They did what every other fucking corporation does: rake in as many users as you can, then, fuck those users as hard as you can, leaning on resistance to change, to extract as much money as possible before they all leave.
They own the most popular web browser, search engine, and email domain. Switching away from those takes a while, if you have a billion users. I should know, I'm one of them.
They didnt lie. They changed. You dont have to assume the absolute worst intent in everyone always.
Firstly as far as I can tell "dont be evil" wasnt invented by the founders but by some early employee. It resonated with everyone. And for that time, the founders, back then the true smartest people on the planet, saw smartly that that was perfect for their business- they were in a place where they could take over everything, if only they had the best engineers. And dont be evil attracted the best engineers!
For all we know they also may be believed it. But even if they didnt, they were smart to see that this was good business at that moment.
Of course, arguably, dont be evil isn't good business anymore. Like objectively. And clearly, at least one of the founders has become an absolute piece of shit out of touch with reality. So why are we surprised someone hasn't changed in 20 years?
Furthermore, I ironically think google is still trying to be good somewhat. Somewhat.
it’s pretty well described in the book Surveillance Capitalism that teh “don’t be evil” was coined before they started selling behavioral surplus and that that the latter was their only path to explosive growth. They didn’t have to be evil or changed : it’s easier to have principles as a small startup wowing the small crowd, much harder with private capital pushing them to sink or swim.
Tbf, they said “you don’t have to” not “you can’t”.
I don’t know what they really thought, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were genuinely idealistic to start. The internet felt optimistic back then, and google had no ads or revenue model for a long time.
The idea that Google lied to everyone is missing the point.
The individuals at Google probably genuinely believed in and intended all that. But when Google became a public megacorp, its primary mandate - the legal obligation of its executives - was to maximize profits for its owners. Pushing ads, spying on people, cultivating addictive behavior, torturing puppies, whatever... these are just potential mechanisms to achieve its fundamental objective as a corporation. Based on the corporate mandate, any activity that increases shareholder profit must be performed. Any decision that favors ethical principles or the general wellbeing at the expense of any potential profit must be shelved.
The enshittification and race to the bottom aren't some downstream side effects of capitalism. This is the essential structure of capitalism.
In 2004, Playboy editor David Sheff visited Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the then 31-year-old tech co-founders, at the Googleplex headquarters in Mountain View, California. At the time, the leading ethos of Google was fairly simple: Don’t be evil.
“Ultimately, ‘Don’t be evil’ seems the easiest way to summarize it," Brin told us.
That meant a few things: They were choosy about advertisers, had a social-good grant program, and a free email service (perhaps you’ve heard of it) that they promised would never “hold your emails hostage” if you wanted to leave. In the conversation, Google’s founders outline a vision that isn’t necessarily about making a web behemoth, but about connecting everyone to all the information they could ever need – arguably, that sounds like a force for good. And it was that idea that Page said made Google different from other search engines:
Anyone who has recently Googled knows that what Page described is no longer the company’s reality. For almost every query, the AI Overview appears, accompanied by selective bolded phrasing and a fade-in blue highlight that ensures you know exactly where to look. Whether you search “Quick dinner recipes” or “How to get an abortion,” the information is presented in the same way, and is often thorough enough that you never have to leave Google’s page – or even scroll down.
They got a lot more evil than just forcing AI on anyone who chooses Google for a search. They’re involved in all sorts of evil shit with the US Government. They have fully embraced their oligarch status and are no longer the good guys they once aspired to be.
From what I’ve read, somewhere along the way tech Bros decided that they were the answer to the world‘s problems and that they are saving us all. I don’t think it occurred to them that maybe they should ask people if we want their help.
Another problem that is coming up as mentioned is Google summaries at the top of every search.
What it means is that people take it for granted that that’s true and don’t check. As a result so many websites are not seeing traffic anymore. And when there’s no traffic websites shut down. And then Google can’t scrape anybody’s site for an AI summary.
TL;DR: turn off the AI summaries and/or don’t use them. They are convenient, but is the convenience worth it? It’s easy to feel powerless, however I believe the quote is:
“If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito.”
At the time I remember thinking that only evil people would need to have a motto such as “Don’t Be Evil,” because normal people just wouldn’t be evil be default.
I dont agree. Normal people vote for Donald Trump or the equivalent. Thats the new normal. Most people are evil if they are allowed to be.
Google back then had immense power and unlimited futures. Dont be evil was a choice they made deliberately and allowed it to guide at least somr of the roadmap. It was something every engineer could follow.
