I support your view on Google's censorship, but you shouldn't make such comments according to Google in context of Yahoo. Google at least doesn't put anybody to the prison... Google is maybe not that Not Evil, but Yahoo is really evil.

I think tis a good and simple question..

"Google’s motto is “Don’t be evil.” What’s Yahoo’s?"

and even CEO could not answer this cleanly.. Whats happening at yahoo ??

http://mcmanus.typepad.com/grind/2006/08/see_the_future_.html

Definitely better to have a good motto but fall short. Google publicly agonizes over the issue and isn't afraid to bring up its complexities whereas Yahoo! gives an incredibly lame response from their CEO "basically, value them." Isn't that "basically" every company's motto?

I think it's interesting to notice the struggle occurring between the creative energies of Sergey / Larry and the financial energies of Schmidt / Reyes. What a team they have, we're lucky to have the chance to observe this kind of dueling chemistry.

Let's give them a nice motto..."Do Evil"...

That's so lame:

"and even CEO could not answer this cleanly.. Whats happening at yahoo ??
See they don't have a motto, they're not 'cool' "

dumb, dumb, dumb

ow yeah yeah now we have saint gOOgle ("double aureole") and pure evil Yahoo (Y for devil's pitchfork), right? gimme a break.

think about this quote from The Godfather:

   Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
   Kay: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.
   Michael: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?

Come on you guys, do you have mottos? Just because Google has a motto (and a pretty meaningless one at that) doesn't mean all businesses should have one. Is the new model for commerce the boy scout troup? Most business have mission statements, just as Yahoo does, and that's fine.

===>> "doesn't mean all businesses should have one" ??

whewwwww.. if a business does not have a motto (slogon!) then they need to get a life!!

===>>" Most business have mission statements"

yeah, those mission statements are – lifeless, corporate lipscreech sound of thingy . yeah..its like a nitemare for the community!!

Now I see the reason why Yahoo is so weird...

I don't think a motto really counts for moot unless it is backed up. Yes there has been contriversy of late over some of Google's dealings in China and privacy issues, but for the most part Google has always stood behind their "Don't Be Evil" slogan; in this case I do think that the slogan counts for somethings (case in point, a large portion of the negetive comments for Google's China dealing wasn't that they were giving in, but rather that they were going against their "Don't Be Evil" mantra)

Point to note : Goog's was the only company to contest the DOJ case for user data..(yeah, the so called child prono bill -foo!!)

AOL/MSFT/YAHOO all gave rendered the data without notice to users or informing the community ..it was known after the fact.. Google laid their necks on the line.. IMHO :)-

Peter, even if you don't subscribe to Seth's postulation that Google's actions in that COPA were self-serving PR, rather than ethical protection of their users: http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000960.html , it's still hard to see how Google were putting their necks on the line. What risk were they taking? The value of the PR vastly outweighed the legal costs, and what other downside did they have?

As for the motto question, if you believe its purpose (beyond the vague, narrow definitions at http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html , http://investor.google.com/founders_letter.html and http://investor.google.com/conduct.html) is as Elliot Schrage, a Google VP, says at http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html :-

"Many, if not most, of you here know that one of Google's corporate mantras is “Don't be evil.” Some of our critics – and even a few of our friends – think that phrase arrogant, or naïve or both. It's not. It's an admonition that reminds us to consider the moral and ethical implications of every single business decision we make."

   ... then I think that it's probably better to have it, even if you then compromise it sometimes, than not have it at all.

Finally, though I'm pretty disenchanted with Google's behaviour, I'm with Ludwik about Yahoo: on any scale which could measure Google's ethics, Yahoo (and MS) would barely register. I doubt Yahoo and MS often "consider the moral and ethical implications" of their business decisions.