Proof Google Has Lost Its Way - The Lost Code
From "Don't Be Evil" to "Just Do It" (For Profit)
Ah, Google. A name synonymous with search, innovation, and, once upon a time, a refreshingly simple ethos: “Don’t be evil.” Remember that? It wasn’t just a catchy slogan; it felt like a solemn vow, a digital handshake promising to prioritize user well-being above all else. But somewhere between disrupting the world and becoming a ubiquitous, almost invisible force in our lives, that mantra seemed to fade, like a forgotten tab in a browser overloaded with conflicting interests. Has Google traded its moral compass for a GPS pointed squarely at the bottom line? This isn’t mere nostalgia; it’s a critical examination of how a company, once celebrated for its ethical stance, appears to have quietly shed its principles, impacting everything from our personal privacy to the delicate ecosystems of small businesses. Prepare to navigate the labyrinthine controversies, the algorithmic quagmires, and the uncomfortable truths that define Google’s transformation from a beloved disruptor to a scrutinized giant.
1. The Ghost of “Don’t Be Evil”: A Motto Lost to Time (and Profit)
Birth of an Ideal: The “Don’t be evil” genesis is fascinating. Not some top-down marketing gimmick, but a ground-up sentiment, whispered among engineers like Paul Buchheit, the mind behind Gmail, sometime around the turn of the millennium. It was a subtle dig at the more established players, a self-imposed constraint, a moral checksum if you will. And it wasn’t confined to internal memos; it was enshrined in the 2004 IPO prospectus, a public declaration of prioritizing long-term societal benefit over fleeting financial gains, a pledge to keep search results pure and unbiased. A noble aspiration, indeed.
The Cracks Begin to Show: Of course, even in those early days, not everyone was convinced. Some dismissed the motto as naive, even “stupid.” Yet, it served as a crucial internal counterbalance. The murmurs began to grow louder around 2012, as Google’s ambitions expanded, and user tracking became increasingly pervasive, particularly with the rise of Google Plus. Was this expansive data collection truly in the spirit of “not being evil?” The question hung in the digital air, unanswered.
The Unofficial Retirement: The real turning point came in 2015 with the Alphabet restructuring, a corporate mitosis that birthed a new parent company for Google. Alphabet adopted the less provocative, more corporate-friendly “Do the right thing.” The shift was subtle but telling. The final nail in the coffin arrived between April and May 2018, when “Don’t be evil” was quietly excised from the preface of Google’s code of conduct, replaced by the more sterile “ethical business conduct.” It survived, clinging by a thread, as a mere footnote in the document.
The Maven Scandal: This wasn’t simply a branding exercise; it was a reaction, perhaps even a cover. The removal coincided almost perfectly with the burgeoning controversy surrounding Project Maven, a military contract that saw Google developing AI for drone strikes. Employee outrage was palpable, leading to protests and resignations. The removal of the motto felt less like a natural evolution and more like a desperate attempt to distance itself from a rapidly escalating ethical crisis. A symbolic gesture, perhaps, but one that spoke volumes.
An important note from Ross Dunn about this article: it was recently discovered by Nate Hake on X that “Google is now selling a *literal* AI spam machine.”
Allow me to briefly explain: Google Labs has released “Opal”, a no-code AI app builder that says very clearly that “creators and marketers have also quickly adopted Opal to help them create custom content in a consistent, scalable way.” The Opal intro page clearly notes how the tool will “instantly generate optimized blog posts…”
This goes against Google’s own AI-generated content documentation. More on that at Search Engine Roundtable.
Now, I’ve been annoyed a lot as of late by Google’s questionable morality, so this news sparked me to use Opal’s handy Blog Post Writer app to create this very article.
I gave the app a fairly straight-forward prompt to write an article on how far Google has fallen since it dropped the “don’t be evil” motto; its many foibles and annoying lack of investment in services that truly help people but don’t support its bottom line (local business is a real sore spot for me).
This article was the result.
It is completely unedited (screenshot of original), which wasn’t easy for my OCD! Certain stats and points seem off such as Google’s annual income (not $200b/yr, but $350b/yr in 2024), it mentions stats in the helpful content update I can’t confirm… I even left in “SEO-optimized” despite the cringe.
