Don't Be Evil — Hire It Done 332
MarkusQ writes, "The NY Times among others is reporting that Google is ramping up its lobbying clout (registration or bugmenot required). The 'Don't be evil' search engine company has hired the infamous astroturfing and dirty tricks firm Direct Connect, Inc. You may remember DCI from their recent attempts to pass off their 'Penguin Army' video as a product of some lone wit, unconnected with their client, Exxon. Or their involvement in Microsoft's 'even dead voters love Microsoft' campaign. With a staff of veterans in the biz (such as Chris 'Swiftboat' LaCivita and Jim 'Electioneering' Tobin), led by Tom 'Big Tobacco on the Dole' Synhorst, I'm sure DCI will be able to give Google whatever they're paying them for. The question is, what are they paying them for? And does 'Don't be evil' imply 'Don't pay professionals to be evil for you?' Or could there possibly be a non-evil reason to hire these clowns?"
Not what you think (Score:4, Insightful)
When you start handing out money to both sides of the aisle, you can get better results.
IIRC, Google was mostly throwing money at Democratic party people.
P.S. here's the No-Reg Required RSS Link [nytimes.com]
Surprise! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If pulling crap would make their client angry, they won't do it. Not to mention, that irrespective of "dirty tactics" the firm might be simply the best at getting the job done.
Don't imply that Google is or will be doing anything wrong with this company until some negative action is taken. This company will do what it takes to make their client happy. If "Do No Evil" is what makes Google happy, then they will do their job within the confines of that model.
Let's just wait and see.
Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies can compete on the market, or in lobbying ability. Thanks, voters, for making the latter so ripe.
"Do No Evil" (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, some would even say that it implies that you "Don't fatten the coffers of companies that do do evil". Even if you aren't planning on using them for evil purposes. It's not like they are the only game in town and Google should have more than enough clout to pick someone who was, at the very least, less "evil".
But that just goes to show what I've said all along, Google is all about marketing and making money. "Don't do evil" was perhaps one of the best conceived marketing slogans ever for a tech company. They know their market very well. Some, like me, would consider their ad spreading technologically incremental search "core" evil in and of itself. How much better is my web using experience due to Google, well, other than Groups (which they purchased) and Map, not much.
Just wait, the "real" Google will slowly show their hand and then everyone will understand.
The Political Machine (Score:5, Insightful)
Google probably started talking to some politicians about Net Neutrality(or something else that effects their business) and the politician said "Huh? I can't hear you. Maybe you ought to drop my buddies at DCI some ka-ching to help fix my hearing problem."
See: K-Street Project [wikipedia.org]
Washington DC has vastly increased in size in the past six years, and it's all been lobbyists, shills and political hacks. Lot's of people profiting at the tax payers expense.
Guns for Hire (Score:5, Insightful)
When in Rome. (Score:3, Insightful)
If we have to play dirty to protect net neutrality and the last semblances of online privacy - then we should get the dirtiest fuckers out there.
Sometimes the ends justify the means.
Re:Just because.... (Score:5, Insightful)
a philosophy major's take (Score:4, Insightful)
There are two possibilities here. One is that the lobbying organization with a track record of evil does no evil while being payed by Google. The other is that the lobbying organization continues its standard practice of evil behavior while on the clock for Google.
In the first case, one could perhaps argue that paying someone who used to do evil that no longer does evil is giving them a new start, a chance to make things right. However if the lobbying organization doesn't do evil on behalf of Google, but still does evil on behalf of other clients, then one could argue that Google is supporting the evil-doer financially, even if it isn't contributing to evil directly.
Let's examine the second case. If the organization actually does commit evil directly while on the clock for Google, and Google is aware of it, then one would have a difficult time arguing that Google is not at least guilty of contributory evil.
Of course, none of this says what good or evil actually are. I'll leave that as an excercise for the reader.
Re:Just because.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-evil? Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the lobbying firepower being deployed by the anti-net-neutrality side, if Google, usually portrayed as pro-neutrality, is serious about a pro-neutrality stance as something more than a quixotic PR stand, it needs the capacity to go toe-to-toe with the cable and telephone industries.
