Dont Be Evil  
 Don't Be Evil - restoring the public trust in business, politics and the media   
 
    

Email Contact

comments at dontbeevil dot com

Posts

Brin - the principled approach makes more sense
Censorship and moral equivalence
Steve Ballmer on Don't Be Evil
Lauren Weinstein on "Don't Be Evil"
Uncensored Google.com serves 99% of China queries
What does Vint Cerf think about censorship?
Did Google Hire Stratfor for Counterprotest Work?
Not just morally repugnant
Don't be hypocritical
What lies in our power not to do
 
     Archives
04/25/04 05/02/04 05/09/04 05/16/04 05/23/04 05/30/04 06/13/04 07/04/04 07/11/04 08/08/04 11/07/04 12/05/04 04/17/05 04/24/05 05/01/05 05/08/05 05/15/05 06/12/05 06/26/05 07/10/05 07/17/05 07/24/05 07/31/05 08/07/05 08/28/05 09/18/05 09/25/05 10/09/05 11/13/05 12/04/05 01/15/06 01/22/06 01/29/06 02/05/06 02/12/06 03/12/06 04/02/06 04/09/06 04/16/06 04/23/06 04/30/06 05/07/06 05/14/06 05/21/06 06/04/06
 
     Links
Poynter Google's Ten Things Conflict of Interest


Brin - the principled approach makes more sense - 6/06/2006 10:39:00 PM

Philipp spots the AP story -- Google is having second thoughts about their strategy to actively censor political expression in China.
"Perhaps now the principled approach makes more sense," Brin said.
The principled approach makes sense now, and it made sense back when Google chose the censorship path.

Isn't it curious that Google created the censored google.cn site in response to having 10% of searches on google.com censored. Now that Google has done the dirty work of censoring political expression on google.cn, China has blocked 100% of queries to the uncensored google.com.

Here's to hoping that Google does the right thing, and sets themselves apart from their mercenary competitors. It's the right thing for Google, and it's the right thing for Google's users.

Update 6/7/06 6:23 AM: In a forum discussion responding to Philipp's post, I said:

Google's mission puts them on a collision course with Microsoft, with the telcos, with governments, and with privacy groups. Until now, Google's most potent weapon in these conflicts was its image and the trust people place in the Google brand.

To the extent Google's image has been tarnished by the censorship hypocrisy, so has Google's ability to compete against vastly larger competitors and to have any credibility in the privacy wars.

Ending active censorship of political thought is morally right. It's an impossible contradiction to build a business based on free, unbiased information while simultaneously building the world's most efficient censorship engine.

But it's not only morally right. Publicly ending censorship would generate a tidal wave of positive press, and once again make Google known worldwide as trustworthy and unbiased. It would provide a bright distinction between Google and their less-principled competitors. And in the wars Google will fight in the next few years, they'll need every bit of trust they can muster.


Censorship and moral equivalence - 5/21/2006 09:43:00 PM

silenthill

Once you decide to censor information, even for benign or laudable reasons, it can be a slippery thing to control.

For films it rates, the MPAA censors the content of the film as well as what can appear in promotional materials like trailers and posters. Many would agree that this censorship is generally worthwhile, preventing children from seeing inappropriate material, and providing information to movie audiences about the content of movies so they can make an informed judgment about what to see.

But it gets slippery when censorship crosses over from censoring appropriateness and taste, into censoring political expression. The Washington Post explains that the MPAA recently censored this movie poster for a documentary on Guantanamo, because "the burlap bag over the guy's head was depicting torture, which wasn't appropriate for children to see."

Censored Gitmo Movie Poster

The WP article quotes an MPAA spokesperson on what is unacceptable in a movie poster that the public can see:
... depictions of violence, blood, people in jeopardy, drugs, nudity, profanity, people in frightening situations, disturbing or frighenting scenes.
So what about movie posters like the ones shown below? Aren't they just as frightening and disturbing as the hooded Guantanamo detainee? Don't they depict people in jeopardy? Is the MPAA making a political decision on what the public can see? Is it OK to see horrific images if it's just makebelieve, but not if it's really happening?

Hatchet MovieHostel MovieHard Candy MoviePoseidon Poster

Google likes to say that their censorship of political expression in China is morally equivalent to censorship that's required in other countries. It's not.

Removing material that directly harms innocent people (child porn) or their property (intellectual property theft) is generally accepted as worthwhile. But when censorship morphs into a tool to bias and distort information and news on a massive scale, a moral and ethical line has been crossed.


Steve Ballmer on Don't Be Evil - 5/21/2006 11:24:00 AM

From an interview in today's SF Chronicle, Microsoft's Steve Ballmer talks about Google's "Don't Be Evil" ethic:

Q: This is an old question, but it always comes up: What do you think of the "Don't be evil" mantra as a corporate culture?

