring in tech giants.

    15. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Monsanto, too.

    16. Re: Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Hatians what they think about living in tents

    17. Re: Four legs good, two legs better! by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1

      Crazy but true.

      Just like the OS/2 IBM lies we were all fed. Turns out that Microsoft had 386 features ready to go in 1987. Needless to say, they shipped them in Windows/386, and managed to get Xenix 2.2 for the 386 out in 1987.

      IBM blocked the 386 OS/2 version until 92, and stopped Microsoft from bringing Windows to OS/2. Naturally they brought it to NT OS/2.

    18. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft didn't copy anything. They dd not copy CP/M. The GP isn't claiming it was OK to copy, they were pointing out that it's a blatant lie that Microsoft copied CP/M in the first place. They didn't. End of story.

    19. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Pretty much describes the life cycle of every large country and corporation, from its idealized conception to its fall into the corrupt and greedy abyss.

      FTFY. And it's an important distinction because there are a lot of small countries and corporations that are neither corrupt nor greedy. Norway, Finland, Denmark New Zealand etc all do well in the quality of life/low corruption indexes and they each only have population around 5 million. Maybe the solution is a physical hard limit to the amount of people any one organisation/country can grow to?

      Someone smarter than me describes the problem here: http://www.cracked.com/article...

    20. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      As an aside when I first started working back in 2000 I actually had one of those ancient Tektronic Phaserjet wax-transfer printers. It was pretty massive for printers of the day and weighed a metric ton I think. It was pretty cool however, I used it pretty exclusively for everything. The little wax blocks were surprisingly convenient way to supply colour, and the waste bucket I recall with all the leftover wax. It printed great colour in comparison to other technologies even at that time. One of the things I really thought was nice about it, was all the lines were slightly raised with wax, so you could run your hand over it and feel the texture of it, almost like braille. About the only thing that wasn't so great about it (which I found out years later), is the wax didn't really hold up to sunlight very well over time, and would fade pretty dramatically. That said I limped that thing along for as long as I could, I had it on a Windows NT workstation, and I believe it used a parallel port (or it may have been SCSI). Eventually it had issues, where the print drivers got so outdated, that we had issues, and then moving to other computers even more, and having to try and convert ports, etc... became too much to try to keep going, but I was sad to see it go... It could do a Tabloid size page which was nice also as many newer printers at the time could not particularity in colour. Anyway it was pretty ancient when I got my hands on it, but it was a pretty neat piece of technology...

    21. Re:Four legs good, two legs better! by thomst · · Score: 1

      DarthVain confided:

      I believe it used a parallel port (or it may have been SCSI).

      Definitely a parallel port.

      And you're right - it produced excellent color printouts ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
  4. Back in 2015 they dropped it by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 2

    as part of fucking over their employees out of stock, as they became the 'alphabet company' aka the play on 'alphabet agency'.

    Google is VERY VERY Evil.

    1. Re:Back in 2015 they dropped it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they simply redefined "don't" to mean "go ahead and", so that "Don't be evil" had the meaning "Go ahead and be evil." Isn't this like if Superman decided he was going to fight for Alternative Truth, Vigilante Justice, and Superman's Way? (Which would, I've heard, be closer to the original vision for the character, btw, as opposed to the white-bread, good and kind, aw-shucks version they used in TV and the first several movies.)

    2. Re:Back in 2015 they dropped it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That happen's naturally. Our brains can't think of a negative without first thinking of the positive before negating it. So "don't be evil" actually means think of evil stuff and then avoid those things. However the more you think of something, the more focused/targeted you are on it, so the more likely you are to do those things even if you're supposed to be avoiding them. Just like you'll drive into a bystander if all you do is stare at them when you're trying to avoid them. In summary, over time anything with "don't" gets shortened to "do" by your brain. So Google became evil because that's what their motto said.

    3. Re:Back in 2015 they dropped it by BeauHD+(54) · · Score: 1

      That is only half the story. Google was planning an expansion so huge, employees had nothing to do with it. Therefore those doing the expansion (the guys at the top) needed a way to trim all the fat of giving employees something they didn't earn/deserve.

