Reading the comments here defending google's actions re: etherpad it's hard to argue that google is at any stage other than the last "be a little less evil than the competition" stage.
Google has managed to stay significantly less evil than the standard for large companies. They're big enough now that, no matter what they do, people will accuse them of insidious things, but it's hard to argue that they don't represent an incremental step in the right direction. It's not obvious how much of this is self-determined and how much is the zeitgeist of the internet, but I'm not sure that's too important.
You could start with the fact that they bought Etherpad in the first place. In its heyday, a certain leviathan that comes to mind would have simply killed it by any means necessary. (And then stood gloating over its remains, cackling and pumping its fists in the air. And saying "it's just business" to anyone who had a problem. But I digress.)
Comparing how Google uses their power to how Apple uses theirs, or what Microsoft would do with the power they wish they still had, I'm glad Google have managed to preserve the evil-to-non-evil ratio that they have, even if it is far from zero. As Sarah Vowell once said, don't diss the lesser of two evils; less evil is a big deal!
This is exactly my point. "Don't be evil" so quickly becomes "be less evil than the competition", it's already the standard that YOU use to judge google's actions.
Buying the competition in order to shut them down seems, well, evil.
Make no mistake, I'm glad that google is less evil than other corporations its size, but I don't delude myself into imagining that they fully, or even remotely, live up to their "don't be evil" mission.
It wasn't "exactly your point" at all. I objected to your saying they're a little less evil because IMO they are significantly less evil. You trivialized a difference which ought not to be trivialized. I don't see how my objection could have been clearer, given the first two sentences I wrote (or the last one, for that matter).
Why is Google is significantly less evil? Because they pursue their interests in a way that is far more aligned with the public interest than any other corporation of their size ever (that I've observed). Making the internet faster. Digitizing all the world's books. Sure, it's all self-interested, but it's self-interested in a more enlightened way than we've ever seen in a large corporation. How can that not matter?
Do they still do evil things? Duh. This isn't binary.
I also disagree with you that their "Don't be evil" slogan is a weak one. It's just a slogan, but based on numerous things I've read, it does put some pressure on their decision makers to consider these things. Who else does that?
Actually, I disagree with pretty much everything you said. I don't accept your cynical slippery-slope argument at all, and you haven't provided any evidence for it.
Google has managed to stay significantly less evil than the standard for large companies. They're big enough now that, no matter what they do, people will accuse them of insidious things, but it's hard to argue that they don't represent an incremental step in the right direction. It's not obvious how much of this is self-determined and how much is the zeitgeist of the internet, but I'm not sure that's too important.
You could start with the fact that they bought Etherpad in the first place. In its heyday, a certain leviathan that comes to mind would have simply killed it by any means necessary. (And then stood gloating over its remains, cackling and pumping its fists in the air. And saying "it's just business" to anyone who had a problem. But I digress.)
Comparing how Google uses their power to how Apple uses theirs, or what Microsoft would do with the power they wish they still had, I'm glad Google have managed to preserve the evil-to-non-evil ratio that they have, even if it is far from zero. As Sarah Vowell once said, don't diss the lesser of two evils; less evil is a big deal!