Talk:Don't be evil

message: All criticism of Google tends to be linked in to the "Don't be evil" slogan, so this seems like duplication for me - better to just link to the existing article.  I'll be bold and remove it if no-one shouts :-) ciphergoth (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An anon user created a new "Criticism" section, again duplicating what Criticism of Google sets out.  I deleted it again. Please could you give a reason to create this section before recreating it? ciphergoth (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this as a defence of a criticism section but rather a question of how it comes to be your mandate to repeatedly delete it.  Why not edit and improve it?   You don't say that it was the work of vandalism but simply that in your opinion criticism is inappropriate.  To argue that criticism of the "motto" is criticism of Google and therefore MUST all be posted ONLY within that macro article seems illogical, as well as against wiki style guidance, as I understand it to be.  In this it is routine that larger articles get broken down, referencing "Main Articles" on particular aspects of the "parent" article(s).   Your logic for disallowing a criticism section here on the "motto", on the grounds that criticism of the "motto" is criticism of Google, would seem logically to lead to this entire article also being deleted/merged with that main article as it also refers solely to Google.  Critisism is a standard element of a wiki article, but here, that which has managed to escape your editing, may have done so as it is currently hidden inside an innovative meta-form.  One single citation is actually a link to no less than a DOZEN separate refeerences!  This must surely be unparalleled on Wiki?  Again, Google seems to have been singled out for special treatment, held to be above those mundane  ethical practices which constrain other enterprises.  I hope I have managed at least to begin to illustrate why the deep irony ecapsulated in Google's supposed "motto" combines with the insatiable growth of Google to focus criticism of such anti-ethical and amoral spinning.  Of course criticism of the "motto" will refer to Google.  It is Google's "motto"!  However, that changes nothing with respect to the need for a criticism section here.  I don't expect you to relent and have no appetite for pursuit of an editing war.  So this comment will have to suffice as a statement of rebellion against the new-newspeak. LookingGlass (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove entire criticism section 

message: http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/google_quietly.php  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.70.80 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Unbelievable, stupefying.  But then I find Virgin's hip (or neo-ironic) approach to socio-political issues nauseating as well!  LookingGlass (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Officially the motto is still in the corporation's Code Of Conduct, as Michael D. Sullivan notes. I'm not so sure that the corporation follows that suggestion though recently the corporation has been fighting back, with its lawyers, against some of the Bush and Obama regimes' "USA PATRIOT Act"-inspired activities which the corporation seems to be somewhat conflicted about. The problem is that the corporation has evil men and women running it as well as good men and women, so the blanket motto covered in the extant article reflects history morethan it reflects a contemporary business ideal. Damotclese (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

text: They have dropped it. Why did it take you guys so long to accept it? Of course they will not do a press release that they have become more evil, which can be implied when the old motto is removed. 2A02:8388:1640:9D80:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As the source cited in the article's introduction clearly show, the motto has not been removed. The relation with Alphabet and its motto is sufficiently explained there. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Quietly Drops Its 'Don't Be Evil' Motto 

message: An editor with more time, could add from this excellent reliable source
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/technology/dont-be-evil-but-dont-miss-the-tech-train.html Lentower (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable?  For what?  When did opinion become something capable of being classified as reliable?!?  Is it advising us that we may and indeed should leave our reason at the door when we read such hallowed words?  The seeming homogenous applause of the classicists when it comes to technology foe me is made obscene by virtue of the intelligence of those concerned and their astonishing ignorance.  This article seems to be no exception.  No boundaries have changed in terms of the public's concerns regarding corporate activity.  The "evidence" provided for seems to me to be a cum sic ergo propter sic argument.  What HAS changed though is the nature, extent and degree of the power of the new ICT corporations.  Yet apparently this is either an insignificant issue or has simply escaped the writer's attention.  I first witnessed this technophilic "fawning of the classicists" when I watched Jeremy Paxman's obsequious interview of Bill Gates for Newsnight sometime in the 90's I think (no mention on Google).  He was like a little girl at a private audience with an adored pop idol.  There seems to be something about this technology stuff, from those dark arts of maths and physics from school days, that now makes them as adults react with mouths agog, like children at a magic show clamouring for more, like groupies, proudly hugging their back stage passes.  Now, with this elephant in the room seemingly invisible to calibre writers such as those at the NYT or the Guardian, Stephen Fry, et al., appears to be the time for despair.  LookingGlass (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Times source 

message: Many times on the net you will find people saying "Don't be evil" is an anagram of "bet on Devil". Is this a true anagram? 
Also it came to my attention more and more youtube accounts from people about violation of their human rights are disabled, even without informing the creator of content. For instance father was picked up by the police, the same eving the police brought him back without his teeth, bleeding, and a broken arm. Poster wants everyone to know, tapes his father uploads it on youtube, "This is called American justice!" Within a few hours account blocked, related Gmail erased. Is this what Eric Schmidt means with something you don't want others to know? 
I suggest you try uploading a video of human rights being violated, or ironically Google for it, e.g. "Microsoft programmer found dead" a tape was taken offline by youtube, the full length video was about 34 Microsoft programmers killed or found dead, there names, their age, a testimony from Lucovsky about Ballmer "I did it before and I will do it again!"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.90.7.128 (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anagram 

message: It's more interesting that it begins with D and ends with evil: Don't be evil. It's hard to believe no one in PR/Advertising noticed that before rolling out the slogan. Someone could do a version in Google colors with the D and evil in red and the rest in the other colors. Just tossing that out there. If you've ever been on the business end of Google you'd know that it's anything but--184.63.132.236 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ^Anagram / D...evil

message: The main article currently mentions "Between 21 April and 4 May 2018, Google removed the motto". I think we should ideally try to determine which day exactly. We may end up with unspecific "some time during these 14 days", which is not good for any archive, including wikipedia. I am sure removal must have taken place at a specific day, during that time. Is there no way to determine the exact day? 2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic accuracy 

message: Google is satan incarnate. 73.236.181.2 (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pot calling the kettle black. 

message: If we're going to criticise Google, perhaps reliable sources such as The New York Times or other publications of similar weight might be better than a political opinion blog?
It's rather like quoting the West Gippsland Gazette's editorial opinion strongly condemning Imperial Japan's agression in the 1930s. They had strong feelings, sure, and they were accurate, but did Japan read that particular paper and feel hurt at the savage criticism? --Pete (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with you that Independent Australia is mostly WP:RSOPINION and usage should be subject to that policy, I'm not sure where your argument that they're a blog comes from? Their about page gives no indication that they're a blog. TarnishedPathtalk 06:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

text: OK I understand now. I still think that an exception should be made for "public reaction" but that's a rabbit hole too. Apologies. Scanf (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism