> I'm getting tired of hypocrisy being held up as the ultimate sin.
I didn't say it is the ultimate sin. So should it not be criticized and pointed out? It is like saying "well murder is worse than theft, so don't talk about theft". That's not how it works. I think every culture and society has a strong bias against hypocrisy and it is a popular topic in folk stories and culture (say making fun or criticizing hypocrites).
Just like many pointed out at a core character flaw in the author -- he was stealing food and not abiding by the NDA, implying they probably would not want to be friends them or work wit, because there is an integrity issue (which I agree with), hypocrisy is the same way -- it points to a flaw deeper issue at the core. If it is of a company, it points to a structural or culture issue.
> Expecting people to be 100% consistent 100% of the time is ultimately silly.
Just like people in power are watched, criticized and held to a higher standard, so are companies. With people say, you might care if US president is doing cocaine or likes stealing from department stores, but you might not care as much if someone you never heard across town does it. Why? Because those in power, when they corrupt, they can cause a lot of damage. I was a bit extreme in the sample, but think about this one as well -- someone who holds nuclear launch codes should not believe that the world was created 4000 years ago. This can happen in US and is worrisome right?
And it is the same with companies. A company like Google which control, manages, stores and handle a large amount of world's internet and data traffic, having "minor" integrity issues is a huge deal. Some 2 person company who is spamming everyone with Viagra emails, is doing a lot worse, but nobody cares about that, because they don't have any power or influence.
> This applies even to the parent-child relationship
Agree on principle, in general here. But that is a bit odd case, mostly because it turn the "company is a family and is like careful watchful father, looking after its children". There is something very jarring about that to me.
> Same thing for a company and culture. You have to preserve the culture, and if that means ejecting people who mean to do it harm
I think the debate is about culture and the artist pointed towards what the culture might be. I think they are trying to say there is a problem with it.
> As for the 'Don't Be Evil' - lots of people at Google still believe in this.
Of course. The best PR is the one that is bought internally. Assigning high ethical standards and morality to companies is the problem here isn't it. The fact that many seemingly bright, analytically minded people bought into it is a bit worrying.