Why Did Google Remove “Do No Evil”? Unpacking the Shift from a Guiding Principle to a Ghostly Echo

Why Did Google Remove “Do No Evil”? Unpacking the Shift from a Guiding Principle to a Ghostly Echo

The Lingering Question and a Personal Reflection

It’s a question that’s been whispered in tech circles, debated in newsrooms, and pondered by users for years: **Why did Google remove “Do No Evil”?** For many of us who grew up alongside the internet’s explosive growth, “Don’t be evil” (its original phrasing) was more than just a catchy slogan; it felt like a foundational promise, a moral compass for a company that was rapidly becoming an indispensable part of our digital lives. I remember first encountering it in the early days, a stark and noble statement against the perceived amorality of the tech world. It resonated deeply, suggesting a commitment to user well-being and ethical conduct. But over time, as Google’s influence expanded and its business models evolved, that promise seemed to fade, replaced by more pragmatic and, some would argue, less idealistic corporate pronouncements. The official removal of “Don’t be evil” from Google’s code of conduct, and its eventual replacement with a more watered-down “Do the right thing,” felt like a seismic shift, and the question of *why* it happened continues to echo.

The Concise Answer: A Strategic Realignment, Not an Abandonment of Ethics (Officially)

Officially, Google did not “remove” “Do No Evil” in the sense of abandoning ethical considerations. Instead, the company underwent a significant corporate restructuring, forming a parent company called Alphabet Inc. in 2015. As part of this restructuring, Google’s own code of conduct was updated, and the phrase “Don’t be evil” was moved from the company’s mission statement to a preamble, and later effectively superseded by the phrase “Do the right thing.” This change was publicly framed as a necessary evolution to reflect the company’s broader scope and more complex operations, suggesting that “Do the right thing” was a more encompassing and actionable directive in the modern era. However, many critics argue this was a superficial justification for a deeper shift away from a core ethical tenet, driven by commercial pressures and the realities of operating a global tech behemoth.

The Evolution of a Slogan: From Underdog Idealism to Corporate Pragmatism

To truly understand why Google moved away from “Don’t be evil,” we have to trace its journey. It all started back in 1999, when Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with their early employees, adopted the phrase “Don’t be evil” as part of their unofficial company motto. It was born out of a desire to differentiate themselves from established tech giants that were perceived as prioritizing profit over user welfare. This was a time when Google was still a scrappy startup, fueled by an idealistic vision of organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible. The slogan embodied this ethos, suggesting that as they grew, they would remain principled and user-centric.

The Early Years: A Noble Ideal in Practice?

In those early days, “Don’t be evil” felt authentic. Google’s primary product was search, and its revenue model was based on advertising that was clearly delineated and, for the most part, unobtrusive. Users felt a sense of trust. The company was lauded for its innovation and its commitment to providing unbiased search results. It was easy to believe that they genuinely cared about users and the impact of their technology. I recall the excitement around Google’s IPO in 2004, and how the “Don’t be evil” mantra was still very much a part of the public narrative, seen as a crucial differentiator that set them apart. It wasn’t just marketing; it seemed ingrained in the company’s DNA.

The Growing Pains: When Ideals Meet Realpolitik

As Google grew into a global superpower, however, the simple directive of “Don’t be evil” began to chafe against the complexities of its expanding empire. The company ventured into numerous new territories:
* **Advertising Dominance:** Google’s search advertising model, while innovative, became increasingly sophisticated and pervasive. Questions arose about the placement of ads, the personalization of ads based on user data, and the potential for advertisers to exert undue influence.
* **Data Collection:** The sheer volume of data Google collected about its users, from search queries to location history and email content, became a significant concern. While framed as necessary for improving services and personalization, it also raised privacy alarms.
* **Monopoly Concerns:** Google’s dominance in search and online advertising led to antitrust investigations and criticisms of its market power, with accusations that it leveraged its position to favor its own products and services.
* **New Products and Services:** The company launched a host of new ventures, from autonomous driving (Waymo) to healthcare (Verily), each with its own unique ethical considerations. Applying a single, broad slogan to such a diverse portfolio became increasingly challenging.
* **Geopolitical Complexities:** Operating in different countries meant navigating varying legal frameworks, censorship demands, and government surveillance requests. For instance, Google’s decision to comply with censorship demands in China for its search engine (Google.cn) back in the mid-2000s was a stark example of the tension between its ideals and market realities.

