205 points

It would be pretty funny for a court to actually determine that a “just business” is synonymous with “doing evil”

permalink
report
reply
50 points

/r/selfawarewolves

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

In general I think business is not good or evil. They just operate on law frameworks given to them.

If company can be 30% more efficient by being more “on the edge” of law and regulation, it is more probably going to succeed.

This is why governments must regulate the hell out of everything, because the system itself is not doing it. It should include data protection, unions, environment etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
129 points

Can’t fool me, they gave it away when they removed “Don’t be evil” from their motto back in 2015.

permalink
report
reply
37 points

Fool me once, shame on…shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

There’s also another continuation: “fool me twice - shame on me”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

The above was a reference to a rather famous instance of George W Bush fumbling over trying to remember the full quite.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

The first time I saw the slogan all I could think is “a normal not-evil person doesn’t need to make such a disclaimer”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Exactly this man

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

They were already evil at that time so honestly it was refreshingly honest when they dropped it

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Except they didn’t drop it.

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

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don’t_be_evil it’s dropped. Telling investors somewhere in the code of conduct is different from being their official motto

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Do you own stock in Alphabet or are you a bootlicker for free?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

No they didn’t. Please stop spreading this false rumour.

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

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

That’s not their motto

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil was specifically removed from their motto in 2015

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

“Stop spreading this false rumor” and then gets proven wrong by a simple link to Wikipedia found in 5 seconds on google. I’m curious if they own stock in Alphabet, as I wouldn’t give a shit about their internal code of ethics when they don’t seemingly obey them.

Also “false rumor” is kind of a needless statement. A rumor is false until proven true. Like an “unsolved mystery” is always unsolved, if it was solved, it would not be a mystery.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

That’s not their code of conduct, they are telling YOU not to be evil.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-63 points
*

Lol, how simplistic do you have to be to believe this means anything? First off, you need to believe in good and evil, which are completely arbitrary. And do you think they thought “hmm, we need to start doing evil things do extract more profit… Change the motto so everybody knows! But then we’ll pretend to not be evil when confronted about this change…”

Maybe being evil would be to not change the motto and start doing evil acts anyway. Simpler answer is that somebody probably thought it was a stupid thing to have on there in the first place, and was likely thought up by a Cheeto stained LOTR neckbeard.

permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points

“Good and evil are arbitrary” mfers when I chop off their balls and feed them to their kids because I wanted to:

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points

They started deemphasizing the motto when they became a conglomerate in 2015, and removed it completely in 2018 after employees started getting fired for criticizing Google’s shady dealings with the Customs and Border Protection Agency.

Essentially, the employees argued that Google including “don’t be evil” in their contracts made them ethically obligated to speak up against bad behavior, and they didn’t actually want that. So it appears Google did indeed have a definition of “evil,” and when forced to choose between changing their practice or their definition, they chose the latter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

It’s what is known as a canary statement. Taken from when miners used to take canaries into the mines so that the bird would die first if there was toxic gas.

If the canary is dead, something is wrong. Google had it in their mission statement to not do bad things, then that was quietly removed. The canary is dead.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Y’all I found the bad guy

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Spoken like a guy who wants to avoid getting in trouble for being a bad person

Google seems a great fit for you

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

We should’ve seen it coming; I just realized I’ve never heard “ogle” used in a positive way, and it’s what the company name is literally commanding us to do. Hindsight is 20/20.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

So what you’re saying is that driving a rusty nail through your eyeball into your brain isn’t evil at all, and totally fine to do?

permalink
report
parent
reply
102 points

These are not mutually exclusive statements.

permalink
report
reply
65 points

That venn diagram would make a functional wheel.

permalink
report
parent
reply
75 points

A publicly traded company is legally obligated to be evil.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

Are you perhaps referring to the myth that the law requires companies to maximize shareholder profits above all else?

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Ok I was ready to disparage your link since the domain ends in .ai, but actually that was a decent read and a pretty good argument. I’m glad to have better knowledge of the actual court rulings.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I didn’t even look at the URL, to be honest; it was the most layman-friendly and succinct article that was from the last few years that popped up in a quick search, but there’s plenty of similar articles from other sources if anyone doubts this one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

There is no law that says they must. But shareholders are justified to fire C suite who don’t. And realistically shareholders only care about profits. Therefore they effectively must. Regardless of it not being “law”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Who/Where are these people that believe that? I have heard people say shareholders only care about profits, but I have never heard anyone say it was a law to maximize them. Regardless, they do love profits more than anyone or anything at any company. Companies also like to keep their shareholders happy. Evil comes about becuase of these.

permalink
report
parent
reply
69 points

Is profit at any cost morally irresponsible?

No, it’s the consumers who are wrong.

permalink
report
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 10K

    Posts

  • 467K

    Comments