And that means you need people that are familiar with the broadest possible spectrum of lobbying tactics, capable of advising on how to counter them, and capable of deploying whatever tactics Google is willing to go with in response.
Anything less is bringing a knife to a gun fight.
What's the story exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake me up when there's something real.
Interesting spin (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an interesting take on the issue. In submitting the story, I intentionally focused on the part I object to (DCI's long history of unethical conduct) and did not mention either party by name. But, as you point out, there seems to be a sad assumption underlying this story (and reflected in many of the news reports about it) -- that the only way to gain influence with the Republicans at present is through corruption.
Think about it...Google hires a corrupt astroturfing firm, and your immediate response is that they are trying to balance out their lobbying efforts--that the way to balance out giving to Democrats is to give to Slimeballs too. I'm not saying that you originated this take on it; it seems to be pretty much universal.
--MarkusQ
What do you mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't balance _that_ like that, or not so easily. This isn't D&D. You can't say, basically, "oh, I've done 3 good deeds this month, for 4 'good' alignment points total, so I'm entitled to gut two orphans for 2 'evil' points each." RL doesn't work that way. Al Capone's kitchen soups, very good deeds as they may be, don't simply balance out that he was an evil psychopath the rest of the time.
But more importantly, Google's motto doesn't work that way. It says "do no evil", _not_ "keep the balance by doing as much evil as good stuff". So exactly how and what are they, in your opinion, balancing there? Surely not their motto and promise.
I don't care if it's for Google itself or for some political party or whatever. Evil is evil. Evil done to "balance" something else is still evil by any definition. And hiring evil people to do evil for you, is still doing evil.
We have a long history of laws and precedents, in both criminal and military justice, saying just that: you're personally responsible for the people you paid or commanded. We've had plenty of Mafia Dons trying to claim basically, "see, I never hurt a fly. It was my subordinates that shot people and threw people in lakes with cement shoes. But me? I never personally even slapped anyone." And society eventually decided that, no, it doesn't work your way. If _your_ goons did evil stuff, _you_ are responsible for that.
Or we had military commanders willing to claim basically, "nah, I never shot a civillian. It was my soldiers that shot and raped civillians. I was just standing there and watching them." And again, society decided that it doesn't work that way. If they're your subordinates, you're responsible for them. It's your duty to stop them if they do something evil.
So, ok, astroturfing isn't subject to criminal laws or anything, but from a moral standpoint it's the same thing: if Google pays to get action X done, Google is morally responsible for it. You can't claim the moral high ground by just paying others to do your evil stuff.
Outgrowing the "Don't be Evil" Motto (Score:4, Insightful)
But let's be honest. The "Don't be Evil" motto was made when Google was a startup of 50 or less people. Everything is based off an ideal in a startup because you want to change the world. In order to do that you need passionate and idealistic people. It was the same in the two startups I have worked for as well and it will be the same in my current startup. Nobody changes the world without some ideals. Nobody wants to work like crazy without a sense that you are going to be doing something profound, something worthy. Everybody wants to be a knight in shining armor. Maybe that is a bad side effect from the amount of RPG's good software developers play.
The unfortunate part of it is when you become a big corporation you are pulled in a lot of directions and sometimes the ideals you were founded on take a back-seat. This becomes especially true when you are publicly traded and have wall street to deal with. The fact is Google is now headed by more than just the two founders as a matter of fact I think they are probably just content to sit back and do what they do best develop new technologies. The actual Google is run by a bunch of savvy businessman who are there to leverage every single aspect of the company and a large part of that is lobbying.
Software patents - check
Using their user's information for competitive advantage - check
Being secretive about changes to their product - check
Being one of the most secretive but somehow comes across open and sharing company - check
I think it's time to take the "Don't be Evil" slogan for what it is, just clever marketing. There is simply nothing most of us can do. I am tied into Google probaby more than others and I don't care because if it wasn't them it would be somebody else who is analyzing my data, hosting my emails, storing my chat's, selling me viagra (oh wait not that last part).