Software engineering is something where every line of code is a decision. Telling every engineer dont be evil truly served as a north star.
They used to bring authors at Google to speak to the people, have seen some Youtube videos of them.
Once they had Zizek and he made a few remarks, like former Yugoslavia bringing in political mouthpieces to talk to workers during lunch breaks and that Google has their own understanding of what "do no evil" means.
It is safe to say that was the most polite way someone would hint Google does evil while being inside Google answering a question to an employee of Google.
The article correctly notes that Google’s relationship with its users have changed. This is Cory Doctorow’s “enshittification” idea.
A company first succeeds by being trustworthy and providing excellent value to their users.
Once they have that, for even more profit, they start selling their channel to their loyal users to business partners. The partners are the real customers now.
Once that’s tapped out, they start squeezing their partners.
But psychologically how can the people who did the first step do the last? It is a real question.
The loyalty that users felt to Google and its executives was absolutely well-earned. In 1998 there was no such thing as a “tech bro” identity. It was “engineers” versus “suits”.
The founders of Google were famous for not ceding control to the “suits”. This was part of their long term, user-focused vision, and engineers were perceived as less likely to sell users out for short-term profits.
I would argue that this was actually true. So how did they turn?
Because their self-worth and identity became tied to the growth and influence of the company. First, it’s about competition. To keep growing you have to do stuff that’s more and more morally grey. As long as you are a little better than the other guy you can look yourself in the mirror. And then we slide, imperceptibly, from “Google should do good” to “Google is good”. Ads aren’t a means to an end (serving users information); ads are good in themselves. Google’s control over advertising is necessary because they have to be the ones to win the next technology (social media (they failed) and now AI (they are a contender)).
Apocalympdick | 9 hours ago
What happened is that they lied.
They did what every other fucking corporation does: rake in as many users as you can, then, fuck those users as hard as you can, leaning on resistance to change, to extract as much money as possible before they all leave.
They own the most popular web browser, search engine, and email domain. Switching away from those takes a while, if you have a billion users. I should know, I'm one of them.
mamaBiskothu | 8 hours ago
They didnt lie. They changed. You dont have to assume the absolute worst intent in everyone always.
Firstly as far as I can tell "dont be evil" wasnt invented by the founders but by some early employee. It resonated with everyone. And for that time, the founders, back then the true smartest people on the planet, saw smartly that that was perfect for their business- they were in a place where they could take over everything, if only they had the best engineers. And dont be evil attracted the best engineers!
For all we know they also may be believed it. But even if they didnt, they were smart to see that this was good business at that moment.
Of course, arguably, dont be evil isn't good business anymore. Like objectively. And clearly, at least one of the founders has become an absolute piece of shit out of touch with reality. So why are we surprised someone hasn't changed in 20 years?
Furthermore, I ironically think google is still trying to be good somewhat. Somewhat.
73td | 5 hours ago
it’s pretty well described in the book Surveillance Capitalism that teh “don’t be evil” was coined before they started selling behavioral surplus and that that the latter was their only path to explosive growth. They didn’t have to be evil or changed : it’s easier to have principles as a small startup wowing the small crowd, much harder with private capital pushing them to sink or swim.
4ofclubs | 7 hours ago
"They didnt lie. They changed. You dont have to assume the absolute worst intent in everyone always."
You can absolutely assume the worst intent with a billion dollar company, yes.
OptionItchy | 5 hours ago
Tbf, they said “you don’t have to” not “you can’t”.
I don’t know what they really thought, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were genuinely idealistic to start. The internet felt optimistic back then, and google had no ads or revenue model for a long time.
daveberzack | 7 hours ago
The idea that Google lied to everyone is missing the point.
The individuals at Google probably genuinely believed in and intended all that. But when Google became a public megacorp, its primary mandate - the legal obligation of its executives - was to maximize profits for its owners. Pushing ads, spying on people, cultivating addictive behavior, torturing puppies, whatever... these are just potential mechanisms to achieve its fundamental objective as a corporation. Based on the corporate mandate, any activity that increases shareholder profit must be performed. Any decision that favors ethical principles or the general wellbeing at the expense of any potential profit must be shelved.
The enshittification and race to the bottom aren't some downstream side effects of capitalism. This is the essential structure of capitalism.
[OP] playboy | 11 hours ago
In 2004, Playboy editor David Sheff visited Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the then 31-year-old tech co-founders, at the Googleplex headquarters in Mountain View, California. At the time, the leading ethos of Google was fairly simple: Don’t be evil.
“Ultimately, ‘Don’t be evil’ seems the easiest way to summarize it," Brin told us.