These complexities, many argued, made the simple “Don’t be evil” slogan feel increasingly insufficient, perhaps even disingenuous, when faced with real-world ethical dilemmas.

The Alphabet Restructuring: A Formal Shift in Corporate Identity

The creation of Alphabet Inc. in October 2015 was a monumental organizational change. Google, the search engine and advertising giant, became a subsidiary of this new holding company. Other ventures, previously housed under Google, were spun out into separate Alphabet companies (like Waymo for self-driving cars, Verily for life sciences, and Calico for longevity research).

The stated purpose of this restructuring was to provide greater clarity and independence to these disparate businesses. Each Alphabet company could pursue its own mission and financial goals without being directly tied to the core Google product. However, it also had the effect of distancing the broader “Alphabet” identity from the original Google ethos.

The Code of Conduct Revisions

Following the Alphabet restructuring, the Google Code of Conduct, which had previously prominently featured “Don’t be evil,” underwent revisions. The phrase was moved from the beginning of the document and eventually replaced with “Do the right thing.”

* **Original Wording (circa 2000s):**
> “Don’t be evil.”
>
> Google policy is to make money and provide awesome products. We spend our resources to make our products the best for users, and our business model to best support that. We think that’s a good thing. We intend to make money and to do good in the process. We believe that we can do both at the same time.

* **Revised Wording (post-Alphabet, leading to “Do the right thing”):**
The preamble, which previously stated, “And on our way to doing so we will not do bad things to people. We are setting out to do it and we think that’s a good thing. […] We are setting out to serve users, and all our stakeholders, and we expect to successfully make money and scale,” was subtly altered. The emphasis shifted.

The introduction of “Do the right thing” was framed as a more positive and proactive directive. While “Don’t be evil” was a prohibition, “Do the right thing” suggests a more active pursuit of ethical action.

Why “Do the Right Thing” Replaced “Don’t Be Evil” (Official Rationale)

Google and Alphabet executives offered several justifications for this shift:

1. **Broader Scope:** With Alphabet encompassing a vast array of businesses, from moonshot projects to core services, “Do the right thing” was presented as a more flexible and universally applicable principle than the more narrowly focused “Don’t be evil.”
2. **Action-Oriented:** “Do the right thing” was argued to be a more empowering and actionable directive, encouraging employees to actively consider ethical implications rather than simply avoiding wrongdoing.
3. **Maturity and Complexity:** The company argued that as it grew and its operations became more complex, navigating ethical challenges required a more nuanced approach than a simple negative commandment.
4. **Avoiding Misinterpretation:** Some suggested that “Don’t be evil” was sometimes used cynically by critics, or that its idealism was difficult to reconcile with business realities. “Do the right thing” was seen as a more grounded statement.

My Take: A Cosmetic Change or a Fundamental Shift?

From my perspective, while the official explanations have a certain logic, they often feel like an elegant sidestep. “Don’t be evil” had a moral weight to it, a clear idealistic stance that resonated with many. “Do the right thing,” while not inherently bad, is far more nebulous. What constitutes “the right thing” can be subjective and easily manipulated by corporate interests. It’s a phrase that sounds good in a press release but lacks the punch and the clear ethical boundary that “Don’t be evil” provided. It feels less like an upgrade and more like a strategic dilution.

The transition, for many observers, marked a point where Google’s public-facing ethical narrative shifted from one of inherent idealism to one of managed corporate responsibility.

The Impact of “Don’t Be Evil” on Google’s Identity and Public Perception

The phrase “Don’t be evil” was not merely a slogan; it was a cornerstone of Google’s brand identity for over a decade. It played a crucial role in shaping public perception and attracting talent.

Attracting Talent and Building Culture

In the early days, idealistic tech professionals were drawn to Google not just for its cutting-edge technology and competitive salaries, but for its perceived commitment to using technology for good. “Don’t be evil” was a powerful recruiting tool, signaling that Google was a place where one could build innovative products while adhering to a strong ethical framework. It fostered a sense of purpose among employees, contributing to a distinct company culture. I’ve spoken with former Googlers who recall “Don’t be evil” being a rallying cry, a source of pride and a reason they felt their work had a positive impact.

