"Don't be evil" is the informal corporate motto (or slogan) of Google,[1] originally suggested by Google employees Paul Buchheit[2] and Amit Patel[3] at a meeting. Buchheit, the creator of Gmail, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out," adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent." While the official corporate philosophy of Google[4] does not contain the words "Don't be evil", they were included in the prospectus (aka "S-1") of Google's 2004 IPO (a letter from Google's founders, later called the "'Don't Be Evil' manifesto"): "Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains."[5] The sixth point of the 10-point corporate philosophy of Google says "You can make money without doing evil."[4] The motto is sometimes incorrectly stated as Do no evil.[6][7]
"Don't be evil" is said to recognize that large corporations often maximize short-term profits with actions that may not be in the best interests of the public. Supposedly, by instilling a Don't Be Evil culture, the corporation establishes a baseline for honest decision-making that disassociates Google from any and all cheating. This in turn can enhance the trust and image of the corporation, which may outweigh short-term gains from violating the Don't Be Evil principles.
While many companies have ethical codes to govern their conduct, Google claims to have made "Don't Be Evil" a central pillar of their identity, and part of their self-proclaimed core values.[8]
Criticism of Google often includes a reference to "Don't be evil".[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
Contents |
In their 2004 founders' letter[22] prior to their initial public offering, Larry Page and Sergey Brin explained that their "Don't be evil" culture prohibited conflicts of interest, and required objectivity and an absence of bias:
Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating. We also display advertising, which we work hard to make relevant, and we label it clearly. This is similar to a well-run newspaper, where the advertisements are clear and the articles are not influenced by the advertisers’ payments. We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see.
Chris Hoofnagle agrees[23] that Google's original intention expressed by the "don't be evil" motto is linked to the company's separation of search results from advertising. However, he argues that clearly separating search results from sponsored links is required by law, thus, Google's practice is now mainstream and no longer remarkable or good. According to Hoofnagle, Google should abandon the motto because:
The evil talk is not only an albatross for Google, it obscures the substantial consumer benefits from Google’s advertising model. Because we have forgotten the original context of Google’s evil representations, the company should remind the public of the company’s contribution to a revolution in search advertising, and highlight some overlooked benefits of their model.
Some products and actions by Google have been accused of contradicting the company's "Don't be evil" ethic; Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch strongly condemned Google's compliance with China's Golden Shield Project,[24] calling it a form of self-censorship. According to Amnesty,
These forms of censorships seem to contradict the very principles that Google — whose unofficial motto is "don’t be evil" — was founded upon. Until January 2006, Google's Support Center claimed that it "does not censor results for any search term", but removed this claim after reaching its deal with China.[25]
However, Elliot Schrage, at the time Google's vice-president of public communications and global affairs, at a testimony hearing before the Committee on International Relations of the U.S. House of Representatives, responded to these accusations with an apology where he claims that it is better for Chinese citizens to have access to some of Google, which can be achieved via partial self-censorship, than to be completely censored anyway by the Chinese government and given no access at all. He goes on to state that "we believe that our current approach to China is consistent with this mantra ['don't be evil']. Our hope is that our mix of measures, though far from our ideal, would accomplish more for Chinese citizens’ access to information than the alternative."[26]
The Chinese government has also denounced Google's motto. In 2009, the China Central Television, the Xinhua News Agency and the People's Daily reported Google's "dissemination of obscene information". The People's Daily claimed that "Google's 'don't be evil' motto becomes a fig leaf".[27][28] The Chinese government imposed administrative penalties to Google China, and demanded for a reinforcement of censorship.[15]
In January 2010, Google experienced a cyber attack (referred to as Operation Aurora) on their corporate infrastructure, in an attempt to crack Gmail accounts of human rights activists in China. Google stated they will no longer censor results on google.cn even if it means pulling out of China.[29]
Also in January 2010, Apple CEO Steve Jobs strongly criticized the slogan, saying: "We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them ... This "don’t be evil" mantra: It’s bullshit."[30] However, Steve Jobs drew criticism for this statement, as Android has been directly under development since 2003[31] (with its predecessor, the Danger Hiptop, being under development since 2000).
In August 2010, Google joined with Verizon on issuing a policy proposal that was criticized by some bloggers and journalists as damaging to net neutrality.[32]
Adam Green of Huffington Post said that the Google Verizon deal directly implies that Google is "acting evil".[33]
Since March 2011, YouTube (which is owned by and operates as a subsidiary of Google) has been censoring videos of Lawful Rebellion protests in United Kingdom because of governmental requests.[34]