That meant a few things: They were choosy about advertisers, had a social-good grant program, and a free email service (perhaps you’ve heard of it) that they promised would never “hold your emails hostage” if you wanted to leave. In the conversation, Google’s founders outline a vision that isn’t necessarily about making a web behemoth, but about connecting everyone to all the information they could ever need – arguably, that sounds like a force for good. And it was that idea that Page said made Google different from other search engines:
Anyone who has recently Googled knows that what Page described is no longer the company’s reality. For almost every query, the AI Overview appears, accompanied by selective bolded phrasing and a fade-in blue highlight that ensures you know exactly where to look. Whether you search “Quick dinner recipes” or “How to get an abortion,” the information is presented in the same way, and is often thorough enough that you never have to leave Google’s page – or even scroll down.
Read more: https://www.playboy.com/read/politics/googles-founders-said-no-evil-22-years-later-what-happened
Darksmithe | 10 hours ago
They got a lot more evil than just forcing AI on anyone who chooses Google for a search. They’re involved in all sorts of evil shit with the US Government. They have fully embraced their oligarch status and are no longer the good guys they once aspired to be.
horseradishstalker | 10 hours ago
From what I’ve read, somewhere along the way tech Bros decided that they were the answer to the world‘s problems and that they are saving us all. I don’t think it occurred to them that maybe they should ask people if we want their help.
Another problem that is coming up as mentioned is Google summaries at the top of every search.
What it means is that people take it for granted that that’s true and don’t check. As a result so many websites are not seeing traffic anymore. And when there’s no traffic websites shut down. And then Google can’t scrape anybody’s site for an AI summary.
TL;DR: turn off the AI summaries and/or don’t use them. They are convenient, but is the convenience worth it? It’s easy to feel powerless, however I believe the quote is: “If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito.”
bigfatgeekboy | 9 hours ago
At the time I remember thinking that only evil people would need to have a motto such as “Don’t Be Evil,” because normal people just wouldn’t be evil be default.
Turns out I was right.
mamaBiskothu | 8 hours ago
I dont agree. Normal people vote for Donald Trump or the equivalent. Thats the new normal. Most people are evil if they are allowed to be.
Google back then had immense power and unlimited futures. Dont be evil was a choice they made deliberately and allowed it to guide at least somr of the roadmap. It was something every engineer could follow.
Software engineering is something where every line of code is a decision. Telling every engineer dont be evil truly served as a north star.
SunMoonTruth | 8 hours ago
They got the moneys and global reach and power. Then realized how cheaply they can secure that.
The higher they went, the smaller everything else got beneath their big feet and so less important.
stuffitystuff | 8 hours ago
Ironically, it was that original Playboy interview that put them off from doing interviews really ever again.
azhder | 4 hours ago
They used to bring authors at Google to speak to the people, have seen some Youtube videos of them.
Once they had Zizek and he made a few remarks, like former Yugoslavia bringing in political mouthpieces to talk to workers during lunch breaks and that Google has their own understanding of what "do no evil" means.
It is safe to say that was the most polite way someone would hint Google does evil while being inside Google answering a question to an employee of Google.
neilk | 2 hours ago
The article correctly notes that Google’s relationship with its users have changed. This is Cory Doctorow’s “enshittification” idea.
A company first succeeds by being trustworthy and providing excellent value to their users.
Once they have that, for even more profit, they start selling their channel to their loyal users to business partners. The partners are the real customers now.
Once that’s tapped out, they start squeezing their partners.
But psychologically how can the people who did the first step do the last? It is a real question.
The loyalty that users felt to Google and its executives was absolutely well-earned. In 1998 there was no such thing as a “tech bro” identity. It was “engineers” versus “suits”.
The founders of Google were famous for not ceding control to the “suits”. This was part of their long term, user-focused vision, and engineers were perceived as less likely to sell users out for short-term profits.
I would argue that this was actually true. So how did they turn?
Because their self-worth and identity became tied to the growth and influence of the company. First, it’s about competition. To keep growing you have to do stuff that’s more and more morally grey. As long as you are a little better than the other guy you can look yourself in the mirror. And then we slide, imperceptibly, from “Google should do good” to “Google is good”. Ads aren’t a means to an end (serving users information); ads are good in themselves. Google’s control over advertising is necessary because they have to be the ones to win the next technology (social media (they failed) and now AI (they are a contender)).
Floopst5r | 2 hours ago
It wasn't Larry or Sergey that said it, but, they did run with it. Source is from the book 'Employee 59' by Douglas Edwards.