[What2159]

Google is benevolent but incompetent. Microsoft is evil but competent. Difficult choice.

[consumer451]

> Google is benevolent

Honest dumb question, how is Google benevolent in comparison to MS these days?

[Cyberdog]

Agreed. “Google is good and Microsoft is evil” is a take from two decades ago.

[pimlottc]

I don't know that this is true, but to even suggest that Microsoft is the component one vs Google really shows how much things have changed in the last 20 years...

[myself248]

Google was benevolent, but DoubleClick was evil.

Slapping the Google name over the DoubleClick business model was the greatest swindle ever pulled, and people STILL don't see through it.

[samtho]

Google is indifferent, almost worse than evil - which can be predictable.

[nottorp]

Tbh i'd rather have my code somewhere where my account can't be automatically banned by an "AI" without any possibility of reaching a human...

[spacechild1]

> Google is benevolent

Citation needed

[ThrowawayR2]

Google was never benevolent, no for-profit business is. It was baffling to me how many developers took "Don't be evil" at face value, particularly for an almost completely advertising funded (i.e. highly motivated for enshittification) corporation.

[aleph_minus_one]

> It was baffling to me how many developers took "Don't be evil" at face value

In my opinion a little bit more care must be taken here:

The "don't be evil" slogan was in my opinion both a blessing and a curse for Google: a blessing in that people initially trusted that Google does not intend to do something evil; a curse in the sense that when they started doing things that were considered "evil", it lead to a massive reputation damage for Google.