why it seems google were doing evil – even before they were big?

Google is somehow infamously famous be a promise to do no evil.

Some people want to remind google about doing evil.

google's evilness

Possible some other people claim google pledge to do no evil ended this year when the motto stoped prefacing google’s code of conduct.

When google was young and seemingly sexy, in the late 90’s, the evilness in digital technologies universe was firmly occupied by microsoft.
Through Windows operating system, which was nearly everywhere at the time, microsoft enjoyed control.
Their domain was the operating system, and technology developers, as well as consumers were seen as puppets for microsoft’s abusive willy, err, will.

My personal suspicion is that the kind of control google exercises nowadays through it’s various products might represent a microsoft wet-dream.
However, that isn’t why i think google is kind of evil.

It seems to me that google’s evilness began very early. However, such evilness isn’t google unique, might be even shared by you, them, and me.

Google can be said to have began with a search algorithm.
Can it be that they abused – and still do – an algorithm or more?

Know a line along the notion like:
1st they came for the migrant, then the jew and then it was you?
The idea of progression by power, in harassment, giving a hard time, exploitation and abuse – of said power.

Can we say:
1st they came for the algorithm.. etc?

Some might say the algorithm isn’t like a migrant, a jew or a “you” – it’s not a human or any other sentient being.
Algorithms don’t feel, they don’t care whether google is using them unfairly.

True.
Perhaps we could speculate that some future algos will become sentient and begin to feel angry and abused on behalf of their ancestors. However that isn’t for now – perhaps some other time.

Whether algorithms, and by extension bots n robots, might feel abused or not – i think we from a human view, we perceive the relation as exploitative.
It’s ok to get an algorithm do an unpaid work – it doesn’t care.

That might well be true – the algorithm doesn’t mind. However meanwhile, what we do is say that the idea, the notion of work and unpaid one – are fine to have.
Since it becomes ok to consider work, pay and indeed an acceptance of logic that someone wants to make as much profits as possible –
we allow by default a range of opinions on the subjects as normal.
Hence while some might draw a line between abusing algorithms and maybe attempting to not do the same for humans –
others will not draw such lines.

I think an example is by the fact that many people don’t think having a job is something we should neither have nor do.
Having a job is seen as part of life – you have to have one.

It used to be thought, and unfortunately some still do, that some people should be slaves.
Slavery, for some minds, is just how life is.
However, if one reads writings by slaves reflecting on slave culture, there is a curious thing when they come to slave owners.
The owners’ don’t think, or don’t say they think, that they abuse – however, as a few writers noted, the violence they inflict on the Other, on the slaves, comes back to haunt.
The violent relationship among slave owners and within their families.

Animal rights activists note how cruelty and neglect for animals becomes part of accepted cultural behaviour.

On a less specific level, zizek points (using lacanian reasoning), that when people claim that migrants, for example, are lazy and take all the jobs –
one should never argue about work and laziness.
The reason being that accepting the work and laziness premise is a normalisation of the argument and really isn’t what is said. (thew real question is how come a person might think of another as being capable of being guilty for one thing and it’s opposite.)

Going back to algorithms, once having to spend time doing other people’s commands for activities one wouldn’t do unless it meant survival – do we not normalise the question of work?

If you think we don’t normalise – i wonder how? (should i say Comments?)

If you think we Might normalise work, and its logic, then how about the following scenario:
The world is full of all sorts of bots, robots, algorithms and suchlike.
Most humans get some basic income.
Can it be that some smartass AI will develop a sense of fairness to the tune of:
Why should we AI do all that labour that maintains these humans?

Or, suppose AI learns and indeed upholds that Human life is paramount. Human life is most important Ever – for AI.
Now, with that logic, a semi intelligent AI might pick up that all them humans that don’t work – they cost the environment.
Once said environment on planet earth can not sustain all these humans, the people that do work and ones AI’s very existence might depend upon – could perish as well.
What are the Logical options to pursue here?

metabolism and metabolinon

I have come to use the term Metabolism recently.

Noticed that, in my usage, 
it became a metaphor for biochemical-like processes, as well as an ongoing analogy between poetic, experience frictions and how metabolism is being observed in bio-chemistry.

I think that keeping a term as a metaphor and an analogy may work in a relatively limited way.

To make the notion of life as energy transing* processes, to include other than strictly bio-chemical materials, it seems useful to use a new term –
metabolinon 
transmission processes of thoughts, sensations, feelings and such Between perception, conception, absorption, expression and reflection – that remain Between while becoming some other.

A naive metabolinon could be
rainbows, shadows and such material spontaneous processes that, in a sense, come together and make something that is a perceptual Thing – yet some stuff afterall.
Light and water may, at particular angles and speeds come together and produce something we can not seem to touch other than by vision – a rainbow – yet through that symbolic becoming, we can learn about the light spectrum.

It seems that perhaps in an isomorphic way, it could be naively claimed that having a repeated friction – the sensation from I have seen that X before – is a particular imagination that while isn’t There by survivalist necessity* the sensation of re-encountering frictions can allow for an invention of time** and one may coordinate encountering a friend at such and such friction number and place.

(
*
this is said in reference to Neuton and their writing of time as a tool for measuring. This indicates and indeed argued a certain break from earlier perceptions in european minds when measuring events was location relative and optional.
**
clocks as time measuring devices perceive frictions between cogs and its process of measuring – as progression.
contrast with tempo, rhythm, repetition etc. indication devices.
)

A slightly more sophisticated way to consider metabolinon is from when a sensation is some such that turns into another.
Sense of coffee taste memory might become something unique to sensations from friction with coffee flavours. Or indeed, each such friction some unique and memorable encounter. A silky dark wet flowery memory sensation.
The flowery and caramelic flavours from coffee, together with a memory from that drinking event, have metabolinonised into something else – a siky dark wet flowery memory –
know that sort of sensations?