A: Who are we talking about?

Q: Google.

A: Do they follow it? (Laughs.)

Q: What do you think of that?

A: I don't have any comment. I'll ask you. I mean, it's one thing to have a mantra and it's another thing to follow it. Dude, you've got to ask yourself that question.

Q: Are you saying that they don't?

A: I didn't say anything. No comment about it. It is important for all companies to -- we have a mission. We believe in empowering people and businesses around the world to realize their full potential. We have a set of core values that we believe in. I think many companies do have a mission. Many companies do have values. Many companies do have a mantra.

The key is not whether you have one. The key is: What does it mean in practice? Do you drive it? Do you follow it? We do. That's important. But even when we do, there are people who say well, if you do, shouldn't X or Y or Z not happen? I mean, the truth of the matter is, getting a very high market share in a business is not inconsistent with our values or our mission, but sometimes when you get a good position in the market, people need to look at you in a different way.

We have good positions in some markets, and some can argue other guys, including some of the guys that you're talking about, have good positions in other markets. I don't study other companies' mantras.



Lauren Weinstein on "Don't Be Evil" - 5/15/2006 12:05:00 AM

Lauren Weinstein at Google

Or maybe the title should be, "Don't Be Naive."

Lauren Weinstein gave a pessimistic and sparsely attended talk at Google in January, and he's posted the mp4 video on his blog. I haven't seen it on Google Video yet, but Weinstein says he obtained the video master from Google.

Weinstein has been a steady and consistent voice since the early days of the Internet on the intersection of technology and society -- privacy, censorship, and freedom on the net being some of his favorite topics.

Anyone interested in recent issues of net neutrality, Internet surveillance, and censorship would get a lot from this one-hour discussion.

Weinstein's theme can be summed up as advice to Google to recognize that powerful forces that Google does not control in politics, society, and public perception can have a greater influence on Google's future than just trying to do the right thing. And these forces can and will (and in fact already are) using Google's creations for purposes that Google never intended.

According to Weinstein, because of the potential of Google's creations, the odds are against Google keeping control of the tools they've created.
It's not enough to say, "Don't Be Evil." You really want, if possible, to go to the next steps, and try to find ways to prevent evil, and to prevent others from doing evil with the marvels that you've created ...

Technologists throughout history, for thousands of years, have seen what has happened to their tools in the wrong hands, when they were abused, and how difficult it is to control it. And more often than not, they failed in controlling it ...

But it's still worth a try. Sometimes you win, sometimes you succeed.
I agree that while Google has laudable objectives, that's not enough to keep their technology from being abused. And I'd add that by developing technology to actively and efficiently self-censor expression, Google has accelerated the abuse of their technology and diminished the one advantage they have in this struggle -- their reputation.

[via Philipp]


Uncensored Google.com serves 99% of China queries - 5/12/2006 06:21:00 AM

When Google rolled out google.cn, the censored and localized version of Google to the Chinese market, Google insisted that they had no other choice. Google argued that the "user experience" was awful and Google had no choice but to fix it:
Google users in China today struggle with a service that, to be blunt, isn't very good. Google.com appears to be down around 10% of the time. Even when users can reach it, the website is slow, and sometimes produces results that when clicked on, stall out the user's browser. Our Google News service is never available; Google Images is accessible only half the time. At Google we work hard to create a great experience for our users, and the level of service we've been able to provide in China is not something we're proud of.
In short, google.cn was to become the fast and easy search engine in China, and users would flock to it because the alternative was so terrible.

But in yesterday's stockholder meeting, Sergey Brin said that hasn't happened, at least not yet. In a spirited response to a censorship challenge by Tony Cruz of Amnesty International, Brin noted that usage of google.cn is just a fraction of one percent of Google searches in China -- the uncensored google.com is still used for more than 99% of all Google searches.

Brin was trying to make the point that Google hadn't really sold out, and traded their souls for gobs of cash. Google's not profiting from active censorship of political expression, at least not yet.

Maybe word just hasn't gotten out yet that Google has a faster (though lobotomized) search. Or are Chinese citizens are willing to put up with getting blocked 1 time in ten, and enduring the latency of google.com, because they trust it more?


What does Vint Cerf think about censorship? - 5/09/2006 01:47:00 PM

John Battelle will interview Vint Cerf, the "father of the internet" and now employed by Google as "Chief Internet Evangelist." Battelle is asking his readers to suggest questions for the interview. Here are mine:

Vint, you've been outspoken on the topic of internet censorship. You wrote the foreword to the 2003 report on internet censorship from Reporters Without Borders (before you joined Google), and consistently argued that the antidote to government censorship is the critical thinking of users. But censorship is no longer being done just by governments, it is now implemented by the giant internet companies that *are* the internet for most people. John Gilmore famously said, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." How can the net "route around" censorship when the big internet companies themselves are the censors?

