Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 245 posts

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#121

Post by mrighele »

danso wrote: post #94
mrighele wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having to do free work for Google is more than weird for me. For this reason unless the page is really important I end up closing the tab. If it was for open service (such as OpenStreetMap) it would be a different matter though.

How is that "free work"? Automated usage can threaten a site's bottom-line, and even its existence. A site resorts to Google's CAPTCHA's service because they don't have the money to build their own detector. It's not a service that was free for Google to create. edit: Also worth noting that some of this "free work" that users do for Google is used to improve bot-detection overall. The comment to this blog post (the p…

It is "free work" since I'm helping training Google's algorithms and I don't get money back. Note that the service is free for the site owner, but not for the end user, which has to invest his/her own time.

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#122

Post by xg15 »

piyush_soni wrote: post #83
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It modifies your behaviour in ways that aren't in your interest.

And how's that different than advertisements in News Papers/magazines and TV? People never seemed to have a problem with that, and no one ever said "you are the product". Somehow, that is associated mostly only with Google.

And if at some point, the industry shifts to direct brain-stimulation to influence behavior, someone will say "how is that different from targeted advertising? People seemed to have no problem with that..."

How exactly would you expect that "having a problem with it" manifests? By not watching TV and not reading any kind of newspaper?

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#123

Post by dredmorbius »

piyush_soni wrote: post #83
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It modifies your behaviour in ways that aren't in your interest.

And how's that different than advertisements in News Papers/magazines and TV? People never seemed to have a problem with that, and no one ever said "you are the product". Somehow, that is associated mostly only with Google.

First off: tu quoque. You're changing the argument, which I'll take to mean you've conceeded the point.

But since you ask, it's very much the same, and people have very much had a problem with that, which raises a second fault with your argument: false premise.

Noam Chomsky. Pretty much his life's work.

Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. (NB: Mander is a former ad executive himself).

Hamilton Holt, a magazine publisher himself, wrote of the fundamental problem in 1909, Commercialism and Journalism. https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft

I.F. Stone spoke of the problem in 1974 on "Day at Night". The video is now on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g

Robert R. Murrow's "Lights and Wires in a Box" criticised generally the television industry, in the 1950s. http://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_li...

A couple of Stanford researchers in the 1990s recognised the corrosive effects of advertising on incentives in the provision of online services. The prior awareness didn't save them from faling into the same pit: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

Niel Postman. Technopoly and Amusing Ourselves to Death.

Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders

Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, Merchants of Doubt looks at influencing on a much broader basis.

Banksy's art is, in many regards, a direct refutation of advertising. The letter attributed to him on the topic is originally by someone else however. It remains exceedingly good reading: http://thefoxisblack.com/2012/02/29/banksy-on-advertising/

There's a large literature on the subject.

Generally, psychological aspects of advertising: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3AAdvertising+Psychologi...

Criticisms of advertising: http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=critici...

At Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#124

Post by danso »

mrighele wrote: post #121
danso wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that "free work"? Automated usage can threaten a site's bottom-line, and even its existence. A site resorts to Google's CAPTCHA's service because they don't have the money to build their own detector. It's not a service that was free for Google to create. edit: Also worth noting that some of this "free work" that users do for Google is used to improve bot-detection overall. The comment to this blog post (the p…

It is "free work" since I'm helping training Google's algorithms and I don't get money back. Note that the service is free for the site owner, but not for the end user, which has to invest his/her own time.

A site uses captcha because it is threatened by automated use. A site uses Google's CAPTCHA because the site cannot afford to build a (effective) CAPTCHA. If Google required the site to pay to use their CAPTCHA, those costs would be passed in some way to the user.

In other words, if Google's service didn't exist, you'd be experiencing less of the site, or no site at all if they chose to use a paywall that you refuse to pay for.

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#125

Post by patrickaljord »

stephenr wrote: post #57
patrickaljord wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with showing me relevant ads?

The problem is the method of building the "profile" that determines what's "relevant" for you.

What's wrong with them building a profile of me as long as I consented to it? Are you opposed to consenting agreements between willing adults and companies?

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#126

Post by patrickaljord »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #62
patrickaljord wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with showing me relevant ads?

It modifies your behaviour in ways that aren't in your interest.

Why isn't it in my interest to be shown ads that offer me goods and services of my interests?

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#127

Post by dredmorbius »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #63
stephenr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you feel that data mining everything you do and serving you creepy-level ads isn't enough?

Is someone forcing you to use their services? Stick to DDG if you don't like the contract.

In many respects, yes.

Travel to/from the United States without some social media footprint is on the verge of becoming suspicious in and of itself.

Benjamin "Mako" Hill has long since observed "Google has most of my email because it has all of yours". https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-be...

Facebook creates shadow profiles of non-member identities.

It goes on.

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#128

Post by Geee »

Doesn't anyone else see it as a problem that Google's bots (and possibly CIA/NSA) can access any system using Google ReCAPTCHA? They can create unlimited amount of accounts on social networks, blogs, forums etc. and thus have unlimited social voting power on the Internet.

There is a need for a decentralized Captcha that can't be circumvented by anyone.

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#129

Post by Klathmon »

goodplay wrote: post #110
kasperni wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you use their service for free, right?

Neither the host or google ask for money in exchange for their services. The profitability of their chosen business model is not my concern. If they want something in return, perhaps they should consider setting up a paywall.

What's going to stop you from just stealing the content from behind the paywall because the profitability of their chosen business model is not your concern?

Re: Introducing the Invisible reCAPTCHA

#130

Post by dexterdog »

mrighele wrote: post #22
macrael wrote: post #4

Google using captchas to get humans to read street addresses captured by street view cars to improve maps results remains one of the most Googly things they've ever done. Genius, lateral, and a little weird.

Having to do free work for Google is more than weird for me. For this reason unless the page is really important I end up closing the tab. If it was for open service (such as OpenStreetMap) it would be a different matter though.

Your nut writing for Google. Your working for the site that you want to visit. That site doesn't want to pay to do its own verification.
Post reply on HN