I like the idea of the "don't be evil" rule, but it always seemed overly naive / simplistic to me.

Even without factoring in self-justifying rationalizations, people can have significantly different ideas of what counts as evil.

It's an easier ethos to hold when a company is small.

When a company is large, it bumps up against the problem that humanity as a whole has a difference in definitions on the subject.

"Don't be evil" is perfect because of how simple it is. It's supposed to be common sense.

> people can have significantly different ideas of what counts as evil.

And those people, who need someone to explain to them what is or isn't evil, aren't welcome.

That's why I personally loved that motto. Too bad that whole ethos got dropped like it was a recently-launched product.

This topic fascinates me, but I haven't found a way to productively discuss it on HN.

If you too find it interesting, you may enjoy doing a literature search on the topic.

I personally like the semantic distinction between "don't be evil" and the way it is often misremembered on HN, "do no evil".

Do no evil seems stricter than don't be evil. How much evil can you do before you are evil? Or can you be evil while doing no evil?

In a world where "telling" people is enough, there is no evil.

[deleted]

For anyone who doesn't know, it's currently in the Code of Conduct, at the very bottom:

> And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!

It doesn't carry same meaning as "Don't be evil."

Thank you for the information. I didn't know it was added on.