Re:Interesting spin (Score:2, Insightful)
You certainly did your level best in your "summary" to make it seem so.
Re:But astroturfing is what they DO (Score:4, Insightful)
DCI is a full spectrum political consulting, PR, and telemarketing firm; while some of the work it has done certainly has been "astroturfing", a lot of it seems to be routine political consulting and marketing.
DCI is not an "astroturfing" company, but like most political consulting firms, most of their work doesn't make headlines. Its only when they are caught doing something controversial, like astroturfing, that anyone notices them.
Re:Just because.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just because.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like more of the same talking out of both sides of their mouth.
It wrong to judge on looks. But judging by actions, well Google has lost the right to the motto of do no evil in my book.
Re:Surprise! (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, of course, that this a fairy tale. No such "terms" exist which are in any way enforceable. The only laws governing corporations which apply to corporate activities are that which the Federal Securities Commission enforces. In which profits of the shareholders are always to be put before any other "principles".
Principles can be put in motion in a business but only in the rare cases when the business is privately held, family owned or in some other special way enjoys the complete concensus of its shareholders, which usually implies small organizations.
Re:Not what you think (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a guess -- maybe because "is" is not the same as "ought"?
Think Different! (Score:1, Insightful)
It's hard not to be evil when you have shareholders (and a private party plane)
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1152227885Ad that is the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course if we get to the point that the real reason for liability is forgotten and we, through precidence, decide that corporations must make profit at any cost, we will have then set up a situation where by definition, corporations are evil. That would be disasterous for our economy as moral people would only do business with sole proprietorships, and sole proprietorships have far less potential for growth. Not to mention that they also would require the concentration of wealth.
Re:Interesting spin (Score:2, Insightful)
With no bias I might add...
Re:Thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
I just love how innovative companies like Google are forced to spend all this money on lobbyists just so Congress doesn't screw them over. Why isn't it all spent on making a better product? Because some people gave the government so much power beyond its strict Constitutional limits, which given enough time would mean lobbyists would be fighting over all that juicy government money and to shackle their competitors. "It's okay though, we can give the government all this power, we just have to, you know, limit the lobbyists!" YOU CAN'T. With that much money at stake, they will steamroll over whatever petty contributions limits and ethics rules you set up.
That's because there are no true small government types in government anymore. People keep voting for politicians who "bring home the bacon" and who pile all sorts of regulations on business. But if a major function of government is to regulate business and find various ways to extract money from them, then it creates an incentive for businesses to lobby government. Getting favorable treatment from the government becomes a competitive advantage, only because we live in a society that insists on micromanaging the economy.
Don't want businesses lobbying government? There's an easy solution: get government out of the business of micromanaging businesses.
A great way to end corruption would be to make government as small (and transparent) as possible.
Re:Surprise! (Score:3, Insightful)
And they can only maximise their profits in unethical ways? That seems not only cynical, but plain wrong. Business is about business relationships, you want to be as trustworthy and consistent as possible, otherwise you have the potential to scare off both customers and other business relationships. Yes power usually corrupts even the noblest of intentions, but to imply that maximising profits is incompatible with ethical behavior right from the start is not a redeemable point of view.
I chose the most non-partisan links I could find (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll have you know that I spend close to an hour writing the story submission, and pointedly looked for the most non-partisan links I could find. I specifically focused on their corporate activities (with the exception of the Tobin, who I included because of the criminal activity involved).
For the record, I am a Republican, and have been all my life. But I've been an American for even longer, so don't assume that that means I will blindly ignore this sort of thing either just because "Republicans" are doing it. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what color jersey you wear if you are acting to subvert our democracy.
For me, the issue here is simple: these people are good at only one thing, trying to manipulate our elected officials into thinking that they are doing our will when in fact they are not. I assume that their party affiliation is as flexible as their ethics, and don't put any more trust in it than it deserves.
--MarkusQ
Re:Surprise! (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly, thank you for being the one person here perpared to state the blindingly obvious.