Building Trust with Users

For users, the slogan contributed to a feeling of trust. In an era where data privacy and corporate malfeasance were increasingly becoming concerns, Google’s stated commitment to not being evil suggested a different kind of tech company. It implied that user interests would be prioritized. This trust was invaluable in Google’s quest to become the gateway to the internet for billions of people.

A Shield Against Criticism (Initially)

For a long time, “Don’t be evil” served as a kind of shield against criticism. When controversies arose, Google could point to its guiding principle as evidence of its good intentions. However, as the company grew and the controversies became more significant, this shield began to weaken, and the slogan itself became a target for scrutiny.

The Real-World Challenges That Tested “Don’t Be Evil”

The transition away from “Don’t be evil” wasn’t an overnight decision; it was a gradual process catalyzed by increasingly difficult real-world scenarios that put the slogan to the test.

The Rise of Controversial Projects and Partnerships

As Google expanded, it inevitably found itself involved in projects and partnerships that raised ethical red flags.

* **Project Maven (Defense Department AI):** In 2017-2018, Google’s involvement in Project Maven, a Pentagon initiative to use AI for drone surveillance, sparked significant internal dissent and external criticism. Employees argued that developing AI for military applications, especially for targeting, directly contradicted the spirit of “Don’t be evil.” This led to protests and resignations. The eventual decision to withdraw from the contract, after considerable pressure, highlighted the difficulty of reconciling its commercial and ethical commitments.
* **AI Principles and Censorship:** Google’s efforts to develop AI in China, particularly the rumored “Project Dragonfly” which aimed to create a censored search engine compliant with Chinese government demands, drew widespread condemnation from human rights organizations, academics, and even its own employees. Critics argued that any search engine built on censorship principles was inherently an act of “doing evil,” or at least facilitating it.
* **Data Monetization and Advertising Practices:** The increasing sophistication of Google’s advertising platform, including the use of vast amounts of user data for targeted ads, raised questions about privacy. While Google maintained these practices were transparent and beneficial for users, critics argued that the relentless pursuit of advertising revenue could lead to exploitative practices.

Antitrust Investigations and Market Dominance

Google’s unparalleled dominance in search and digital advertising made it a frequent target of antitrust investigations worldwide. European regulators, in particular, have levied massive fines against Google for practices deemed anti-competitive, such as unfairly favoring its own shopping service in search results. These investigations, while focused on competition law, often carried an undertone of concern about the abuse of power by a dominant tech company, a concern that “Don’t be evil” was meant to address.

Privacy Concerns and Data Breaches

Despite Google’s efforts to be transparent about data collection, numerous privacy concerns have persisted. High-profile data breaches, although not always directly attributable to Google’s own negligence, have amplified fears about the security of personal information held by large tech companies. The sheer amount of data Google holds makes it a prime target for malicious actors and a source of anxiety for privacy advocates.

These issues demonstrated that simply stating “Don’t be evil” was no longer sufficient. The company was facing complex ethical trade-offs where avoiding “evil” was not always clear-cut, and the pursuit of profit and growth often seemed to create situations where “doing good” was secondary.

The “Do the Right Thing” Mandate: Is it Enough?

The introduction of “Do the right thing” as the successor to “Don’t be evil” was met with skepticism by many. The argument is that “the right thing” is subjective, whereas “evil” is more universally understood as a negative and harmful action.

Subjectivity vs. Objectivity

“Don’t be evil” offered a relatively clear moral boundary. While interpretations could vary, the core intent was to avoid causing harm. “Do the right thing,” on the other hand, is inherently subjective. What is considered “right” can depend on one’s perspective, cultural context, and even short-term business interests. This ambiguity can make it easier for the company to justify actions that might be ethically questionable to outsiders.

* **Example:** A company might argue that aggressively collecting user data is “the right thing to do” because it allows them to offer a highly personalized and “useful” service. However, privacy advocates might argue that prioritizing user privacy by limiting data collection is “the right thing to do.” Without a clearer, more objective ethical framework, such decisions become a matter of corporate discretion.

Commercial Pressures and Ethical Compromises

The reality of operating a massive, publicly traded company is that profit motives are paramount. Critics argue that “Do the right thing” provides a convenient loophole, allowing the company to rationalize decisions that prioritize profit over ethical considerations, under the guise of doing “what is right” for shareholders or even, paradoxically, for users (by providing “free” services).

