Google: Lawful Good or Chaotic Neutral?

It made great press.

According to an article in the "Globe and Mail", a small group of protesters marched outside Google's Canadian office on Valentine's Day to protest the company's recent decision to censor web content on behalf of regional political groups who don't want their citizens to discuss controversial topics. With red heart-shaped cutouts, the protesters indicated that their love affair with Google was over.

It may seem like a far away issue for Canadians who can express themselves freely--whether to raise an issue, make fools of themselves or both. However, this is not the first time Google has come under fire for its decisions.

Google was one of the top Linux success stories. The world's most prominent Internet company was built on Linux, an open collaboration of people from around the world protesting price gouging and poor quality in commercial software. And with typical geek irreverence, in the January 2003 issue of Wired magazine, Google revealed its conduct policy of "don't be evil". Did they have ethics experts, philosophers, religious leaders or Dr. Phil as advisers of psychological, emotional or ethical wrongdoing?

"Evil," said Google CEO Eric Schmidt as quoted by Wired, "is what Sergey [Brin] says is evil."

It made me think of the famous quote by Lord Acton. What happens to someone when they are not afraid of the consequences of mistakes? If you're not afraid of screwing up and facing the repercussions, would it affect your ability to make good choices? Introspective, sympathetic and self-disciplined people make their choices with integrity, not by their feelings. But when people are overwhelmed or are unfettered from the consequences of their decisions, excellence and ethics can take a back seat.

Columnist Robert X. Cringely tried to get an interview with Google, as he described in his August 19, 2004 column. "The company is incredibly secretive, a characteristic that I believe comes from nothing more than micromanagement and being overwhelmed. Try to get an interview with Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and you'll see how it is. I've tried and failed, and it isn't because they aren't nice folks or because I'm not nice, either (I did the Google founders' first-ever TV interview on the same day I did the first-ever TV interview of Linus Torvalds). Heck, if I can't get an interview, hardly anyone can get an interview." Every decision had to be approved by Google's leaders who felt responsible for the entire company. Overwhelmed by trying to do everybody's job for them, they pushed Cringely's interview to the back burner because they didn't have time to OK it. This is not a formula for good decision making.

In the movie "Groundhog Day", Phil Conners (Bill Murray) is allowed to live the same day over and over again without consequences. Realizing he no longer had to be afraid of the law or hurting other people, Phil uses his absolute power to indulge in every fantasy his heart desired. However, Phil soon had to face reality: he's traded his opportunities for immediate gratification and the pursuit of fun that cannot last. For the past three years, Google has been caught in its own personal Groundhog Day. The Internet darling has been set free with a controlling upper-management dictating their own personal values while being too buried in work to reflect on the wisdom their decisions.

Let's look at a bit Google's ethical track record:

• firing employees for complaining about the company's wrongdoing
• unilaterally removing companies from the visible Internet that don't comply with Google's ideals
• attempting to acquire control over all forms of media including music, books and email
• most recently, censoring content to appease political groups

It's not surprising. It's a progression of the same. Do people want everything that they see, hear and read on the Internet to be dictated by people who micromanage their own company? As I described in December, trying to control too much leaves a person out of control. What happens if someone tries to control the entire Internet?

Google justifies its move to bow to local political groups as sound business: it gives them access to new markets...at the price of doing a bit of wrongdoing. To put it in terms that computer geeks can understand, a few years ago some were calling Linux "unamerican". If the U.S. government demanded that Google would hide pages with Linux content, unilaterally and without allowing Linux people to show the criticism as false, would Google do it? Based on their previous decisions, yes. Google claims to be (Dungeons and Dragons) lawful good but their actions are effectively chaotic neutral.

To claim to be a company that doesn't do evil is a good thing. But few companies set out to be evil--but most view their crimes as justified, unavoidable or good business sense. Goodness is a lifelong struggle requiring time and resources devoted to remembering and focusing on what is excellent, praiseworthy and eternal. Goodness means constant vigilance against yourself as well as other people. With Google's "absolute power" over the Internet, they would do well not to stand on "don't be evil"... they need to progress to "be good".

Talk back on the Linux Cafe.

February 18, 2006 

Lone Coder RSS Feed
Mark this page with a Firefox Live Bookmark for automatic notification of new articles!