The attitude people on this site have to companies like Google and Apple confuses me deeply.
If this was a story about Microsoft hiring an organisation known for dirty political lobbying there would already be 500 comments (rightly) slating them for using their power and prividge to try and influence the regulatory process. But if it's Google or Apple..... suddendly all your cynicism goes out of the window to be replaced with something along the lines of "But they're nice guys right? They couldn't possibly try and screw us."
Wake up slashdot, any major corporation is only after one thing, cash. If "do no evil" was anything more than clever marketing the shareholders would have every legal right to seek the removal of Larry Page et al and have them replaced with people who will seek to maximise profits.
Google has already shown with regard to China etc. that "do no evil" is absolutely nothing more than clever marketing anyhow.
Lying is lying, period. (Score:4, Insightful)
No. The ends do not justify the means. I happen to run linux on all my machines at the present (*sigh* my BSD box finally went the way netcraft always said it would), but none of my grandparents (all of whom are dead) ever did. If I found out that they were busy writing posthumous letters to our Senator, extolling the Tao of GNU, I'd be just as upset as if it was pro-Microsoft BS.
The people can and should speak for themselves. Letting paid shills shape our public policy is a recipe for disaster, even if we happen to agree with them on the issue of the moment.
--MarkusQ
Re:I chose the most non-partisan links I could fin (Score:2, Insightful)
The Republican party does not value someone like you. Virtually everytime a Candidate appears to be someone like you, the GOP pushes them to the side and or dumps them entirely from the party. Moral and ethical behavior is not a core value in the leadership of today's Republican Party. You can thank Tom "The Hammer" Delay and many similar 'leaders' in the GOP for that course change.
Re:Interesting spin (Score:2, Insightful)
It is very sad Google would put money in the banks of these sorts of people. Even if their intent is good. .
Re:Interesting spin (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you perhaps quote the part of the summary that mentions any political party directly (not by way of an entirely-relevant project on which DCI has worked)?
Because, put simply, I don't see anything partisan in the FP.
And for the record, I call myself neither a Democrat nor a Republican - I consider myself a "moderate anarchist". As all governments exist for the sole purpose of slowly removing "real" freedoms from its citizens (new laws, by definition, make something you formerly had the freedom to do, now illegal), I consider "downsizing" the one and only viable political strategy.
Re:I chose the most non-partisan links I could fin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Surprise! (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't sound too damnned evil to me.
Old-school Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't always that way. I keep hoping that someday it will change back. Of course, the first step is for those of us who still remember what values look like (not the word "values" printed on a campaign button, but actual values) to become a million little hammers, pushing back on the slime buckets that hijacked our party, making it increasingly uncomfortable for them to stay. There are certainly enough of us, though you wouldn't know it from the antics of our party's leaders and their morally bankrupt cheerleading squads. (Who knows, maybe they'll get sick of us and go join the Green Party [tpmmuckraker.com].)
--MarkusQ
re: "playground of the small-minded" (Score:3, Insightful)
When large-minded people ignore politics, politics - which affects life on many, many levels, from labor laws to healthcare to the quality of food we eat and what entertainment is open to us - is of necessity run by the small-minded. Open your mind just a little further and get out on the playground!
Guns shoot both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just silly. That Google has hired them doesn't preclude a competing interest from hiring them anyway.
What? You think astroturfing scum are above talking money from both sides?
Re:I chose the most non-partisan links I could fin (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're still a Republican at this point, then *you* by your support of these scum *are* acting to subvert our Democracy. Unless you're over 40, then given that you've been a Republican "all your life", you have always stood for exactly this sort of subversion of our Democracy.
Wake up and take some responsibility for your actions.
All that torture and murder based on lies and fear mongering? That's *your* fault.
Be a man, step up and have an ounce of personal responsibility.
Oh right, you're a Republican personal responsibility is like kryptonite to you.
Re:Interesting spin (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but our death and torture schools and camps all over central America, Eastern Europe, and the Arab world prove you to be a liar.
The K Street project which institutionalized bribery and corruption as the third house of congress prove you to be a liar.
