Posted on 11/28/2008 5:59:20 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
Google effectively lost its first formal debate over whether "Google violates its own 'Don't Be Evil' motto" at the Rosenkranz Foundation's Oxford-style debate in New York City, November 18. (Transcript here)
Before the debate the audience was polled and voted 21% against Google and 48% for Google; after gathering additional insight from the debate, 47% voted against Google and 47% voted for Google. Apparently, most all of the undecideds voted against Google -- that Google violated their own 'don't be evil' motto.
What does this mean?
It suggests that anything less than evil is OK. As we all know, there are a host of illegal, unethical or irresponsible behaviors that are wrong for any publicly-traded corporation or ethical actor, but that fall beneath the moral bar of ‘evil.’ Moreover, if Google really meant ‘don’t be evil’ to mean ‘do good,’ why not make 'do good' the corporate motto?
Why use a double-negative on something so important?
Dictionary.com says: "the double negative conveys a weaker affirmative than would be conveyed by the positive adjective or adverb by itself."
Why use the weaker form if you really mean it?
The broader question this debate highlights is whether Google behaves ethically and responsibly given the unprecedented amount of information Google controls and given the fact that the DOJ has determined Google has monopoly market power in two key Internet advertising markets....
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
The “don’t be evil”, long ago, was meant to be something like “don’t be like Microsoft”. Ambiguous, meaningless and badly oriented. And even that didn’t happen.
According to the article he sites, at the start of the debate, the polling showed:
Intelligence Squared U.S. polls its audience on each motion before and after the debate. At the start of Tuesday's debate, the audience voted 21% for the motion that "Google violates its 'don't be evil' motto," with 31% against and 48%, nearly half, undecided.
The blogger said that 48% were FOR google before the debate, but only 31% were for google before, with 48% undecided.
So while more of the undecideds went against google than for google, some of them did support google after the debate.
But google IS evil. According to the article, one major argument AGAINST the "google is evil" proposition was that if google wasn't as bad as Hitler, it couldn't be called evil.
When you have to appeal to Pol Pot, Hitler, and "Dr. Evil" for comparisons, I think you have already lost your argument.
The argument further said that if google is evil, then line-cutters are evil.
Well, of course line-cutters are evil. They waste people's time, they consider themselves more important than others, they have no concern for civilized society.
When we tolerate line-cutters, we are contributing to the breakdown of the moral fabric of our country.
The big question is missed.
“If Google is evil, so what?”
>It seems pretty bad.
The debate? Or Google?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.