Now you're "Chief Internet Evangelist" for Google, which has been widely criticized for compromising their principles to develop an efficient system to self-censor political expression on a massive scale. Although Google seemed to be conflicted about their decision, and is arguably the most principled of the big Net companies, they still employed scarce engineering talent to develop the censorship technology that you've argued against. Is it possible for a company like Google to succeed without compromising their principles?

Vint, you've argued that the net is like a blank sheet of paper, in that it doesn't care what is written on it. Is this really still true, now that the companies that provide the bandwidth, routers, blogs, email, news and search have incorporated massive and efficient censorship systems directly into their products?

You've never been afraid to express your honest opinion, and I'd expect nothing less from you now, even though you're employed by Google. Were you consulted on Google's decision to censor news and search results, and if so, what was your advice? Do you believe that in Google's case that the ends justify the means -- that engaging with the Chinese government will eventually eliminate the need for censorship, but that developing censorship technology today was the price of that engagement?


Did Google Hire Stratfor for Counterprotest Work? - 5/08/2006 12:09:00 PM

Stratfor Logo

Stats for dontbeevil and protestgoogle are seeing more than passing interest from a user at Stratfor. Stratfor's website says they specialize in "custom intelligence services," and their IP address (207.59.83.122) has downloaded just about every page I have on censorship, including the virtual protest and information on Google's stockholders' meeting this coming Thursday.

While it could be that this is just a curious user, the pattern of activity suggests there's something more. I can see that the user is searching my full name (which I've published before, but haven't made terribly easy to find), along with very specific protest-related searches.

As a Google shareholder, I sure hope Google's not wasting cash on Stratfor consulting to get intelligence on what I'm doing. There are no secrets, all you have to do is ask - my email is in the upper right corner of every page, and I haven't heard from Google yet.

And if Google is paying big bucks for Stratfor consulting, I sure hope they're getting more than a few amateurish Google searches for their money. Heck, since I use Google services like Blogger, Gmail, Analytics and Search History, Google has far more info on me than Stratfor does. And Stratfor is finding me through some very newbie searches:

[google "mountain view" protest]
[google shareholder meeting may 11 protest]
[google censorship]
And a malformed query on my name.

If Stratfor knew what they were doing, they might try a site search, or go after those RSF, Amnesty* and Falun Gong guys.

No secrets here, and no security threat either. Just a friend and Google shareholder who's deeply disappointed that Google has rationalized away a big part of their Don't Be Evil ethic, tarnishing the Google brand in the process.

Google, don't spend your cash on high-priced corporate "intelligence," but spend it instead building great products -- products that raise your users' IQ, not products that censor the most important information and repress legitimate human expression.

If you wanna know, just ask.

Here's what Stratfor does:

Public Policy Intelligence: Confidential service designed to assist companies and associations with strategic planning and risk management. Clients are able to actively prepare for future public policy developments relating to their interests, at home or abroad, in a wide range of industries, including energy, oil and gas, mining and minerals, forest products, defense, financial services, pharmaceuticals, and technology.

Protective Intelligence: A comprehensive management solution to individual and corporate security concerns. From proprietary counter surveillance and protection methodology to proactive and preventive approaches, clients are able to develop and implement a robust security strategy to address and minimize risk.

*Update 1:12 PM PDT - Looks like Stratfor *is* researching those Amnesty guys after all. Just saw another hit from the same Stratfor IP address, now searching for ["amnesty international" google "may 11] (sic). Hope the Strafor guys aren't charging more than minimum wage for this insightful "intelligence" work.



Not just morally repugnant - 5/03/2006 12:02:00 AM

Tomorrow's Wall Street Journal has a good opinion piece on Google's censorship problem (subscription required).

Looks like I'm not the only one who will use Google's shareholder meeting on May 11 to protest the fact that Google, the company that wants to "organize the world's information," has compromised its principles and built a sophisticated censorship system. Amnesty International plans a media campaign to coincide with the shareholder meeting to raise awareness of this issue.