Yes, theyre all slimeballs but there is no competition whatsoever if for no other reason than that the Democrats just aren't as good at treason and corruption as the Republicans are.
If you really can't see a massive difference in scale, then you had better send your moral compass back to Cracker Jack because it's badly broken.
Re:What if Google isn't paying for lobbying? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets try and make black look white to fit our pathetic gullible little universe.
The whole do no evil thing is a load of horse shit, google is a corporation run by directors who have been selling off [gigaom.com] their stock as fast as they can. This is never a good sign of about the intentions of the directors.
If Microsoft was doing everything Google has done and is currently doing everyone would be crying out for the US justice department to do something about them. They control the popularity of sites, they collect data on your searches, the emails you send, the desktop search facility sends back information to google on the contents of your hard disk.
Personally I trust Microsoft more than I trust Google. Microsoft knows they can't get away with anything on the desktop, if they tried anything dishonest, tried to invade the privacy of their users they know they would be caught straight away by all and sundry. You simply can't hide packets across the internet. Google... they want everyone's data on their servers under their control, where they can pretty much do what ever they want to do with it.
It's quite remarkable just how gullible the slashdot crowd can be.
Re:Old-school Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
I can give them ulcers. I can vote in the primaries. I can hold them accountable (elephants are known for their long memories). And come election day, I can vote for the best candidate regardless of which party they're running for.
And I do. My name isn't Inigo Montoya, but I do my small part.
--MarkusQ
Re:Show me links about money flowing to the Democr (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Surprise! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I chose the most non-partisan links I could fin (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that the criminal immoral actions are coming from the top, describing them as "fringe" is totally dishonest and/or insane.
Further, it's not "simple association" I'm talking about. Republican voters chose to put those people in power. Their support is all that is keeping them out of prison or away from execution for their crimes.
That's not "simple association", it's active collusion, it's cowardice, and it's treason.
Seeing that you are a liberal, probably vote democrate, I can see your frustration, Your party has lost some big races in the past few years
Typical of the inherently deeply dishonest approach spearheaded by your ilk.
"Durrrrrrrrr... if you disagree with torturing and murdering innocent people you must be a Democrat".
I deeply dislike the Democrats as well. That doesn't change the fact that the current Republicans are treasonous murdering torturing scum. All it takes is integrity to notice that, not a Democratic voter card.
But I wouldn 't call you a pedifile because NAMBLA purports to be a democaratic supporter and tends to contribute to democrate campains. Or because thier news letters often have interviews with democratic legislators about pending laws that effect sexual offenders (mark leno is a recent one) and how they opose the evil republicans.
But if I actively worked to give massive power to pedophiles and then ignorantly defended their pedophilic actions against all sense and decency as well as paying them to rape children, then that's a different issue. In fact it's the same core issue we're discussing minus the particulars of the crimes, so try to keep on topic and leave the red herrings and straw men at home.
What torture and murder?
You're an idiot. Bush has even admitted to the torture camps. Your new talking point is "torture is good it keeps the evil terrorists at bay". Seriously, keep up. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
It definatly isn't my fault and I voted republican last election. I did so because the democrates and one green party official that ran were worse then the republicans I had to choose from.
Yes, it absolutely is your fault. You voted for a known criminal traitor thereby allowing his crimes to continue and accelerate. It's called personal responsibility. Look into it.
The idea that any of the candidated would have been worse than Bush could only be held by a fool at this point.
The simple fact that the president and the congress are from the same party proves that one absolutely regardless of the people involved.
Look at Bush's unbroken record of incompetence proves it as well.
Wake up Sparky.
How could any of the other candidates possibly have been worse?
Hell, you knew full well how bad Bush was after the first term, so even crazy ignorance isn't an excuse.
Picking the lessor of twp evils seems to be the norm in elections nowadays.
And you're a miserable failure at even that.
This reminds me of clinton's term in office.
Delusional frothing Republican hate campaigns? Sure, just because they're in power doesn't mean they'll give up that tactic.
"Don't be evil" (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be evil? Says who? (Score:3, Insightful)