[mpd]

> No reasonable person could understand the phrase, "Don't Be Evil," to mean, "Don't do things that I personally consider evil."

TBH, I think almost everyone treats the former statement, as meaning the latter. Did you mistype here?

Maybe there's even something different about using "evil" here, specifically. Would another word have a different outcome?

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> TBH, I think almost everyone treats the former statement, as meaning the latter. Did you mistype here?

I don't think so. For example, there are religions that consider the lending of money to be evil, but I am quite certain Google did not have in mind that adherents of these religions should leak documents to the press if Google were to offer a credit card. Likewise, Google was not interested in the moral views of its conservative religious employees when it started offering various types of support for LGBTQ people.

I think when most people hear, "Don't be evil," they understand it to mean things along the lines of, "Don't be unfair to users, don't act with malice, don't lie, cheat, or steal, etc." I.e. don't do things that are essentially universally considered evil. I do not believe many people interpret that as, "protest every time Google violates your personal moral code, no matter how esoteric or idiosyncratic."

[danielheath]

Those things are clearly ~not~ universally seen as evil in the corporate world (and other places, but the corporate world is the relevant area here), given the prevalence of deception & unfair conduct present.

[bananabreakfast]

No one treats it that way.

A reasonable person should understand it not as requesting to make subjective personal judgments but rather as what it clearly was meant as: "Don't be Microsoft"

[Tempest1981]

Really? Microsoft never crossed my mind when hearing the motto years ago.

I interpreted it more generically as "make the world a better place... by organizing the world's information, and making it easily accessible".

[mpd]

Only if said "reasonable person" were around in the 90's, and knew the shit that MS was trying to pull. I happen to be one of those people, but that's not the catch of the day here.

[q1w2]

The issue is that they used their own interpretation of "don't be evil", even when the company TOLD them that certain things were not evil.

The phrase is meant to be a catch-all against policies that are not specified - not a carte-blanche to do whatever the F you want in contradiction of what the company is telling you.

[AlbertCory]

> "I think almost everyone treats the former statement, as meaning the latter"

First of all, that's debatable. Even if true, they're wrong.

[mpd]

If your only special move is "You're wrong!", it's going to be hard to talk to you. What do you think is debatable?