I somewhat see where you are going and I do like it. Employees should work in a company where they believe in the way of working and feel comfortable doing the job. Agreed on that.
But I see the problem arising on how to define what's evil and what is not.
There are lot of things which can be thought as strengthening existing imbalances of power in the world. Even the Google search could be considered to be such.
I can't figure out why "real names" policy is evil. I don't see it harming people. From what I have been using Facebook and Google+, I actually enjoy and prefer it so that people use real names.
Not all products are suited for everybody and alternatives for different use cases exist. I'm sure that Google has lot to offer for people who don't want to use their real name publicly.
> Employees should work in a company where they believe in the way of working and feel comfortable doing the job. Agreed on that.
That's not what I said, although it's probably a good HR policy.
I didn't say people should do things that they think are good and not evil (at work or otherwise).
I said people should do things that are good and not evil.
If I thought what you think I thought, it would be counterproductive to bring up these issues publicly, because it might make people uncomfortable by making them question their values.
> But I see the problem arising on how to define what's evil and what is not.
Yes, of course it's difficult to know what's good and what's evil (it's not a question of "definition" unless moral relativism is correct), and if past experience is any guide, we probably won't come to any kind of permanent consensus. That doesn't mean that discussing it is pointless. We can probably come to better conclusions about what's good and what's evil with the discussion than without it.
> There are lot of things which can be thought as strengthening existing imbalances of power in the world. Even the Google search could be considered to be such.
Someone might think Google Search strengthens existing imbalances of power, but I don't think so. And of course it does the opposite of harming people.
> I can't figure out why "real names" policy is evil. I don't see it harming people.
I don't really want to get into the whole #nymwars discussion here, but suffice it to say that the broad consensus among Google+ users is that you're wrong about that — which is what I meant by saying that Google's policy was undemocratically chosen.
But I see the problem arising on how to define what's evil and what is not.
There are lot of things which can be thought as strengthening existing imbalances of power in the world. Even the Google search could be considered to be such.
I can't figure out why "real names" policy is evil. I don't see it harming people. From what I have been using Facebook and Google+, I actually enjoy and prefer it so that people use real names.
Not all products are suited for everybody and alternatives for different use cases exist. I'm sure that Google has lot to offer for people who don't want to use their real name publicly.