Google's Decline Really Bugs Me

Google fascinates me. I think it is possibly the first organization in history that embodies concepts from dystopic fiction. Putting a real face to those dystopic ideas can give us a sense of what a true dystopia looks like (short answer: it looks deceptively nice; the horror reveals itself only on close inspection).

You mention work. As you say, Google does not just want their employees' time. They want their complete identification with the company. In a way, they want their souls.

As for business, Google is a company whose business model is tricking people into sharing as much private information with the company, and then using this information for profit.

One of the most interesting things about Google is their "don't be evil" motto. I want to write a complete literary interpretation of it some other time, but here are the highlights. Obviously, it's a short and catchy motto that is not intended to be taken too seriously, but that does not preclude literary interpretation.

First, let's consider the motto as a whole. It could be a motto for anyone, but how come it's Google's and not mine (or yours)? The reason is that they accept the premise that corporations do often turn out to be "evil" (whatever that means). This is analogous to the reason physicians swear to "do no harm"; they swear it because doctors can easily do harm.

Now let's take the motto apart and analyze it word by word. First, the word "evil". The word assumes such a thing exists and can be recognizable. Second, the word "be". It implies that evil is something you are, not something you do. Lastly, the word "don't". It assumes that you can choose not to "be" "evil", and implies that those who "are" "evil" are so because they chose to be that way.

If a motto can guide a corporation, and if this motto guides Google, we can see why they've become so monstrously terrifying. Evil is not always easily recognizable. Often, it's in the eyes of the beholder. Second, evil is rarely something you are, and almost always something you do. Third, "evil" creeps up on you, and is often the result of the best intentions. People other than James Bond villains don't choose to be evil. Similarly you can't simply choose not to be. To abstain from "evil" you must be vigilant. You must constantly analyze your actions and their consequences separately from your intentions, and listen to other viewpoints.

Going back to dystopias, well known ones, like Orwell's 1984, insist that the masses love their oppressors rather than fear them. This is a crucial point that is largely overlooked when people discuss the NSA surveillance scandal. It is crucial because true power, absolute oppression, cannot exist if its wielder is generally considered suspect.

When I read 1984 many years ago I couldn't understand that. Do people not notice that they're being manipulated and exploited? Can they actually enjoy being exploited? Now we have the answer.

Good luck with the anonymisation. It only has to fail once for catastrophic consequences.

Look back to how we handled HIV/AIDS in the 1980s. Enormous amounts of fear (understandable) and utter disgust-filled loathing (not so much). There were politicians calling for AIDS sufferers to be rounded up and put in quarantine camps but refusing to engage in public health initiatives because they thought that warning people to use condoms and engage in safe sex would "promote" homosexuality.

Up until 2010 in Britain, it was legal for a dentist to refuse to take an HIV+ patient even though the professional association for dentists had told dentists that it was safe to use the same procedures around sterilisation and safety. It also made no sense as it just led to people lying about their HIV status to dentists in order to get access to health services.

I know people who have faced discrimination in work over chronic mental health conditions that they are being treated for. People who have held down other jobs perfectly well, who take less sick leave than people without any health conditions. There is still significant social stigma around mental health conditions: nobody considers you morally suspicious if you have, say, eczema or hay fever, but if you have depression or schizophrenia, some will consider you too "risky" to employ etc.

So, yes, "please make all your medical records public" sounds nice. I've spoken to friends who, thanks to people like Schmidt and others breathlessly promoting this kind of thing at TED talks, think that anyone who wishes to actually exercise their medical privacy to be "irrational". And that medical privacy is a silly idea that we wouldn't choose to have now and that we only have for historical reasons. That the bright sparks of Silicon Valley can't see the importance of medical privacy is really concerning—it shows they've failed to look at the history of discrimination and fear-mongering against people with particular health conditions. Or, worse, it shows they've thought about it and don't give a shit about protecting people from mistreatment by both the state and by other individuals based on their health conditions.

We probably shouldn't confuse a handful of start ups and successful corporations with "the tech industry" as if it's a single entity.

To me there are at least two bits of the industry - the bit where that either because of the work or because of the culture those working in it might convince themselves that they're changing the world, and the bit where people largely write CRUD database apps that save a few people, usually working for corporations, a bit of time.

Far more people work in the second camp and in my experience most of them really aren't that pompous at all.

The stock market thinks differently. GOOG is above 1,000 for a while now.

Of course you may dismiss my point rapidly since the Market is more interested in Financial profit than any other thing. But the same thing can be said about Hacker News.

What bothers HN readers/writers will not, necessarily, bother the average consumer, the same way what really boost the Stocks may don't matter to average HN reader.

Despite the fact that HN hates the new Gmail Compose, and the new Youtube comment system these are still the most compelling offers in their fields for the average consumer.

HN seems to have the urge to not only discuss their opinion but try to flush down everyone's throat and then generalize broadly.

Google's Decline here could be better written as "Google Decline, among hacker news readers."

You did yourself a favour