Not OK, Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Not OK, Google

#591

Post by thesimpsons1022 » Sat, Oct 08, 2016, 4:26 AM UTC

jeeva wrote: post #578

thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i actually had 3 upvotes until the google people started to change that. so some do. i'm not accusing anyone of shilling. i've personally seen these threads and some proportion of people admit openly they work there. others, you click their profile and see they work at goog. don't need you to condescingly assume you speak for the community. Also forgot to mention all the people who defend google because they're despe…

Sorry, but you don't think that it's somewhat unfounded paranoia? Personally, I would have downvoted you because your original point seemed to condescendingly assume something about a large proportion of the community and their intentions - then you assume again that it's "The Google People" (and only them)? Unless you can show that your downvotes came because of a specific reason, and from specific people...

my original comment was " a non-insignificant proportion of hacker news seems to actually work at google and run to their defense at anything somewhat critical of their overlord. ". it isn't paranoia. Like i said i've seen threads where 4/10 comments are defending Google and the commenters openly say they work at Google or one can click on their proifle and see that they openly list they work there. didn't imply shilling.

Re: Not OK, Google

#592

Post by witty_username » Sat, Oct 08, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

probably_wrong wrote: post #491

witty_username wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Google manipulate humans to click on their ads?

The story of how Target discovers and targets recently pregnant women is a good example [1]. An interesting quote: “we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn’t been spied on, she’ll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don’t spook her, it works.” There's no reason to believe Google isn't doing the same thing. And…

Sure, the ads are targeted specifically for you, that's not manipulation, which would be misleading someone to do something.

I realize there's a grey area though.

Re: Not OK, Google

#593

Post by IA21 » Sun, Oct 09, 2016, 5:13 AM UTC

barsonme wrote: post #336

plg wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that (in the main) younger people have lower privacy thresholds than older people. Not for everyone (of course). Just on average. My impression also is that most early adopters of this kind of technology are younger people. (again: mostly) So this brings up an interesting question about the future. As the young early adopters age, what will happen? a) their privacy thresholds will also increase and t…

Conversely, there are a fair amount of older folk who are very much okay with government surveillance and a general lack of privacy (particularly our inherent rights) because, e.g., they have "nothing to hide" My impression (in the main) is that younger and older people have different views on privacy. Older folk might be creeped out by Google knowing their schedule, but okay with the NSA or FBI or whomever reading t…

Not OP but I think you're correct. Older people trust the government but the younger crowd trusts corporations.

Re: Not OK, Google

#594

Post by Ph0X » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #401

witty_username wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google earns most of their money through ads.

That's why I called them a salesman. They sell things. Their interests are not simply your own. It seems to be a theme here today... a company can't serve both advertisers and customers. In the end, one of them has to win, and given the monetary flows, it's not even remotely a contest which it will be. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12644507

They don't sell things. They forward you towards people who do sell things which you may be interested with. You're free to ignore it, and if you're not interested in what they're showing you, that means they failed at their job.

It's funny how bad of a stigma ads have gotten, but at the core, if you think of it, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Think of a friend recommending you a restaurant, a new game to play, a movie to go watch. In that case you'll be super interested, but now if this AI who probably knows your taste better than your friend suggests you something, you are instantly turned off and annoyed.

I think the root cause of this is that there is so much mediocre ads out there that ruin it for all. Your mind just blindly blocks all ads now.