Google's repellant action of boycotting CNET for
a perfectly legitimate story that highlighted Google's ability to penetrate information layers will leave a lasting
smudge on the company. It's like a little piece of garbage rotting in the summer sun, its owner refusing to clean it
up.
Today Mike Langberg posted a
column in which he quotes
Eric Schmidt from the May 19 press day at the Googleplex: "When we talk about organizing all the world's
information, we mean all. And we mean all people. And we mean universally accessible." Just over a month later
Elinor Mills wrote The
Article that got CNET damned by Google, in which, to demonstrate privacy concerns surrounding Google, she pointed
to several documents revealing business and personal information about Schmidt—all excavated via Google's search
engine.
If all of CNET is responsible for the behavior of one reporter, why isn't all of Google responsible for the behavior
of its search engine? In other words, didn't Eric Schmidt violate his own privacy? Isn't he responsible for the
behavior of his search engine?
Google's banning action is not only deeply ironic, it is petty and hypocritical. Though it has been requested, Google
cannot issue a comment on this mess; there is nothing redeeming to say about it. Google must simmer silently in shame
as observers gasp in disbelief that the company could be so tone-deaf to PR repercussions. But Google could correct the
matter, and it's amazing to me that somebody didn't step out from on high and issue a quick, resolving statement along
these lines: "We regret the confusion; obviously it is not Google's policy to punish media outlets for covering our
products and demonstrating their power. We appreciate CNET's fine coverage of Google through the years. Furthermore, we
are aware of, and deeply concerned with, privacy issues every day here at Google." Appointing a privacy officer
wouldn't hurt, even as a gesture.
This and other PR blunders are made worse by the absurd "Don't be evil" thing, which should never have been written
into the IPO documents. It was a childish mistake made by two kids thrust into a new realm. It was tantamount to saying
"We'll never change," perhaps the most foolish statement a company can make on the eve of going public. Here again,
there's nothing to be done. Google talked itself into a morality corner, just as it painted itself into a no-win corner
over CNET. Google can still extricate itself productively from the CNET fiasco, but only if it gets some nimbleness and
does it now.
Google vs. CNET, Redux
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Yawn. Why is everybody missing the point? Cnet got blasted because they incorrectly spun privacy misinformation about Google's flagship Desktop Search product. (and ended up posting a retraction in the process). The ceo thing looks like an afterthought. And what's so evil about that anyways? It's not like Google erased Cnet from their index or something. If they (Cnet) want the inside scoop - they'll have to play nice. What's evil about that again?
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Yanni
3. There's a comment over here that made me laugh...http://www.kraneland.com/2005/08/google-top-5.html
The original post is "Top 5 ways my baby will be similar to Google". The commentor added number 6...
"(The baby will), realizing that everyone loves and adores it no matter what, will think nothing of crapping on people just because he can."
4. Privacy issues where gmail is concerned is another matter altogether. Isnt wierd how google are attempting to hog up all the emails that people send? to what purpose?
anyway I am not into conspiracy theories just aware of a few abnormalities.
PK
http://www.thegoogleblog.com
5. "Why is everybody missing the point? Cnet got blasted because they incorrectly spun privacy misinformation about Google's flagship Desktop Search product. (and ended up posting a retraction in the process). The ceo thing looks like an afterthought...."
And yet, it's that "afterthought" that's prompted the darlings of the tech-world to deny their essence to CNet for a year.
If we can't count on them for a little basic consistency in their behavior, instead of throwing a tizzy whenever the hypersensitive rich guy they hired to make them look respectable gets a burr up his butt about the fact that people on the internet can know whether or not he's a dog, then we shouldn't be trusting them to "do no evil." It's clear that their idea of "evil" is highly subjective, at best; I've been pretty sure for a couple of years, now, that I couldn't trust them any farther than I could spit them through a straw. These guys clearly like cool tech way too much to have much mental bandwidth left for ethical issues.
Anyway, here's the point you shouldn't be missing: You can get the same information elsewhere. E.g., via Teoma:
http://s.teoma.com/search?q=%22Eric+Schmidt%22&qsrc=23&nw=False&u=100
7. This will be a fascinating case to watch, and does not seem to be going away. It may well be a tipping point where this "revered" company joined the likes of Microsoft in creating an atmosphere of "we can do better" and "these guys are dangerous".
If Larry Page and Sergei Brin REALLY believed the credo they apparently insisted on in the SEC filings "do no evil", then there are loud boisterous fights going on right now about the principles with Larry & Sergei threatening to quit or mount a campaign to fire Schmidt over this issue... their company has done it's first major "evil" act.
If there is no such fight, nothing from Larry and Sergei, then it will show it to have been stupid PR statement and/or that billions of dollars of net worth does indeed change one's principles.
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Bart
1. "This and other PR blunders are made worse by the absurd 'Don’t be evil' thing...Google talked itself into a morality corner..."
Yup.
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by doug