The “Do the Right Thing” Checklist (A Hypothetical Framework for Analysis)**

While Google hasn’t provided an official public checklist for “Do the Right Thing,” we can infer what such a framework might entail from ethical business practices. If a company were truly committed to this, it might consider:

1. **Stakeholder Impact Assessment:**
* **Users:** How will this decision affect user privacy, security, autonomy, and overall well-being?
* **Employees:** Will this decision create an ethical burden or conflict for employees? Does it align with their values?
* **Society:** What are the broader societal implications, including effects on competition, democracy, misinformation, and the environment?
* **Shareholders:** While profit is a consideration, are there ways to achieve financial goals ethically?
2. **Transparency and Accountability:**
* Is the decision-making process transparent?
* Are there clear mechanisms for accountability if the decision leads to negative outcomes?
* Can the decision be readily explained to the public?
3. **Legal and Regulatory Compliance:**
* Does the decision comply with all applicable laws and regulations? (This is a baseline, not the extent of “the right thing.”)
4. **Long-Term vs. Short-Term Benefits:**
* Does the decision prioritize short-term gains over long-term ethical sustainability and societal benefit?
5. **Minimizing Harm:**
* If harm is unavoidable, has every effort been made to minimize it?
* Are there alternative approaches that would cause less harm?
6. **Fairness and Equity:**
* Does the decision treat all stakeholders fairly?
* Does it exacerbate existing inequalities?

Applying this hypothetical checklist to past controversies involving Google reveals where the “Do the right thing” mandate might have fallen short in the eyes of critics.

The Underlying Drivers: More Than Just a Slogan Change

The shift away from “Don’t be evil” is not just about a slogan. It reflects deeper, systemic changes within Google and the tech industry at large.

Increased Scale and Complexity

As mentioned, Google transformed from a search engine company to a vast conglomerate with interests in AI, cloud computing, autonomous vehicles, healthcare, and more. The ethical landscape of each of these domains is incredibly complex and often presents novel challenges. A single, simplistic moral directive struggles to keep pace.

The Profit Imperative of Data

Google’s business model is fundamentally built on data. The more data it collects, the more effectively it can target advertising, personalize services, and train its AI models. This creates an inherent tension between maximizing data collection for profit and respecting user privacy. The “Don’t be evil” ethos, if strictly interpreted, might have necessitated significant limitations on data practices, impacting revenue.

Global Operations and Geopolitical Realities

Operating in over 200 countries means navigating vastly different legal systems, cultural norms, and political pressures. Governments may demand access to user data, request censorship of content, or impose regulations that conflict with Google’s internal ethical standards. Choosing to comply with such demands to maintain market access can be seen as a compromise of its original principles.

Investor Expectations

As a publicly traded company, Google (now Alphabet) is beholden to its shareholders. There is a constant pressure to grow revenue and profit. Ethical decisions that might negatively impact short-term financial performance can be difficult to justify to investors, even if they align with an “evil-avoiding” principle.

Has “Do No Evil” Truly Disappeared?

While the slogan is no longer prominent, it’s important to consider whether the *spirit* of “Do No Evil” has entirely vanished from Google’s operations.

Internal Ethical Frameworks and AI Principles

Google has invested significantly in developing ethical frameworks, particularly around Artificial Intelligence. They have published AI Principles that emphasize principles like “Be socially beneficial,” “Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias,” and “Be accountable to people.” These are attempts to codify ethical considerations into their development processes.

* **Google’s AI Principles (Summary):**
* Be socially beneficial.
* Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias.
* Be built and tested for safety.
* Be accountable to people.
* Incorporate privacy design principles.
* Uphold high standards of scientific excellence.
* Be made available for uses that accord with these principles.

These principles, while more detailed than “Don’t be evil,” are also subject to interpretation and criticism regarding their implementation.

Employee Activism and Dissent

The very existence of internal dissent and employee activism (as seen with Project Maven and Project Dragonfly) suggests that many employees still hold the company to a high ethical standard, often invoking the spirit of the original motto. This internal pushback indicates that the ideal of responsible technology development is not entirely dead within the company.

