"Visiting Google felt similar to being approached by kids from the Hillsong church, who ask you to come along to just “an event” with other young people . . . until you turn up with them and realise that, not only is it church, but a bloody well organised and extremely rich church."
This is a great quote, and brings up the issue of groupthink. I saw a talk by Ed Catmull of Pixar a couple weeks ago where he talked about how once an idea can be reduced to a slogan, you don't need the idea anymore, just the slogan. His example was architects saying they are designing buildings "from the inside-out," and how it was a good idea for a few years, until he was working with an architect who designed a shitty building and used the phrase "designed from the inside-out" to dismiss criticism.
For Google, if employees get to the point where "do no evil" is a just a slogan that helps them get to sleep at night and they stop constantly questioning their actions, it doesn't mean anything anymore. In fact, it's worse than had it never existed at all, because it's used as a justification for things of questionable evil-ness. "Google stores everything they can about what you do online without asking your permission, but it doesn't matter, because they would never do anything evil with all that information." They can tell themselves that, but it doesn't mean it isn't evil.
Just a correction: Google's slogan is not "do no evil", but "don't be evil". The first evaluates only the actions of the company, but the second evaluates the company itself.
For one to not be evil, does that entail the exclusion of all actions that can be construed as evil, even if it is perceived that doing so is for a greater good?
I'm going to say yes that not being evil means at no time doing evil, no matter what the expected outcome.
No, it means that Google maintains a non-evil identity. As a corporation they may do evil things with good intentions, as you mentioned, or even unknowingly, accidentally, out of ignorance or within other human limitations.
The point is that it's an existential judgment -- that they would seek to have the question "Is Google evil?" answered negatively in consideration of all things, not that they need to avoid any blame or transgression.
I think the "DBE" topic has been rehashed about 10^6 times more than necessary, so I think I'll just leave it at that.
I absolutely disagree that the topic has been rehashed more than necessary. In fact, I think for it to remain relevant and more than just a PR slogan, the topic should be discussed and challenged continuously.
This is a great quote, and brings up the issue of groupthink. I saw a talk by Ed Catmull of Pixar a couple weeks ago where he talked about how once an idea can be reduced to a slogan, you don't need the idea anymore, just the slogan. His example was architects saying they are designing buildings "from the inside-out," and how it was a good idea for a few years, until he was working with an architect who designed a shitty building and used the phrase "designed from the inside-out" to dismiss criticism.
For Google, if employees get to the point where "do no evil" is a just a slogan that helps them get to sleep at night and they stop constantly questioning their actions, it doesn't mean anything anymore. In fact, it's worse than had it never existed at all, because it's used as a justification for things of questionable evil-ness. "Google stores everything they can about what you do online without asking your permission, but it doesn't matter, because they would never do anything evil with all that information." They can tell themselves that, but it doesn't mean it isn't evil.