

Google's Evil Plan is Simple (and not so evil) - marlowe
http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/google-evil-plan

======
jacquesm
Google is only guilty of being Evil because they raised the bar by making it a
part of their motto.

So people will -naturally- hold google up to the standard that google has set
for themselves. And based on that standard they've done plenty of evil, and
they will likely do plenty more.

'Don't be evil' sets you up for the interpretation of every act you perform
against the background of what the rest of the world thinks is evil or not.
That means that when you promote your own browser on services that are already
very much entrenched at the expense of other browsers that some people will
see that as an act of evil, and will conclude that 'don't be evil' was just a
nice slogan.

If you help governments censor data then that might be construed by some as
proof that you are evil.

If you collect data on every visitor to your website and you make it seem that
you give them the option to stop tracking you when in fact the language is
worded in such a way that you misdirect those people (likely not lawyers, and
likely not able to spot the subtle difference in wording) that this is proof
that you are evil.

I think google brought this on themselves. They were going to set a new
standard, but it seems like they are just another large company. Nobody would
have thought of labeling them 'evil' if they had not started the use of that
word to distance themselves from their competition.

But now they're stuck with it and they will either have to admit that it
wasn't all that easy, to be large and 'not evil' at the same time or they will
have to start to _really_ live by their motto.

~~~
ajkohn
Yes, the 'Don't be Evil' motto sets Google up for being a target for every
little thing that someone thinks is wrong, whether or not it really is or not.

What I think is meant by that motto is that they want to be a positive force,
to use their technology and smarts for good. But of course, there's an ends
justify the means argument and not everyone will have the same definition of
good.

The censorship stuff is ... sticky. The data collection stuff is largely fine
though a full opt-out is difficult. The problem there is that Google knows
that personalized experiences are better for users whether they know it or
not.

~~~
jacquesm
> The problem there is that Google knows that personalized experiences are
> better for users whether they know it or not.

That's really problematic, that Google would even think that it knows better
for its users whether they know it or not.

Users know best what is best for them, period. No need to second guess.

~~~
ajkohn
When you ask someone whether they want their search results or ads to reflect
their browse and search history they say no but when presented with the two
options, users nearly always select the personalized version.

Remarketing works. It's not what people say, it's what they do.

And why shouldn't it be that way. I go to a local Peet's. They know my order
now. Is that bad? Should I tell the barista to wipe my order history out of
her memory?

I'm not saying there isn't a issue of privacy but the line is not where most
think it is IMO. People are very willing to give out personal information in
exchange for a chance to win a car in the local mall.

Taken in another direction: product. Users often don't express their real
needs or can't identify them. One of the more interesting cases was the
introduction of the mini-van. It tested miserably when they asked users. But
Ford (I think it was Ford) decided to go ahead anyway and ... users wound up
LOVING it.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
I don't think people understand what Google is doing though. Your results may
look very different once everybody understands the extent of Googles data
collection.

This is very new territory still. I don't think we can predict what is going
to happen if there is some massive repository of personal data that lives
forever. So I'd rather we going at it with baby steps.

~~~
ajkohn
It's interesting. Sometimes the argument is that people are more savvy than we
give them credit for and then it's that they don't really understand.

I'm not saying you're doing this now (not at all), but I do see people trying
to have it both ways when talking about this issue.

The thing is, I'm old so I worked offline before the Internet. The personal
information that is accessible offline is ... incredible, even to this day.
It's what has powered the direct marketing revolution for decades.

So while I don't think people understand the details of how things work online
I think they have an intuitive sense that the same way they get targeted
offline is what happens to them online.

Facebook is actually letting people marry the offline and online information
which I find super intriguing yet goes relatively unnoticed.

And I'm still shocked that we willingly present ID when we buy something with
a credit card since we're not really required to do so.

Going slow wouldn't be a bad thing but I actually think we've been doing that
already.

------
ajkohn
While I didn't expand upon it in the piece I believe many apply the 'evil'
brush to a host of normal, though sometimes ruthless, business activities.

People seem consumed with those 'wrongs' and wind up missing the larger
picture entirely.

------
ajkohn
FWIW - the evil debate we're having here has once again sort of derailed us
all from the main thesis which is ... Google wins when people use the Internet
more.

So while some laugh at the self driving car initiative and see it as indulgent
I see a company who is trying to unlock countless hours of time each day that
is currently 'non-usable' from an Internet perspective.

------
iterationx
Will we ever see a day where the word evil isn't in nearly every Google news
headline? After 10+ years this is getting a little old.

~~~
ajkohn
Oddly, I agree. That's one of the reasons I wrote this piece. Though clearly
I've used the evil word to tease people into reading it.

~~~
iterationx
Well if you agree cut it out. Its not clever its just annoying.

~~~
ajkohn
Point taken. But you don't get to speak to those who think Google is evil
without getting them to read it first.

For me the ends justified the means. Of course you may disagree and simply
find it to be an annoying type of pandering.

------
logn
"To get people to use the Internet more" ... on Google properties. How else do
you explain Google+ ?

~~~
ajkohn
I covered Google+ in the piece. It's definitely a bit of an outlier. I see
Google+ as two things:

1) A way for Google to get primary and active signals about user preferences
to better personalize search results. (aka - make search better).

2) A way to break the monopoly Facebook had on social attention. The strategy
only works if users are in places where Google has a presence. That's almost
everywhere - except Facebook. So ensuring that attention doesn't pool and
persist in a dead zone was important - and I think they've succeeded.