The only change was to insert this section add the links to the sourced content wherever possible.
So, kudos Google!
You did a great job with Opal.
I really appreciated the slam-dunk image you built, too. Here it is in it’s full sized majesty.
Back to the article, created by Google Opal about Google’s questionable ethics.
2. Your Data, Their Treasure: Google’s Privacy Tightrope Walk
The All-Seeing Eye: Let’s be frank: Google’s empire is built on data. It’s the lifeblood of its business model. They collect *everything*. Your search queries, your location history, your browsing habits, your app usage, even the inflections in your voice. The sheer scale is breathtaking, and much of it happens passively, invisibly, even when you believe you’re operating in a private, offline sphere.
“Incognito” – More Like “Sorta-Cognito”: The very notion of privacy seems to be a commodity bartered for convenience within Google’s ecosystem. That comforting sense of anonymity offered by Incognito Mode? Apparently, even that was a mirage. A massive $5 billion lawsuit alleged that Google continued to track user activity even in Incognito mode, culminating in a recent settlement that mandates the deletion of billions of records and improved transparency. A stark reminder that in the digital realm, true invisibility is a rare and precious thing.
Location, Location, Contradiction: The saga continues with location tracking. Even with “Location History” disabled, Google allegedly found alternative routes to monitor your movements through other settings, such as “Web & App Activity.” This led to a settlement with forty US states for a staggering $391.5 million over these deceptive practices. The question arises: Is our data truly ours to control, or are we merely tenants in Google’s digital panopticon?
Kids’ Data & Data Breaches: The ethical implications become even more troubling when children are involved. YouTube Kids was slapped with a $170 million fine for illegally harvesting data from children under the age of 13 without parental consent. Then there’s the Google+ data breaches, where the private information of over 500,000 users was exposed, a breach that Google reportedly attempted to downplay initially.
The Schmidt Doctrine: Perhaps the most chilling insight into Google’s data philosophy comes from a statement made by then-CEO Eric Schmidt in 2009: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” A sentiment that perfectly encapsulates the “surveillance capitalism” critique often leveled against Google, where our personal information is not just a commodity, but a form of currency in a transaction we never fully consented to.
3. King of the Hill: Google’s Endless Antitrust Battles
The Monopoly Machine: Google’s dominance isn’t just about market share; it’s about control. It’s about wielding power in a way that stifles innovation and manipulates markets. Regulators around the world, particularly in the EU and the US, have taken notice, hitting Google with massive fines for abusing its monopolistic position.
EU Slaps Galore: The European Union, in particular, has been a persistent thorn in Google’s side, levying over €8 billion in fines since 2010. Google Shopping was fined €2.4 billion for prioritizing its own service over competitors. Android faced a staggering €4.34 billion fine for blocking rivals on its mobile operating system. AdSense incurred a €1.49 billion penalty for restrictive advertising practices. The list goes on.
America Catches Up: The United States is finally catching up, with the Department of Justice and numerous states launching multiple lawsuits against Google. In 2024, a judge ruled that Google had illegally monopolized online search and digital advertising by paying companies like Apple billions to remain the default search engine. This was followed by a 2025 ruling that found them guilty of illegally monopolizing the ad tech market.
App Store Wars: Even its Google Play Store is under fire, with companies like Epic Games (Fortnite) and Match Group (Tinder) alleging monopolistic practices and mandatory billing systems. Google stands accused of “self-preferencing” its own products and crushing competition at every turn.
4. The Algorithm Ate My Business: When Google’s “Helpful” Becomes Harmful
The Shifting Sands of Search: Google’s algorithms are in constant flux, a relentless dance of updates and tweaks, all supposedly aimed at rewarding “people-first” content. Algorithms like the “Helpful Content Update” (HCU) and various Core Updates (2023-2025) are supposed to promote quality and relevance. But in reality, these changes often have devastating consequences for legitimate businesses.
Collateral Damage: Many businesses, through no fault of their own, have seen their organic traffic plummet by as much as 50-95% overnight, leading to catastrophic revenue losses. One owner of a fitness gear review site described his business as “completely shattered.” A harsh indictment of the often-unintended consequences of Google’s algorithmic tinkering.