    4. Re:Back in 2015 they dropped it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you explain further?

      Google was planning an expansion so huge, employees had nothing to do with it.

      The expansion was so large that no employees were needed or that it was so large no employees wanted it? If the former, what? If the latter, why would employees not want an expansion?

      Therefore those doing the expansion (the guys at the top) needed a way to trim all the fat of giving employees something they didn't earn/deserve.

      What would they have to give that was not earned and deserved? The person you are responding to said the employees were screwed out of stock, something they earned and deserved. You replied "That is only half of the story." Do you mean that no employees of google expect "the guys at the top" earned or deserved all the stock they had?

  5. They finally realized by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

    Someone at Google read through all of the things Google has been in the news for in recent years, and it hit them: Hey, we're the baddies

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: They finally realized by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How could they be the 'baddies' when a top Google executive made personal visits to the White House averaging more than once a week while Obama was president? Weren't they just spreading their pure-good ethos to the government?

    2. Re:They finally realized by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Hey, we're the baddies

      I knew what this was going to be before I even clicked it. It's strange how comedians can absolutely nail political issues so accurately.

  6. Warrant Canary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You all may joke, but I'd wager something really nefarious happened at Google and this is the warrant canary.

    1. Re: Warrant Canary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo.

    2. Re:Warrant Canary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Get ready to see what evil Google can do with all the data they collected from everyone over the past 20 years or so.

      This will be perfect demonstration of why we need laws to prohibit companies from using your data for other purpose without your explicit agreement.

    3. Re:Warrant Canary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pretty unlikely, because we know from the Snowden revelations that Google had a direct line to the NSA. They claimed they didn't know about the 'wiretap', but that seems fairly implausible. You don't let NSA technicians lay fiber optics connections to your data streams without knowing anything about it. So in a nutshell, for all we know from public information, Google used to be evil in the past, too. (If you want to look at it that way, obviously it's a matter of perspective.)

    4. Re:Warrant Canary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You all may joke, but I'd wager something really nefarious happened at Google and this is the warrant canary.

      Google was caught two years ago working with al-Qaeda to censor the Internet. Their team of al-Qaeda operatives includes Shahed Amanullah, Wajahat Ali, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Randi Harper...

      all working at the direction of the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and Prime Minister David Cameron. The same people run the Home Office too.

      As for how this happened, do you really need to ask?

  7. A Good Laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are so f*cking far past evil, they might as well.

  8. Does this matter? by larryjoe · · Score: 1

    In most companies, the code of conduct is a reflection of existing culture. It is rarely a template for conduct. When's the last time an employee thought, "I was going to act in a certain way, but since that action is contrary to our code of conduct, I decided on a different course of action."

    One reason the code of conduct is rarely useful for directing conduct is that the language is so abstract. Often the entire verbiage could be replaced with "Let's be good!" Due to this abstractness, code of conduct terms can mean different things to different readers. Don't be evil. Do the right thing. Everyone agrees with those words, but they mean nothing because they mean different things to different people.

    1. Re:Does this matter? by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      I thought the "code of conduct" was usually something managers thought sounded good, and which had as much use as vision statements and lists of core values.

    2. Re:Does this matter? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes but, importantly, it means that Google can no longer fire employees for being evil. This is a big civil rights win for Satan-worshipping coders.

    3. Re:Does this matter? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't be evil. Do the right thing. Everyone agrees with those words

      clearly you've never done business with Oracle.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought the "code of conduct" was usually something managers thought sounded good, and which had as much use as vision statements and lists of core values.

      Just occasionally you get something that you know you should do. That you want to do but might be against immediate profit. Something that you know someone else doesn't want you to do. Let's say, letting Hansel and Gretel* out of their cage. And then along comes the Witch (e.g. project manager) and says in the meeting "why did you do that". And you say 'because our values say "nobody should be kept in a cage"' and so I just wanted to make sure we followed them. And the thing is, the project manager knows that these are the values and is sitting there with all the other managers who "buy into" the corporate values and they know, no matter how much of a psychotic shit they are, there is nothing they can safely say to criticise you. Such moments, as you watch little Hansel and Gretel flee off into the forest and back to their family, are Golden. Especially when you later get to decide the Witches future and not the other way round.