Public Scrutiny and Media Pressure

The intense public and media scrutiny faced by tech giants like Google serves as a constant external pressure to act ethically. News of data breaches, privacy violations, or monopolistic practices can lead to significant reputational damage and financial penalties, acting as a deterrent against egregious “evil.”

The Enduring Legacy of the Phrase

Even though the phrase has been officially retired from its prominent position, “Don’t be evil” has entered the lexicon of tech ethics. It’s a benchmark against which Google and other tech companies are often measured. Its legacy persists in the discourse around tech responsibility.

Frequently Asked Questions About Google and “Do No Evil”

Here are some common questions that arise when discussing why Google removed “Do No Evil.”

How did “Don’t be evil” become Google’s motto in the first place?

“Don’t be evil” (originally phrased this way) was adopted in 1999 by Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and its early employees. It was conceived as an unofficial motto, a guiding principle to ensure that as the company grew and became profitable, it would not compromise its user-centric ideals or engage in unethical business practices that were common in the tech industry at the time. It was a way to differentiate themselves and project an image of responsible innovation. The intent was to make money and do good simultaneously, avoiding actions that would harm users or society.

When did Google officially change or remove “Don’t be evil”?

The phrase “Don’t be evil” wasn’t exactly “removed” in a single dramatic moment, but rather evolved and was eventually superseded. After the formation of Alphabet Inc. as Google’s parent company in 2015, the older Google Code of Conduct, which prominently featured “Don’t be evil,” was updated. The phrase was moved from its leading position to a preamble and was eventually replaced by “Do the right thing.” This change was phased in and became more formalized through various revisions of the company’s internal policies and public-facing statements over several years, with the most significant shift occurring around the time of the Alphabet restructuring.

What is the difference between “Don’t be evil” and “Do the right thing”?

The fundamental difference lies in their philosophical approach. “Don’t be evil” is a prohibitory statement, focusing on avoiding negative actions and harm. It sets a baseline for acceptable behavior by explicitly stating what *not* to do. “Do the right thing,” on the other hand, is an affirmative statement. It encourages proactive ethical decision-making and action. While seemingly more positive, “Do the right thing” is also more subjective. What constitutes “the right thing” can be open to interpretation and may be influenced by business objectives, whereas “evil” is generally understood as something universally negative and harmful. Critics often argue that “Do the right thing” is a weaker, more ambiguous standard that allows for greater corporate discretion and potential ethical compromise.

Is it accurate to say Google “removed” its ethical compass?

This is a deeply debated point. Officially, Google would argue that it has not removed its ethical compass but has instead evolved its guiding principles to be more comprehensive and actionable for a complex global organization. They point to their AI Principles and other ethical initiatives as evidence of their ongoing commitment. However, many critics and former employees argue that by replacing the strong, idealistic “Don’t be evil” with the more malleable “Do the right thing,” Google has indeed diluted its commitment to ethical conduct. They believe the shift reflects a prioritization of profit and growth over core ethical principles, especially in the face of complex business challenges and the inherent conflict between data monetization and user privacy. So, while the *word* may not be gone from internal discussions entirely, its prominence and the perceived strength of the underlying commitment have certainly diminished for many observers.

What are some specific examples where Google’s actions seemed to contradict “Don’t be evil”?

Several high-profile instances have led critics to question Google’s adherence to “Don’t be evil”:
* **Project Maven:** Google’s involvement in developing AI for the U.S. Department of Defense’s drone surveillance program sparked significant internal protest, with many employees arguing it violated the company’s ethical principles by contributing to military applications of AI.
* **Project Dragonfly (China Search Engine):** The rumored development of a censored search engine for China led to widespread condemnation, as it involved complying with government censorship demands, which many viewed as a clear ethical compromise that facilitated a restrictive information environment.
* **Antitrust Violations:** Repeated findings by regulatory bodies in Europe and elsewhere that Google engaged in anti-competitive practices, such as unfairly favoring its own services, have been cited as actions that harmed competitors and potentially users.
* **Data Privacy Scandals:** While not always directly attributable to malicious intent, various incidents involving user data collection, privacy settings, and occasional breaches have raised concerns about how seriously Google prioritizes user privacy over its data-driven business model.

These situations illustrate the inherent tension between Google’s expansive business ambitions and the moral constraints implied by its original motto.

