Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google responds to the Mocality blog post

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 137 posts

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#81

Post by earl »

Tichy wrote: post #74
kenjackson wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that Google needs to scam some African directory service for profit just seems ridiculous. For real, right? Next thing they'll tell us is that Google would assist companies in displaying illegal drug ads in the US for profit. This is Google we're talking about. Have people already forgotten their motto is "Don't be evil"? You can't have that motto and do evil stuff -- it wouldn't be consistent.

I don't know about that story, in any case putting illegal ads on your public web site seems a weird way to make money. Wouldn't it be rather easy to find you and sue you? I am sure the police knows where Google Headquarters are??

I think the parent is referring to this: Google pays $.5B to settle w/ DOJ over illegal drug ads [1]

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/24/technology/google_settlement...

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#82

Post by jrockway »

potatolicious wrote: post #76
jrockway wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, some regular person at Google behaved unethically. If Google locked down their employees enough to prevent this (which I doubt is even possible), then they wouldn't be able to do anything good either. You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business.

> " You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business." I don't see that anywhere in the posts above. I can't speak for other posters, but the price of letting your employees have the freedom to act according to their own initiative is that sometimes, people will fuck up, and the damage may not just be contained to your own company. Of course, giving employees freedom also…

What should they do?

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#83

Post by jrockway »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #73
jrockway wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, some regular person at Google behaved unethically. If Google locked down their employees enough to prevent this (which I doubt is even possible), then they wouldn't be able to do anything good either. You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business.

> You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business. Nope I'm trying to temper your outlandish general statements; and failing. napierzaza said, roughly, it was Googles fault if they hired criminals and those people were acting criminally either through lack of oversight or otherwise. You said something along the lines of it being expected that Google would commit crimes a…

Hypothetical: If an employee in McDonald's overcharges all the customers do you think that McDonald's/the franchisee is completely devoid of responsibility because it was "just an employee"?

That's a good example. But there's a difference between harming your customers and harming your competitors. In the case of McDonalds' hypothetical actions, the solution is to give your customers their money back and a few free burgers. But what can Google do to make up for their mistake here? Go back in time and not hire the individuals that fucked up?

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#84

Post by potatolicious »

jrockway wrote: post #82
potatolicious wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business." I don't see that anywhere in the posts above. I can't speak for other posters, but the price of letting your employees have the freedom to act according to their own initiative is that sometimes, people will fuck up, and the damage may not just be contained to your own company. Of course, giving employees freedom also…

What should they do?

Well, hard to say seeing as how the jury's still out on exactly what happened.

If it was a rogue team in Google, there are a few things that come to mind:

- Google needs to refund all customers they acquired via this process and alert them that they were duped.

- Google needs to call every single business that the rogue team called and inform of what happened, and that Google is not affiliated with Mocality in any way whatsoever. Any fraudulent or deceptive claims that Google allegedly made against Mocality also needs to be addressed and recanted - to every single business that Google scraped and called.

A blanket apology and correction, on a site that the vast majority of these businesses will never read, is simply a cop out and wholly insufficient.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#85

Post by shinratdr »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #63
AznHisoka wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why people ever believed that Don't be evil propaganda. You can hand out all those cute Google t-shirts, pens, give free lunches, give free massages, give mom's good maternity, etc.. doesn't really matter.. You're a business and a public one at that... that means you'll do anything for profit, just like every other company.

> that means you'll do anything for profit, just like every other company. As a company director I repudiate this so hard. Most companies? Most-probably. Every company? Not at all.

Most large multinationals, almost definitely.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#86

Post by heresy »

jrockway wrote: post #83
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business. Nope I'm trying to temper your outlandish general statements; and failing. napierzaza said, roughly, it was Googles fault if they hired criminals and those people were acting criminally either through lack of oversight or otherwise. You said something along the lines of it being expected that Google would commit crimes a…

Hypothetical: If an employee in McDonald's overcharges all the customers do you think that McDonald's/the franchisee is completely devoid of responsibility because it was "just an employee"? That's a good example. But there's a difference between harming your customers and harming your competitors. In the case of McDonalds' hypothetical actions, the solution is to give your customers their money back and a few free b…

It's fairly obvious what they should do: apologise publicly and to the people who they misrepresented themselves to.

Not in the Anglosphere where the actual people affected will never know of their wrongdoing.

Not throw their hands up in the air and blame human nature, sorry for the inconvenience.

Every act like this where they do not take a principled stand, dilutes the value of that Don't Be Evil motto a little more, until one day it will essentially be meaningless.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#87

Post by yock »

badclient wrote: post #33
michaelcampbell wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google was basically phishing by pretending that they were partnered with Mocality. It's a bit disingenuous to equate some Google employees from doing this with Google as a company doing it. I could be very wrong here (and would be extraordinarily disappointed in the company if so), but I doubt this was a corporate-sanctioned activity.

When an engineer at google comes up with a great idea during work hours not sanctioned by google, google still owns that idea and its success. Not the individual. Same should apply when shit goes bad.

Nonsense. You can't draw an equals sign between two actions just because they sounds similar. One is a completely legal action by an employee in good standing. The other is a crime. They are not the same thing and should not be treated as such.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#88

Post by derefr »

tripzilch wrote: post #52
michaelcampbell wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking responsibility for something stupid your employees do, sure. Equating that stupid thing with a sanctioned corporate action is ridiculous.

Following the same reasoning we shouldn't laud Google for all the great stuff they did either, like GMail, Search, etc. Sorry it's one or the other. I know I like to say, we're IT and if anything goes wrong it's not our fault, but if anything goes extremely well, we'll take the credit--but then I know I'm being facetious :)

> Following the same reasoning we shouldn't laud Google for all the great stuff they did either, like GMail, Search, etc.

You know, why not think of Google (or Microsoft, or any other Zaibatsu-pretending-to-be-one-brand) as companies resident within a start-up incubator? Treating Google's Adsense team as the same "culture" as Google's Search team makes about as much sense as treating Sony Pictures as being the same company as Sony Computer Entertainment, or Virgin Airlines as being the same company as Virgin Mobile.

So, don't say "Google did this to GMail today" or "Google's search is amazing" or "Google merged their Page Creator into Google Sites"; instead, say "The GMail team launched this today" or "I love the Google Search folks" or "Google Page Creator got bought out by Google Sites."

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#89

Post by awakeasleep »

yock wrote: post #87
badclient wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When an engineer at google comes up with a great idea during work hours not sanctioned by google, google still owns that idea and its success. Not the individual. Same should apply when shit goes bad.

Nonsense. You can't draw an equals sign between two actions just because they sounds similar. One is a completely legal action by an employee in good standing. The other is a crime. They are not the same thing and should not be treated as such.

Yet they are both done for the profit of the company. What is the difference you see?

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#90

Post by fname »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #63
AznHisoka wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why people ever believed that Don't be evil propaganda. You can hand out all those cute Google t-shirts, pens, give free lunches, give free massages, give mom's good maternity, etc.. doesn't really matter.. You're a business and a public one at that... that means you'll do anything for profit, just like every other company.

> that means you'll do anything for profit, just like every other company. As a company director I repudiate this so hard. Most companies? Most-probably. Every company? Not at all.

Every Company that has stock holders? Absolutely.
Post reply on HN