      In other words, the values do really matter. Not always, but enough of the time that this change is disturbing.

      * the names and situations in this story have been very slightly altered to protect the innocent and guilty. Lets just say there are plenty of people in corporations willing to do bad stuff for their personal bonuses.

  9. That Settles It by mentil · · Score: 2

    Whenever I want to know about the ethics of a megacorporation's activities, I pore over a document on their website. It's all right there in the manual, people! If they pinkie-swear that they'll be the mostest ethicalest conglomerate ever, then goddammit, I believe them!

    Obviously, removing a vow to not be evil means they've accepted an ethical continuum where any action taken in a situation containing an ethical problem necessarily involves a certain amount of evil; vowing to do NO evil would necessarily mean taking no action, which is itself an evil action, thereby they are avoiding a double bind.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:That Settles It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most transparent administration EVAH!"

  10. Partly correct by mysidia · · Score: 1

    They didn't actually remove don't be evil.... Only part of the motto was removed, you see: the only part they actually removed was the word Don't; leaving most of the policy intact.

    1. Re:Partly correct by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      They didn't actually remove don't be evil.... Only part of the motto was removed, you see: the only part they actually removed was the word Don't; leaving most of the policy intact.

      It was even more minor than that - they only removed the “n”, the apostrophe, and the “t”. That’s less than a 25% change!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Partly correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could've just handled it with punctuation: Don't! Be Evil!

    3. Re:Partly correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could have settled with removing the apostrophe and the t and hired a guy named Don.

  11. Defining objective evil. by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've found that the best definition of evil that applies across all culture and times is the following:

    Intentionally harming others to benefit yourself.

    Whether that benefit is emotional, resources, or a political cause, it's all in the direction of what most cultures would consider more and more evil.

    Without harm, it's generally more mischief or taboo, and without any form of benefit from that harm, it's generally considered more madness/confusion or misunderstanding. Without intention, it's considered an accident, though blatant enough recklessness its own intention in many cases.

    Discarding the intention to avoid evil, because it might make you more money is definitely going in the evil direction in my book at least.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found that the best definition of evil that applies across all culture and times is the following:

      Intentionally harming others to benefit yourself.

      Winning honestly at chess is evil by this definition, especially if it is a high-stakes game that will direct significant monetary sums and professional reputation to the winner. You would be intentionally causing a harm to your opponent to benefit yourself.

    2. Re:Defining objective evil. by RyanFenton · · Score: 2

      >Winning honestly at chess is evil by this definition, especially if it is a high-stakes game that will direct significant monetary sums and professional reputation to the winner. You would be intentionally causing a harm to your opponent to benefit yourself.

      See: lack of actual harm. If you added perhaps using cruel tricks to give you an unfair advantage, then yeah - you're getting in the direction of evil. But just exchanging moves and winning doesn't connect those dots, for most cultures. I'm just attempting to match common sense for most cultures with this definition of evil.

      If the bet were large enough to harm either party to a large extent, then the evil may be more in the act of setting up the bet, more than the game. Like, in many cultures there's stories of devil's contests - fiddling contests and the like aren't the immorality in those stories. It's in settings up the contest with the intent to likely harm.

      Ryan Fenton

    3. Re:Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Winning honestly at chess is evil by this definition,

      There is no default state of "being a winner" in chess, so not winning is not a harm. It's simply not a gain.

      especially if it is a high-stakes game that will direct significant monetary sums and professional reputation to the winner.

      If the sums are being transferred from the loser to the winner or in any other way benefits the winner, then you'd have a point. That's a major part of the evil of gambling. If the sum is from a pot that either none of the participants contributed to, then again there's no harm. As for the professional reputation, people earn a reputation every time they play. You don't harm someone because you increase your reputation through legitimate means, even if their reputation diminishes. A reputation has to be constantly earned and so long as no parcipants are dishonestly manipulating reputation, it's merely a reinforcement of what you legitimate have earned.

      You would be intentionally causing a harm to your opponent to benefit yourself.

