----- Forwarded message from Aaron Swartz <m...@aaronsw.com> ----- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:32:36 -0400 From: Aaron Swartz <m...@aaronsw.com> To: Kragen Javier Sitaker <kra...@canonical.org> Subject: Re: Saying “Do no evil” excludes you from any serious conversation about Google
What's wrong with impossible goals? In ethics, it seems only right to strive for perfection (what's the alternative? to try to do a little evil?). This doesn't mean anyone who fails should go to hell; fortunately hell does not exist. The paradigmatic example of DBE is that Google could succeed in the market without selling result placement or pinch the monkey banner ads. This isn't a claim about net good, as you suggest--it's easy to argue that if customers flocked to a Google with bought results or annoying ads, they were getting a huge net benefit, especially over competitors who had both plus no intelligent ranking technology. DBE was meant to head net evil thinking off at the pass. There were just some lines Google would not cross. It is different from DNE but not in the way you suggest. It was about how power corrupts, not about individual mistakes. And power corrupts through exactly the net benefit logic you claim the principle allows. I think they knew that and thus the slogan was a reminder to be constantly on guard. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- To unsubscribe: http://lists.canonical.org/mailman/listinfo/kragen-discuss
