Google’s entry into the English languages (and others?) as a verb illustrates how high on a pedestal their brand stands. However, as history has shown, the higher up you are, the further you have to fall.

How does a downfall start? Well, for one thing, you make vague, grandiose, inflammatory and overly-broad statements like, “You can make money without doing evil.” I, like a lot of people I imagine, are probably a little confused by this concept. What exactly does Google mean in it’s use of “evil?” I think that it’s only naturally that people are going to interpret this in the broadest sense possible — which really places Google in a bind.

Take Google’s autolinking feature. Currently, it’s pretty innocuous, since it’s primary function is turning non-linked addresses on web pages into links to Google Maps. However, this feature shares some similarities to Microsoft’s ill-fated, never-launched Smart Tags — a “feature” which would have added Microsoft-controlled links to web pages by default. One could have made a very strong case that Smart Tags was “evil,” since Microsoft was unfairly leveraging it’s monopoly in browser share to influence web traffic. Now by association — however slim the analogy — Google’s Autolink starts to feel like evil.

Google could have avoided a lot of this controversy by never making references to “evil.” Imprecise and controversial concepts don’t belong in company mission statements, since they only incur downsides, not upsides. Just ask GW.

Update: 2005_03_28
Here’s a few more links on the building Google backlash:
Dan Gillmor’s Google and Transparency
Jeff Jarvis’ Google Nazis
ITConversations audio show on Autolink
Roger Simon’s Is Google Progressive or Reactionary?