      There's only a few sports/games where intentional harm to your opponent is necessary. Most actually actively discourage such behavior, although the degree of that enforcement varies. Certainly, in chess you don't harm your opponent at all.

    4. Re:Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not doing harm, you are just not enabling their gain.

    5. Re:Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just attempting to match common sense for most cultures with this definition of evil.

      Tough to do when addressing a crowd of hyper-autistic pedants, as you just saw.

    6. Re:Defining objective evil. by ckatko · · Score: 1

      Oh man, it's so easy!

      >Intentionally harming others to benefit yourself.

      I guess Poker and Fight Club are out.

    7. Re:Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that definition everyone in the western world is evil. just about every item you use and consume is harming someone somewhere. Evil is intentionally harming others for the pleasure it brings you regardless of good or bad benefits to yourself.

    8. Re:Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found that the best definition of evil that applies across all culture and times is the following:

      Intentionally harming others to benefit yourself.

      Defines self-defence as evil.

    9. Re:Defining objective evil. by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

      >Defines self-defence as evil.

      Not in most cultures. Most tend to define preventing harm to others as not a self gain, more of a selfless act. In cases where folks are 'defending themselves' for gain though... yeah, there's often some perceived evil intention there.

      There's a few cultures, like Jains though where even self-defense isn't considered a complete excuse for harm.

      It's usually a sliding scale - everyone has some encroachment into potential evil, and it takes a LOT to be considered unable to be part of most societies.

      Ryan Fenton

    10. Re:Defining objective evil. by rodch · · Score: 1

      Apologies. Misposted as AC.
      I totally agree with your sentiments. My quibble is that your definition states what may be a necessity, but it is insufficient and IMO cannot stand alone as an objective definition. That is a pity, because a terse definition would be useful.

    11. Re:Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your definition is too narrow. True evil very often doesn't think of itself as evil. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of the greater good.

    12. Re:Defining objective evil. by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

      The definition still stands on its own, I'd say - if you're willing to say that harm through self-defense is a socially accepted minimal form of evil, just like many others we've improved over time as society has become more peaceful. That, or extend the definition to also include self-defense. I just don't find it parsimonious as part of my definition.

      Also, note, that there's a distinction between evil and monstrous. Normal people do lots of little evil things in most societies with this definition- especially as children. This kind of evil isn't something that can be controlled in beings who who have to experience to learn, so much as minimized as being required or helpful as a system of interactions by a society.

      That's why it's a decent definition for me - I find it the best match - but I can see how others might be motivated to only define evil by rare factors, to avoid calling 'normal' people's actions even infinitesimally evil. Usually because they just want evil to be something they don't like, and good to be something they like.

      Ryan Fenton

    13. Re:Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguably in both poker and Fight Club there is mutual "benefit".

    14. Re: Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say "benefit" implies an improvement over the initial state. Trying to survive when under attack is hardly that.

    15. Re: Defining objective evil. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Both the Communists and the NAZIs thought, or at least pretended, that what they promoted was scientifically correct and the 'next evolution' of humankind. People with big ideas and the will to enforce them on other people tend to be that way.

    16. Re: Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Philosophically interesting but in this case we've all known for many years the do no evil motto was a big joke on the rest of us.

      There was never a day Google wasn't evil and didn't have evil intent and action.

      As a bonus to their known obvious evil they also gave us the big nothing Marisa Meyers who otherwise would have never been anyone anywhere, but if you're a cute blonde and you fuck the right guy, sky is the limit!

    17. Re:Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coincidentally, that is also the best definition of capitalism.

    18. Re:Defining objective evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without intention ...

      We don't intend people in Africa to starve but they do. Until recently, it was largely their own fault; holding onto tribal loyalties and practicing nepotism instead of developing financial and community infrastructure that aided everyone. That nepotism is born out of global truth: Most of the world is a zero-sum game.

      If I have land, a diamond mine, or any natural resource, it means that someone else doesn't. All wealth comes from exclusive control of natural resources; notwithstanding Wall Street gambling on what someone will or won't own (and then gambling on the outcome of that gamble). At what point is it unethical to deprive others, the benefit of land or river or shiny rocks?