Did the change to “Do the right thing” truly reflect a more nuanced approach to ethics, or was it a marketing move?

It’s likely a combination of both, though the balance is debatable. The formation of Alphabet did indeed create a more complex corporate structure with diverse business units, each facing unique ethical quandaries. In this context, a single, simple directive like “Don’t be evil” might have seemed insufficient. The introduction of “Do the right thing” *could* be seen as an attempt to foster a more sophisticated ethical deliberation process. However, it’s undeniable that the change also served as a public relations move. Replacing a slogan that had become a target for criticism with something more corporate-sounding and less specific can be seen as an effort to manage public perception and move past controversies. The subjectivity of “the right thing” makes it a more convenient standard for a company under intense scrutiny.

What are Google’s current ethical guidelines, and how do they compare to “Don’t be evil”?

Google’s current ethical guidelines are primarily articulated through its “AI Principles” and its broader Code of Conduct, which now emphasizes “Do the right thing.” The AI Principles, for example, focus on being socially beneficial, avoiding bias, ensuring safety, and being accountable. These are more detailed and specific than the original motto.

The comparison is complex. On one hand, the current guidelines are more developed and address specific technological challenges like AI. On the other hand, the emphasis has shifted from a clear prohibition against “evil” to a more proactive, but also more subjective, call to “do the right thing.” Critics argue that the current framework, while more detailed, provides more room for interpretation and potential compromise due to its inherent subjectivity and the pressures of commercial interests. The original “Don’t be evil” was simpler but arguably held a stronger moral weight due to its clarity and its direct challenge to common industry practices.

Does the removal of “Don’t be evil” mean Google no longer cares about ethics?

It’s unlikely that every individual at Google no longer cares about ethics. As discussed, many employees continue to advocate for ethical practices. However, the *corporate-level commitment* and the *public articulation* of that commitment have arguably changed. The shift in slogan and the company’s actions in controversial situations suggest that the original idealistic, principle-driven approach may have been tempered by pragmatic business considerations, regulatory pressures, and the complexities of operating a global tech giant. So, while individual employees may still be guided by strong ethical beliefs, the overarching corporate framework and its public presentation have moved away from the stark idealism of “Don’t be evil.”

What is the significance of “Don’t be evil” for the broader tech industry?

The phrase “Don’t be evil” had a profound impact on the broader tech industry.
* **Setting a Standard:** It set a high bar for ethical conduct, encouraging other tech companies to consider their own moral responsibilities.
* **Public Discourse:** It fueled public discussion about the ethics of technology, data privacy, and corporate power in the digital age.
* **Recruiting:** It became a symbol of idealistic tech entrepreneurship, attracting talent to companies that espoused similar values.
* **Benchmark for Criticism:** Even in its retirement, it serves as a benchmark against which the ethical actions of tech giants, including Google itself, are measured. Its legacy continues to inform the ongoing debate about whether technology companies are truly serving humanity.

The phrase became a touchstone in the evolving narrative of technology’s impact on society, reminding us that innovation must be coupled with responsibility.

Conclusion: The Echo of an Ideal in a Changing Landscape

The question of **why did Google remove “Do No Evil”** is not simply about a slogan; it’s about the evolution of a company, the challenges of immense scale, and the perennial tension between idealism and pragmatism in the corporate world. While the official explanation centers on corporate restructuring and a more nuanced approach to ethical guidance, the practical effect has been a dilution of a powerful, idealistic statement.

The shift from the clear, prohibitory “Don’t be evil” to the subjective, affirmative “Do the right thing” reflects a strategic realignment, one that allows for greater flexibility in navigating complex business realities and investor expectations. It acknowledges the immense scale and diverse operations of Alphabet. However, for many, it represents a fading of a noble promise, a step away from a guiding principle that once defined Google’s unique identity.

The legacy of “Don’t be evil” endures, not just in its historical significance, but in the ongoing public discourse and the internal push for ethical accountability within the tech industry. As technology continues to reshape our world at an unprecedented pace, the principles behind that simple, powerful phrase remain as relevant as ever, urging us to continually question whether our technological advancements are truly serving humanity, or if, in the pursuit of progress, we risk straying into territory that, even if not explicitly “evil,” is certainly not “the right thing.” The echo of that ideal serves as a constant reminder of the responsibility that comes with immense power.