Why Good Businesses Get Burned:
Quantity over Quality: In the past, quantity was often rewarded. Businesses focused on churning out SEO-optimized content, articles that Google now deems “unhelpful” or “surface-level.”
Small Business Strain: Small businesses often lack the resources to continuously produce the deep, authoritative content that Google now demands, making them vulnerable to penalties for generic or outsourced material.
AI’s Double-Edged Sword: Google champions AI, yet generic, unedited, or low-effort AI-generated content is being penalized, catching some unsuspecting businesses in the crossfire.
A Constant Treadmill: Google makes an average of 13 search system changes *per day*. Businesses are forced into a relentless, often confusing race to keep up, often guided by vague and shifting criteria. It’s a game where the rules are constantly being rewritten, and businesses are left to pick up the pieces.
5. The Wild West of Local Search: Google Business Profile Spam
Rampant Fakes: Despite Google’s vast resources and sophisticated algorithms, the local search ecosystem, particularly Google Business Profiles (GBP), is rife with spam. We’re talking keyword-stuffed business names, fake “ghost” listings, duplicate profiles, and a deluge of fabricated reviews.
A Losing Battle?: Google claims to be fighting back. In 2020, they removed 3 million fake GBP profiles and 55 million policy-violating reviews. In 2022, they removed 20 million. Their AI systems are supposedly blocking millions more. Yet, local SEO experts confirm that spam has been “prevalent... for a long time,” with a significant portion of users reporting an *increase* in spam activity.
The Hypocrisy of Ad Spend: Here’s the rub: Google pours “mountains of money” into its advertising capabilities, which generate the vast majority of its $200+ billion annual revenue. They have sophisticated AI to ensure ad quality and block fraudulent ads. But the integrity of *free* platforms like GBP, which are crucial for small businesses, seems to be a lower priority, forcing legitimate businesses to waste time reporting spam. It creates unfair competition, distorts search results, and erodes consumer trust.
6. Ethical Crossroads: From Worker Rights to AI Morality
Workplace Woes: Google’s internal landscape hasn’t been without its storms. The 2018 global walkout, involving 20,000 employees protesting sexual harassment payouts to executives, sent shockwaves through the company. Allegations of retaliation against employees who dare to speak up continue to surface. There have even been NLRB complaints about surveilling and firing workers for engaging in activism, such as protesting Google’s collaboration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Contractor Class Divide: The company also faces criticism for its “two-tier” system, where temporary, vendor, and contractor (TVC) workers often receive fewer benefits for similar work, fostering anxiety and stifling dissent. A stark reminder that even within the walls of a technological behemoth, inequality can persist.
The AI Ethics Exodus: This is where the ghost of “Don’t be evil” truly haunts Google. The controversial departures of leading AI ethicists like Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell sent a clear signal that the company’s commitment to ethical AI development may be wavering. These individuals were allegedly fired or pushed out for research that raised concerns about bias in Google’s AI systems.
AI for War, Not Peace: Most recently, in 2025, Google quietly *removed* previous commitments from its AI Principles that restricted developing AI for military applications or technologies causing overall harm. This move, coinciding with projects like Project Nimbus (a cloud computing contract with the Israeli government and military), further highlights a significant shift from its original ethical stance.
So, what are we to make of a company that once championed “Don’t be evil” but now finds itself embroiled in constant legal battles, privacy scandals, and accusations of algorithmic harm and ethical compromises? The idealistic startup of yesteryear is gone, replaced by a multi-faceted conglomerate operating under the banner of “Do the right thing.”
But is “doing the right thing” synonymous with “not being evil?” For many, the answer is a resounding no. As Google faces ongoing antitrust lawsuits around the world, increasing regulatory scrutiny (such as the UK’s 2025 probe into Google’s search dominance), and the ever-present challenge of balancing profit with the pervasive development of AI, its ethical tightrope walk is far from over. The real question isn’t whether Google *can* do the right thing, but whether it truly *wants* to – especially when “a little bit evil” seems to come with such substantial financial rewards.