      The answer isn't a simple "share everything". Giving away my land or labour doesn't make automatically benefit the recipient. In fact, such welfare results in destruction: A tragedy of the commons, of sorts. Everyone must take responsibility for the lack of resources in their life. The problem becomes, how do we make hard work benefit everyone when a few people own all the (natural) wealth?

      The capitalist answer is employment but modern society has divided that into 'have' and 'have not', thus enforcing the very inequality we should be eliminating.

  12. Re:OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back to your cave, knuckles!

  13. Dr Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now "Scott" can work for his daddy Dr Evil, and do evil things.

  14. Don't do the right thing then? by aleck7 · · Score: 1

    So now they won't do the right thing, correct?

    1. Re:Don't do the right thing then? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Well, you see, they can’t - Spike Lee sued them over the use of that phrase.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  15. They compromised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They decided to compromise: they combiner "don't be evil" with "do the right thing" to come up with "do the evil thing"

  16. Re: OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a coincidence 1917-2017, TOTALLY Failure. After a hundred year ...

  17. Be Best Instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or other...

  18. Acessory to murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't the mass spying or the censorship that did it. I think it was the murder.
    When your employees are leaving because you are aiding in murder (not death sentence btw) it's time to remove "don't be evil" from the code of conduct. Those who stay know what they are.

  19. For sale by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    Android smartphone. Never worn.

    1. Re: For sale by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      So you never logged onto it with a Google Account? (actually a practical approach. You can run Android and even add apps without ever 'logging onto Google'.)

  20. "Evil pays more lol" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now praise your overlords fools!

  21. Re:OMG, CoC by bobstreo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Google has replaced already obsolete don't be evil with be politically correct, progressivist and mandatory neo-marxsist-leninist-feminist.

    I think you mean, don't bother applying if you are a white hetero male aka the bane of silicon Valley and the cause of all mankind's problems. /s

    Well that or their new motto is:

    Don't be evil (if you think you may be caught)

    Or maybe there are a bunch of executives sitting in their lairs/offices stroking their white cats and buying islands.

  22. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, this means that they won't do the left thing, only the right thing, continuing to go in circles. They will keep on doing what they have always done, focusing on search and collecting user data.

  23. It's still at the bottom, you absolute twats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "And remember don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!"

    https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html

    Literally, literally fake news.

    1. Re:It's still at the bottom, you absolute twats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And remember donâ(TM)t be evil, and if you see something that you think isnâ(TM)t right â" speak up!"

      Unless the "something that you think isn't right" happens to be blatant and potentially illegal gender-based discrimination. In that case you should sit down and shut up, as James Damore recently found out.

    2. Re:It's still at the bottom, you absolute twats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waaaah! The national labor board found otherwise. So quit it with the needy, impotent, soybetacuck right-wing victim complex already.

    3. Re:It's still at the bottom, you absolute twats. by novakyu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless the Gizmodo article was updated since its publication without notice, they note that in the article.

      The updated version of Google’s code of conduct still retains one reference to the company’s unofficial motto—the final line of the document is still: “And remember don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!”

      It's called "burying the lede," and quite common in the news business. So, business as usual---also, I guess you are right, literal fake news.

    4. Re:It's still at the bottom, you absolute twats. by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      They should have voting on posts, not just comments. This post should be downvoted to oblivion.

  24. Re: kill them all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't have to go to work, but we have to put in work. Far from reach, we're going to back on up and give you room while you twerk, twerk, twerk. Twitch for me.

  25. Re: OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have skills and you still can't find a decent job it is your abrasive personality that is the problem, not Hindu chimps or whatever.

    If you want decent pay and to be qn ass, try running your own business as a general contractor. You can do all the rough in work and have a plumber/electrician tie it off and sign off on it. The pay is about a hundred grand a year either way. More if you gets subs.

    Or maybe you are lazy and just an unskilled, out of date whiner.

  26. The end of the hyperbole by thegarbz · · Score: 0

    Now that Google doesn't have it in their code of conduct how will we raise this as hyperbole at every opportunity?