It's not just about being a "do-gooder," but Google's censorship could hurt its brand, and its stock price:
Shareholders should take heed, and not just because it's morally repugnant to collaborate with repression. In the short term, it's obviously good business to be in China, but there are longer-term consequences that should be considered.
Tech companies say they have no choice ...
American tech companies say they are simply complying with the laws of the land to avoid getting kicked out.
... but that's an illogical argument and a rationalization.
But they could resist more forcefully, as they do when protesting China's failure to protect intellectual property. They are willing to cave on human rights for a simple and understandable reason: They feel they can't afford not to be in China.
Should Google get credit for "agonizing" over their decision, when they ultimately caved?
Google says it agonized over launching a censored, local search engine early this year. But the company decided that offering is better than its older offshore service, which was slower than services of Chinese competitors and vulnerable to wholesale government shutdowns.
For Google, this issue is bigger than China. Google has destroyed user trust and tarnished the Google brand.
There also is the risk to tech companies' reputations. Yahoo and Google have faced a PR backlash, including an unflattering congressional hearing that has helped take the shine off of Google's "Don't Be Evil" motto. There's a reason companies respond to political pressure on human-rights issues, as many did during the Apartheid era in South Africa: To protect their most important bottom-line asset -- their brand.
As Google demonstrated when it stood up to the US DoJ, resistance isn't futile.


Don't be hypocritical - 5/01/2006 09:29:00 AM

The Guardian says Google is hypocritical to complain about Microsoft defaulting their own search engine in the forthcoming Windows Vista and IE7. Hypocritical because Firefox and Opera already default Google as the search engine, and there is speculation that Google has paid for this privilege. Nathan echos the hypocrite argument.

I don't think it's hypocritical of Google to complain about Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, since Google is not in a position to control user choice, and Google is not putting their own interests ahead of their users.

Background

Microsoft's Windows controls 90% of the personal computers in the world. Microsoft has a rich history of using their desktop dominance to lock out competitors, to limit user choices to Microsoft properties, and to stymie innovation and competition.

Artificially limiting choice enhances Microsoft's business at the expense of the user, which is evil (with a lowercase 'e').

Today, you can search from the address bar in Microsoft's IE6 browser, but it will use Microsoft's own MSN for that search, and it is not very easy to change this behavior. I've changed IE6 to use Google, but unlike most users, I'm comfortable editing arcane registry keys on my computer and risking a corrupted registry that could wreck Windows.

In the forthcoming Windows Vista and IE7, there will be a built-in search box in the upper right corner of every window. These searches will default to Microsoft properties, and Microsoft has said it will be easier to change the default in IE7 than by directly editing the registry as in IE6. But Microsoft will not ask the user for their preference, knowing that many users might switch if given the choice.

The issue

With 90% of computers controlled by Microsoft, it's not a level playing field. But Microsoft doesn't accept that their position of power over the user gives them a fiduciary responsibility not to put Microsoft's interests before the user's interests.

Google has a 50% market share in search, and unlike Microsoft, Google does realize a fiduciary responsibility to their users. Google doesn't use their dominance in search to put Google's interests ahead of their users. Google doesn't only feature Google properties, or invisibly direct users to Google partners, or bias search results to harm competitors. It's certainly in their power to do so, but they choose not to because that would be lowercase 'e' evil.

Firefox has a 10% market share in browers, and is usually installed by a sophisticated user who runs Linux, or wants features that IE can't provide. While it defaults to Google search, it's trivially easy to select a different search provider -- just click the arrow on the search box and choose somebody else.

The evil test

The proper test to detect lowercase 'e' evil to to determine if Microsoft or Google is using their market dominance to advance their own interests ahead of their users.

Is Microsoft or Google using their position to unfairly constrain user choice? It's not hypocritical to say that in this case, Microsoft is, and Google isn't.


What lies in our power not to do - 4/27/2006 12:11:00 PM

Recently it seems like messages from Google are oddly targeted. Just as I finished posting virtual protest signs against Google censorship, I played Google's Da Vinci Code game and the solution to the puzzle was one word, "Censorship."

Earlier this week I responded to Henry Blodget's thread about Google censorship alternatives, saying that Google's hands aren't tied, they really do have a choice in this. They can choose not to build a massive and efficient censorship system -- though they would pay a price in having google.com occasionally blocked and often slow for Chinese users.

So it was curious today when a Gmail Webclip appeared, quoting Aristotle:

Aristotle - What it lies in our power to do, it lies in our power not to do.

Yes, there always is a choice. And isn't that the whole point of the Don't Be Evil ethic after all? Choosing to forgo the obviously wrong path even when it yields benefits in the short term?


Is 'censorship' the solution? - 4/24/2006 05:40:00 PM

Google Da Vinci Code Censorship

Google's Da Vinci Code puzzle #8 is puzzling on another level -- the solution to the puzzle is the word "censorship".

With all the angst Google went through deciding to implement a massive censorship program in China, would Google intentionally trivialize censorship as the answer to this fun puzzle game? Or was this an Easter egg of sorts by the team that designed the game?

Or maybe it's a riff on the widespread censorship of the Da Vinci Code book itself?

Interestingly (ironically?) the Da Vinci Code movie was approved for release in China on May 19 along with the rest of the world.


 dontbeevil.com