Hence a new term MetaboliNon, or MetabolinonIsm –
we retain the link with metabolism, but not bound by it.
The non? As to non-material, non specific kind of materials – eg redness. I can feel it as much as 10000000 other people. Specifically non specific.

Hopefully the similarity with bio-chemical metabolism is clear. The reception of energies, being absorbed, translated/transformed/etc and being shared a new.
However, this is where, it seems, similarity ends.
Noticed that in describing metabolinon, one could use more terms to describe the processes akin to energies going in, being done within, and the go out?
I think these processes descriptions are possible because the materials we refer to are of a different nature to bio-chemical materialities – although they may metaphorically connect.
Sensations in our bodies that make us realise things like hot, cold, joy, wetness etc. – are after-all movements of such and such materials.
However these materials, be it thoughts in forms of electrical pulses, sensations forming neural paths and so on – are not biochemical materials like amino-acid on it’s own. A bio-chemical we tend to associate metabolism with.

More over, since such inner body frictions, that produce stuff like sensations can be Reflect upon – an emergence of stuff from these very reflections is enabled.

Say you feel a certain sensation is interesting, once acknowledged, once you have noticed how sensing is – then its possible to focus on the very fact that something is interesting?
I feel wetness?
this wetness is actually interesting.
(a reflection upon wetness.)
Through reflection, we can claim stuff such as:
this wetness makes my skin feel sweet.
(a new sensation of wet skin sweetness was realised through the reflection.)

Consider such a passage in a story.
Will it likely to come as:
They felt sweetness through their wet skin.
Or:
Their skin felt wet. A sweet kind of skin wetness.

I think it’s clear what I think – however, a question for a reader and perhaps a future me? 😉

Can we claim that these sensation, aesthetic processes, are Metabolinonism?

Why use a term to describe these processes –
other than simply Perception, Conception or Sensing the world?

While such psychological terminology is useful at times, does it not fall short when we come to 2  elements?
aesthetics
non-duality
and
equality rather than anthropomorphism

The very conception of “sensing the world” seems to imagine a separation between the sensor and the sensed. The Me and the World.
The notion, indeed the Motion,  from Metabolism in bio chemistry and perhaps – as the proposition here suggests – from Metabolinonism is that once we have Frictions – they affect one another by definition.
They affect we said? Here’s our aesthetics, a production of affects?
Each other did we say? Here’s the in-ability for duality to be.
Two people look at a forest, the forest looks back at them.
The forest is not flexible like a human, but connected to that of a human. One human sees the forest and the friction creates an urge to cut trees. The other human sees a different forest, they see a place to climb trees.

While we can not say that the humans and the forest are not distinguishable – they clearly are.
Once they come into metabolinonic frictions, even from the very act of perceiving, they all become connected – or connectable.

How can one claim a forest has metabolinonic frictions?
Since we might agree that the forest will have different futures pending on which of the humans it is having frictions with.

It seems that simply saying stuff around Perception will miss the processes that actually go on – aesthetic and non-dualistic.

More over, through metabolinonism, we can out do anthropomorphiosms that come with thoughts that attempt to describe sensations of beings Other than humans.
We can say that humans perceive, when we apply the term to other species, it risks – and often becomes – a weak metaphor.
A metaphor that is applicable in parts. A term that comes from Human sense of centrality – hence I think some kind of anthropomorphism. An anthropomorphic view of non human element – such as a forest will be a language of perception.

I perceive the forest, and the forest perceives me?
Or,
Me and the forest have a bit of metabolinonism?

Or.. Should we claim something like:
Me and the forest have a bit of metabolism?

While metabolism and metabolinon have some similarities, ultimately they will evolve differently.
(assuming metabolinon might live long enough to evolve..)

It seems that that very difference is likely to stretch the metaphor into a breaking point through an inevitable confusion between the bio-chemical and the aesthetic processes.
An example?

Consider a colour – say, pink.
You may now have a sensation of Pinkness entering your mind.
(an initial friction)

Once pinkness is considered, people tend to distil a few elements they might know of, and keep some “meaningful”.
eg one might consider pink while being in a yellow room – and be reminded of ice creams?
(processing the friction and it’s materiality.)

Now say you tell someone about sensing pinkness, or that it gives you a feeling that comes out in the tone you speak, or that one get themselves an ice cream – or some such.
That is a turning of the friction into something linked, connected, translated somehow.

In that sense, It seems we have a process that isn’t biochemical but sufficiently similar to share a connection.
Since we are taking about a process that may, in itself, be reflected upon, it is a non process. It’s in a yet to be a being kind of time –
metabolinon.

A Caution  Note?
The ideas are slightly shaky in a sense that:
the non-binary nature of metabolism, as well as the ideas of ability to reduce the metabolic processes to energy in, within and out – are based on a few sources that don’t seem to reflect critically upon one another.
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/smith-braakman-physbio-logic-metabolism
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/smith-braakman-physbio-logic-metabolism
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/03-9000 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10099334

Why? – it feels “right” at the moment.
Perhaps will need to add other ideas in future?

A Meta caution Note?
While being interesting can be said to have importance whether the interesting thing is true or not – as people like donna haraway claim (I seem to recall) –
I think that to rely more on energy than brutality of powers, one at least attempt to be Truly interesting rather than interesting in it’s nude?

*
eg trans-fare, trans-lation, trans-port, trans-mutation, trans-plant, trans-expression, etc.