    Google ate a baby. Evil!
    Google gave info to the NSA. Evil!
    Google stopped releasing updates to a 6 year old phone. Evil!
    Google tracks my location. Evil!
    Google street view took a photo of my house. Evil!
    Google changed the colour scheme in gmail. Evil!
    Google didn't donate 100% of its profit to charity. Evil!

    Jokes aside, the phrase has been utterly meaningless for many years, not because of the company's actions, but rather because the phrase is so ambiguous and meaningless in the first place.

  27. They adjusted it a LONG time ago! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They dropped the "Don't" almost as soon as the made their first million.

  28. "All your attention are belong to us!" by shanen · · Score: 2

    A couple of years ago, before my old friends who had joined google started ghosting me, we used to meet for a few beers from time to time. It was becoming pretty obvious that the evil thing was moot, and I realized the new motto was:

    "All your attention are belong to the google."

    Details at 11.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  29. It's Okay To Be Evil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, and profitable too.

  30. Suggestions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We Are Less Evil Than Facebook
    Our Evil Is Better Than Your Evil
    We Are Too Good To Be Caught
    We Are So Evil We Are Great
    Making America Evil Again

    1. Re:Suggestions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make it simple:

      "We're Jewish!"

  31. Capitalism is dead. Long live corporate cancerism by shanen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Good comment and deserves the insightful mod, even though you didn't address the underlying religious issue:

    "There is no gawd but Profit, and the google wants to be Profit's #1 prophet."

    Right now Apple holds the title (according to Fortune), but they are evil and cancerous in different ways. The noncancerous corporations have mostly been crushed out of the market or bought out and merged.

    It amuses me to imagine there could be solution approaches. My current favorite would be a progressive tax on corporate profits, where the rate increases with market share. NOT a penalty to success, but rather an incentive to reproduce by fission, providing more competition, more choices, and more freedom for the human beings. The REAL human beings, not the legal fictions like corporate persons.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  32. Re:Google is Evil by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Shut up, Hillary!

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  33. It does't fit Google's new morality by davide+marney · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Google's new morality is to use its products and services in order to influence the culture to adopt its beliefs. This is primarily seen in the SJW realm at the moment, but this is just for now. "Don't be evil" is too open-ended, even a white cis-gendered male's actions could fit into that definition. Their new motto is something like "Make the world Google." (Double points if you recognize the source of that motto.)

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re: It does't fit Google's new morality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for Google. Your description matches my observations.

    2. Re:It does't fit Google's new morality by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      So you're saying their motto has nothing to do with making money?

      They got rid of the don't be evil, but it was just to push a more specific agenda? Not to pursue even more money?

      This feels a lot more related to militarized computer vision than an agenda to me.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:It does't fit Google's new morality by yuriklastalov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's kind of funny that those researchers only got huffy about their research being used for military purposes but all the social engineering and other fuckery Google does is just fine.

      I'm sure they unironically believe the US military exists for the explicit purpose of killing brown people and that Google just wants to "make the world a better place".

    4. Re:It does't fit Google's new morality by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I assume it's because they knew what they were signing up for working for Google. If they thought the fuckery google does is bad, they would never have started working there.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re:It does't fit Google's new morality by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Google just now started doing military contracts, and haven't been an ostensible arm of USMIL all along

  34. Don't Get Caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In and of itself, the removal of a Don't Be Evil motto is not the problem. Replacing it with "Don't Get Caught" certainly is. And if you don't believe this is the new motto, notice that it doesn't explicitly say "Don't Get Caught" anywhere in their official, public documentation. See, they don't want to get caught telling their employees not to get caught!

  35. Look forward to the future by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    Exciting news coming from the new Evil Google. Their chains have been broken and they are free to do their darkest desires!

  36. Nobody believed it anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a motto that really wasn't adhered too for some time. Its scary to think how much data about us Google has acquired. The influence that information provides is also something we all should take notice of. Even the fact that Chrome browser dominates the browsers and that in itself is very much what we should want to avoid. Who wants another era of Internet Explorer where you have to use Chrome to use web services.

