Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: corporate behavior, corporate drones, gmail, google, initial intent, tribal identity
Some discussion of the new Gmail, etc. in the context of Google’s ‘don’t be evil’ motto taking place over here. Apparently Yglesias kinda did believe that ‘don’t be evil’ stuff, whereas Kevin Drum never did. So I logically can’t disagree with both of them, which is an uncomfortable and unpleasant position for me.
Or can I?
Let me try. I think what everyone in those threads is doing is way overthinking what ‘don’t be evil’ connoted. Some of the commenters say it referred to a certain approach of programming, Yglesias takes it to mean something about short-term gain versus long-term branding/strategizing. All seem to agree, though, that ‘don’t be evil’ means/meant something tangible as regards specifics of corporate behavior, products, offerings, actions, decisions, etc.
Where on earth in ‘don’t be evil’ do they get that idea? I think that’s all wrong. ‘Don’t be evil’ was, effectively – whether this was the initial intent – a way of branding of Google’s internal corporate culture, of establishing its tribal identity. What kind of people are we, we who work for Google? Not like those other corporate drones over there. We’re not ‘evil’ like them over there. We’re all nerdy-cool and nicey-liberal! That’s what ‘don’t be evil’ meant for Google. It stroked Google employees’ egos, and at the same time disproportionately made a certain type of person – a person with certain cultural traits and demographics – want to become a Google employee. And don’t get me wrong; there can be a lot value in that! (I would say Apple has benefited from the same sort of internal cultural branding, attracting certain kinds of talent – and eventually harnessing that talent to create genuinely incredible and beautiful consumer devices as a result.) But whatever value there is, has nothing to do with its supposedly having guided Google’s ad policy or Gmail design or anything tangible like that.
Don’t be stupid.
3 Comments so far
Leave a comment
I saw some discussion, not by the lefty-sphere, suggesting that DBE had measureable impact on Google’s China stance, particularly in the form of Brin’s soviet upbringing and anti-totalitarian stance. I think you are either being humorous (30%) or underestimating the seriousness of DBE (60%), or I don’t understand (10%).
Comment by aretae January 16, 2012 @ 9:44 pmThis can be true, but I can still be right. It could be, for example, that Google got to the outcome you cite largely through the tribal mechanism, i.e. by accreting together a tribe of the sort of people likely to eventually make that decision (whatever it was).
Which raises my real question, what exactly *is* Google’s “China stance”? I seem to recall some early (i.e. late 90s) Google-China stories that smelled ‘evil’, but then a later one that smelled more like ‘turning away from evil’. Not a student of the topic though.
And the real problem is that what is ‘evil’ and what isn’t, is just not something that is self-explanatory in most contexts. It has to be figured out by actual people. And certain sorts of people, if alike – i.e. if they share a quasi-tribal identity – may indeed come to some decision that (they say) is guided by ‘not being evil’. But that wouldn’t be because of the motto per se, it would be because they share that identity.
p.s. 30% humorous is a conservative baseline for most of my posts. The rest is up in the air…
Comment by Sonic Charmer January 16, 2012 @ 9:59 pmGreat post, SC.
Comment by Pastorius January 17, 2012 @ 8:36 am