I applaud Google's Don't Be Evil ethic. Maybe it really is possible for a modern corporation to do well by doing good. But if Google is going to advertise itself as a kind of holier-than-thou corporation that should be trusted with our information, then they should be prepared to be held to that higher standard.

Today Google committed an evil act. (That's evil with a lowercase e, because there's no sense in confusing this evil with the Evil of Thursday's terror in London or today's 10-year anniversary of the Srebrenica atrocity.)

Google's evil seems insignificant. All they did was change a goofy posting on the Google Blog, probably to shelter an innocent Googler from a very public joke.

But the fact is that the old posting is gone and the replacement posting uses a digitally altered version of the original photograph. There's no notice that Google has rewritten history just a little bit. They even kept the original date and time stamp.

For any other company, this would simply be a violation of blog etiquette. But for Google, which wants us to trust it with the world's information, this move qualifies as evil.

The protagonist of Orwell's 1984 is a low-level worker in a totalitarian regime who rewrites the news to fit the regime's definition of reality. The old version is flushed down the "memory hole."

Google is willing to censor news results in China (just a little bit, mind you, not nearly as bad as Microsoft). And now they're willing to flush old blog entries down the memory hole (just minor human-interest posts, mind you, nothing really important).

But these little white lies are bothersome from a company with Google's power and reach into every aspect of public and private information. Google has told us to expect better of them.

Here's the original posting which I copied from my browser's cache:

[original post]

Cube surfeit disorder
7/08/2005 05:13:00 PM
Posted by Michael Krantz, Google Blog Team

Can this Googler possibly be working at peak productivity?

And here's the current version with completely different text and the photo edited to blank out the name "Kathy Baxter" in the gray oval in the upper right corner. There is no indication of a change and the post retains the same timestamp as the original. [Update 7/12 12:50 AM - Could the blanked-out "Kathy Baxter" possibly be this Kathy Baxter, the usability engineer from Oracle and later eBay?]


[new post]

Tchotchkes cubed
7/08/2005 05:13:00 PM
Posted by Michael Krantz, Google Blog Team

Every time I pass this cube I wonder why my own work space looks so lame.

For more on the ethics of digital photo retouching see J.D. Lasica's excellent article from 1988. Please comment if you think I'm overreacting here.

I personally think you're overreacting slightly. I considering this act of censoring to be more of a privacy issue than anything.

If Google did the honourable thing and posted an update proclaiming an edited photograph, this would stir interest away from the content of the post itself. The readers would assume Google really has something to hide, and even more gossip would be spread.

I understand that this minor transgression on Google's part is the first step to a true Memory Hole. The question is: where does one draw the line?

I believe Google is ethically sound in this usage of the Memory Hole, as it is a truly minor change in the interest of protecting the privacy of a Google employee. However, this practice should be used sparingly, if at all.    

I certainly agree that there's no grave threat to civilization and democracy in this one instance. And if it was any company other than Google, this would just be a blogging faux pas. But Google's brand is built on trust. Google is asking us to trust them as they attempt to “organize the world’s information.”

Where does one draw the line? I suggest that if Google is very diligent and transparent in avoiding the Memory Hole with trivial cases such as this, it will set the standard for the more weighty issues. But if Google is willing to sacrifice basic principles in trivial cases, how can we trust that they’ll honor the Don’t Be Evil ethic when the stakes are much higher?    

I too feel you're overly focusing on what this could if all the factors were different; a slippery-slope argument I suppose.

The Washington Post article you linked included "If images are altered to suit the editorial purposes of anyone, if soda cans or clutter or blacks or people of ethnic backgrounds are taken out, suddenly you've got a world that's not only unreal but surreal.

A flaw in the photo caused purely by dust on the lens can, I believe, be edited out in good faith. Similarly, the editing out a soda can described in the article did not sound at all like the persons involved were trying to materially alter the photo, it's message/subject remained static. Comparing apples to oranges or suggesting $foo automatically leads to $bar, or 'soda can' to 'blacks or people of ethnic backgrounds' is somewhat invalid.

Returning to the Google photo edit and caption... I have to agree with the other commenters, on a case by case basis this edit was ethically sound.

The original caption was poorly thought out but clearly meant as humor, the photographer was probably another employee who knew the owner of the cube and meant it in an affectionate manner. On its own it may've been left as was - my guess. However, with her full name visible and the way the original caption could be taken out of context, I think it's unfair to insist she have to defend herself in a job interview (or simply be disregarded without interview) because some out of context fun might be used to suggest she's unproductive. The Post-It notes, personal photos and desk toys are nothing most wouldn't see in most companies in my experience, no need to permanently label her (by not editing name) as 'the messy one'! ;)

p.s. I recommend adding the 'tt' tag for quotes, to the list of acceptable tags for your replies if Blogger allows that for individual users.    

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I agree with all your points -- that my argument is a "slippery slope" one, that the facts of this case are trivial, that Google probably made the changes out of pure intentions.

My point is that Google can't afford to get sloppy about how it manages and presents information. When Google starts materially changing text and images after they have been posted, even in this trivial case, one can glimpse the dystopian potential.

All I'm asking for is a policy of transparency. Acknowledge errata and memorialize them along with the main content. This small step would symbolize Google's commitment to the integrity of the information that they want us to trust them to organize and deliver.