  37. Re: OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool. Now apply that identical logic to black Americans in the 1950s, and discover just how fucking stupid and evil you are.

  38. Google, 2018 by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Do know evil.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  39. Re: MOD PARENT DOWN! by msmash · · Score: 0

    It's a he, anonymous coward.

  40. Re: MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree on the mod down part, Slashdot has many things to fix before looking at the editors' work; more to the present point, principles are important, IMHO. It's not just the end result. "Don't be evil" is is nice to have explicitly written.

    Also, though an organization (and a person, BTW) may want to avoid being evil, we live according to our situation. Evil may be hard to avoid depending on which place you live.

    That said, Google has been quite successful at not being evil -- from my point of view that is. If you're white, racist and against SJW, and cannot find a safe harbor in Google like in other corporations, well, maybe Google will be evil to you.

    And it will be well deserved.

  41. Re:Capitalism is dead. Long live corporate canceri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The solution would be easy but far-reaching. Get rid of most of the stock market. Enterprises become evil once they go on the stock market. It's also not very surprising, they get tons of money to strategically buy competitors, destroy previously healthy markets, and in return need to do everything they can to increase stock value or maximize profits. The product line doesn't even really count any more, companies like Google or Apple could just as well make their money with crude oil,trading producing soap, or cutting down rainforests. Whatever pleases the stock holders.

    Get back to the real trading of real goods by companies who innovate instead of buying patents and intellectual properties from the real innovators. Replace stock markets with good old entrepreneurship, make sure competition cannot be destroyed before it has time to grow, and the problem is solved. If you sell a real product, you cannot disregard your customers. That's only possible if your company is mostly based on virtual intellectual property rights, marketing to create artificial demand, and the advertisement business.

    Stock markets and patents are the problem, they've gotten way out of hand, to the extent that an honest businessman could not possibly succeed by simply selling good products without getting into bed with some megacorporation that is on the stock market.

  42. Already evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was already reasonable to assume that Google was evil, so this change makes little difference.

  43. "deeply incorporated into Google's company culture by rojash · · Score: 1

    Person who posted this is a true Goo-fan Google has been evil under the covers since Day One. Very opinionated software. Just better than what the others have to offer. If they develop an in-house OS it should be called Doors.

  44. Next motto up: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BE EVIL!

    Yes, you heard us. Be evil or lose your job! Evilness is now a required value to actively nurture.

  45. Re: MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So only non-white racists love google's culture. We see that too, thanks for clarifying

  46. Re:OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google has replaced already obsolete don't be evil with be politically correct, progressivist and mandatory neo-marxsist-leninist-feminist.

    And they'll feel smug and morally superior as they cleanse the world of people who aren't Progressive enough or are the wrong kind of Progressive.

  47. Don't be merely evil by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    Don't be evil, be heinous.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  48. This is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least they're being honest.

  49. You know.. by CptLoRes · · Score: 1

    It's kinda hard to make an evil AI to take over the world with a clause like that.

  50. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

    I know this is an old story but are we really going to replace her with a better editor? Remember timothy? Maybe we should recruit someone from buzzfeed?

    Is this going to ruin your day? Is it hard to ignore a submission you don't like?
    Really dude we can live with imperfection in the face of the alternatives.

  51. The Google self driving car is not pure evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Google is not yet pure evil. I'll have to google what other non-evil things they do. Once they decided to "index" every book any author had ever written, whether the author wanted it or not, I stopped buying their "do no evil" shit.

  52. Do the right thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for Google

  53. Re: OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're probably trolling, but you probably also believe that, so I'll answer honestly.

    I understand your concern. I used to feel the same way, but I find it's generally accepted for good reason that if the goal is correcting the impact of racism, that is not racist.

    Even though, for obvious reasons, it requires treating races differently.

    Here's a terrible analogy:

    If purple people had historically had their arms cut off, and green people hadn't, then increasing the number of robot arms given to purple people makes sense from many perspectives, even though some green people have lost their arms through other means and will have to wait longer for replacements.

  54. Re: OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you have a big bag of dicks to go eat, you walking victim complex?

  55. It's just a start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait till they put in something super Orwellian like "Do the MOST good" or "Do only Double Plus Good".

