zlacker

>>benhur+(OP)
This makes me anxious about my long time Gmail address. Back then I got it just because it and Google was cool, and their services had a good reputation. It was a different Google back then. If they had launched it this year I would never have got one because chances are it would have been cancelled by 2025. Gmail is really the only valuable thing that actually ties my life to Google. And it's not that hard to replace, but just a bother to inform some people and update account details.

>>jug+36
Yes, the good old Don't Be Evil days. I've asked so many people if they can remember Google's old slogan. Nobody does.

>>2malaq+V6
Their new slogan is hilarious. It's not even one slogan, it's three:

* Respect the user

* Respect the opportunity

* Respect each other

The first one is obviously a joke, because nothing says "respect the user" like canceling a beloved service with millions of users, or "updating" the product while losing half the features.

The last one makes you wonder why they had to put it into a slogan. Isn't it the baseline expectation? It's somewhere on the level of "Don't steal your colleague's belongings" as far as slogans go.

But it's the second one that is absolutely the best, and by that, I mean the worst. Orwell would've had a lot to say about it. The thing is, it has absolutely no meaning in the English language. What's next? Say hi to agility? Don't offend capital gains? Console excellence?

Of course, it doesn't really matter. The whole thing has a mafia vibe, as Google's slogans and culture are drifting towards loyalty rather than standing up for what's right.

--------

If you want to have more fun, look at Google's Community Guidelines[1]

Compare to The Mafia Code:

* Be loyal to members of the organization. Do not interfere with each other's interest. Do not be an informer.

--[Google: Treat our data with care. Don't disseminate NTK information.]

* Be rational. Be a member of the team. Don't engage in battle if you can't win.

--[Google: follow Three Values, in particular: Respect the opportunity.]

* Be a man of honor. Respect womanhood and your elders. Don't rock the boat.

--[Google: Do your part to keep Google a safe, productive, and inclusive environment for everyone.]

* Be a stand-up guy. Keep your eyes and ears open and your mouth shut.

--[Google: Discussions that make other Googlers feel like they don't belong have no place here.]

* Have class. Be independent. Know your way around the world.

--[Google: You are responsible for your words and your reach.]

[1]https://about.google/community-guidelines/

>>romwel+h9
> Compare to The Mafia Code:

Including that doesn't help your argument much. And apart from "do not be an informer" and "don't rock the boat" the mafia code is pretty much unarguably good advice. Employees should be following it.

We'd all be better off if everyone was rational, honourable, independent and classy.

>>roenxi+Kd
I thought my point was obvious, but no, it's HN and I have to spell out everything explicitly.

The Mafia Code isn't bad because it has bad stuff.

The Mafia Code is bad because it doesn't prohibit awful stuff.

The Mafia Code says nothing about being not evil, or, for that matter, not killing your enemies, not extorting non-mafia people, and so on.

It's all about being loyal to, and protecting the interests of the Family.

Which is what Google aims to be - one big family, which will take care of all your needs, as long as you follow the code.

>>romwel+s82
The majority of the code is talking about personal values (working backwards up the list, I'm counting independence, class, worldly knowledge, being a stand-up guy, being observational, honourable, amenable, strategic, rational). The parts that deal with being part of a group are not that unusual either - everyone is part of a group and that isn't a problem. Employers all want to be a little like a family.

If you want to argue that Google is promoting these values amongst it's employees that is fine; but that is a great idea on Google's part. It isn't strengthening your argument.