i think more should stop his art before marilyn manson eats him alive ..

But if you’re Lauren, you just watched Sicko, and think that “Moore attacks health insurers, health providers, and pharmaceutical companies by connecting them to isolated and emotional stories of the system at its worst,” can you not propose a way to help companies fight what you really think is a one-sided attack?

My point is, we shouldn’t be quick to condemn Google or Lauren as a sell-out or acting inconsistently with the “do no evil” motto. It could be just a harmless case of Lauren simply expressing her opinion, while highlighting a service that she believes will be helpful. Her infamous post isn’t that different from this, this, and that (pretty much all the posts so far). At least in terms of discussing a need (again, real or perceived), and showing how Google can address it.

Honestly, I think this whole brouhaha developed because someone once again declared their opposition to Michael Moore. I’m not saying he’s totally wrong, but when someone talks about what they think he’s doing wrong, they get bashed. The latest victim is Google apparently. Even if a lot of other bloggers are attacking Google, I just don’t agree with them.

The impression I got from Google’s post was that it invited its employees to watch Sicko before all this brouhaha happened. I mean, Sicko debuted last June 29. While this controversy developed some time the next day.

As for your post’s main point, I really think the last thing Google should do is exercise more control over what their bloggers say. As someone said (Michael Arrington?), we’ll be losing a lot of insights into the operation of one of the most dynamic companies in existence today.

Her follow-up post only indicates she doesn’t want her employer to take on her case. She called it a “spin”, CNN says the facts are correct. I call it a sell-out — defending capitalistic HMOs and advising them to advertise on Google.

There are so many angles to this issue, but you can read the over 120+ blogs who weighed in on her point. That and Google finally backpedaled and inviting all 1,000+ employees to watch Sicko that Turner bashed earlier, if that doesn’t give you a hint of anything.

Then again, just read the title of my post.

Still, I can’t find Google’s actions evil. Sure, they joined the debate (on their own blog at that) to talk about their services. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re unconcerned about the health care industry. If you’re talking about how you can fill a need, doesn’t that imply a concern for the need itself?

Granted, there are people who only care about business. Yet Lauren’s recent post isn’t “proof” for “conviction.” To automatically categorize Google’s advocacy of its own services as an evil business practice is a leap of logic.

Regarding the links you’ve listed, both Google and Lauren have clarified their positions, saying that the latter’s opinions aren’t necessarily those of the former. Hardly an apology and admission of shortcoming IMHO.

I’ll repeat my last statement: If it were Yahoo or Microsoft, we wouldn’t react that much (just read all that blog posts ). But for a company who promises to do no evil, their position is totally a 180-degree turn away from it.

One of Google’s self-proclaimed core values is “Our business practices are beyond reproach,” followed by “We make money by doing good things.”

Meanwhile, Lauren Turner followed it up with an apology and the Official Google admits to the shortcomings.

Isn’t this—trying to convince advertisers of your service’s viability—just marketing in its most basic form?

How modest (or inept) of you.