  56. Re: MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree on the mod down part, Slashdot has many things to fix before looking at the editors' work

    The dramatic drop in quality of posting is a direct result of chasing more clicks with sensationalist and culture war articles. Slashdot can still be decent, when there are decent, relevant articles, but that's not going to hold true for too much longer if they keep prioritizing articles that get hundreds of comments over articles that are, you know, true.

    That said, Google has been quite successful at not being evil

    I doubt anyone sane puts stock in your point of view any longer.

  57. Re: OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if your "anti-racism measures" cause more racism, along with a panoply of other unintended consequences? Did you morons ever measure anything other than the useless, contrived poverty metrics, or would that make it too obvious your preferred policies are complete shit?

  58. Steve Jobs by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs famously called bullshit on this slogan. Of course that was the pot calling the kettle black.

  59. Re: OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you have a big bag of dicks to go eat, you walking victim complex?

    No, I'm a white hetero male. Zero victim rating. Here's the bag of dicks you tried to force on me you damned dirty Progressive.

  60. Ha! Pentagon Contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://politics.slashdot.org/story/18/05/14/1544217/google-employees-resign-in-protest-against-pentagon-contract

    At least there where some people adhering their slogan. Can't have that... just remove it.

  61. My essay by yuhong · · Score: 1

    I have an essay about one problem: http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2...

  62. Re:Capitalism is dead. Long live corporate canceri by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

    I am so happy that your influence on society is limited to Slashdot. Only the fucking clueless would want to wipe out an institution like the stock market, which has operated for centuries, and is a means to provide transparency to the general public, and allow people that aren't part of the 0.01% to possess wealth that isn't real estate.

    The only thing wrong with patents (a means that allows people capable of solving intractable problems to be rewarded for their efforts) has occurred in the past 30 years; which converted a temporary, government enforced monopoly (to reward intellectual "property"), into a monopoly that can last over a century!

    At least take a fucking introductory economics course, followed by an introductory finance course, so you'd at least have a grasp at how basic finance works! Stock markets and patents aren't evil; its lazy American voters who are evil, because they allow greedy individuals to corrupt perfectly good laws and regulations.

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  63. Re: OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've clearly never taken an implicit bias test. Or known anyone who has. It's pretty startling how hard it is to fake it.

    You've also never seen the results that show identical resumes with black names get fewer callbacks from employers.

    There's plenty of data. You should look at it and then realize that while you're trying to solving a problem, which is admirable, you're actually letting perfect be the enemy of the good, which is one of man's most destructive sins.

  64. Re: OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, heck, you're right. I AM glue, and you ARE rubber.

  65. Google's new motto... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

    Google changed their motto from "Don't Be Evil" to "Don't Be Evil*". They're considering changing it to "Don't Be 'Evil'".

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  66. ..it was BS then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it's still BS.

    If you have to say 'we're not evil', then you probably are.

  67. Re: MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big Brother Google sure is bigoted.

  68. Public masturbation of 444053 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-1

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  69. Re: OMG, CoC by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

    You've clearly never taken an implicit bias test. ... identical resumes with black names get fewer callbacks ...

    And you've clearly never read any of the critiques of those kinds of tests. They give you a result you like, so they're right.

    But for the sake of argument, I'll assume that racism not only exists, but is common and debilitating.

    What if your "anti-racism measures" cause more racism, along with a panoply of other unintended consequences?

    You should look at it and then realize that while you're trying to solving a problem, which is admirable, you're actually letting perfect be the enemy of the good, which is one of man's most destructive sins.

    What you're asking for isn't the acceptance of sub-optimal solutions, you're asking people to deliberately not look at possible downsides.

  70. Re: OMG, CoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well you are a Progressive which means you have a mind like a child.

  71. As of 4/30/2018 Google has not by siculars · · Score: 1

    As of 4/30/2018 Google has not removed "Don't be Evil" from their CoC. I know cause that's when I saw it right there as the first three words of the CoC. I just started at Google.

  72. Re:Capitalism is dead. Long live corporate canceri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, patents last for 20 years.