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

“Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

vivaldi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 253 posts

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#71

Post by [deleted] »

nialv7 wrote: post #54
nostrademons wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I used to work on the webserver for Google Search. Left Google several years ago, have no more vested interest in them.) The reason for the browser-sniffing in search is a combination of ease of testing + latency reduction. By supporting a known set of browsers, you can write a test plan for each and shard it out among contractors (or ideally, automate it with a Selenium config). Manual tests run on every release (2…

I interned at Google once. And the first thing they told us at the orientation is that they put the users first. Is that a lie then? Because what you said seems to imply Google puts the convenience of the developers first.

[deleted]

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#73

Post by prophesi »

Endy wrote: post #63
klondike_ wrote: post #39

I wish I could use Vivaldi, it seems like a nice browser for power users. Unfortunately it's closed source (besides the Webkit parts). Considering how much sensitive information goes through a browser nowadays, I would never consider something closed source. I'm sure Vivaldi has no intentions of becoming "evil" like Google, but because of its closed source nature it wouldn't be hard to slip a tracker or two in the br…

Unlike you, it's the open-source parts of Vivaldi I'm most afraid of. I trust them to support their users and I believe they desire to have users who trust & respect them. I don't trust people who are more code-savvy than I am (that's most people) not to insert or exploit weaknesses in open-source software or other open code. With closed-source software, I know the origin point of the software I install, I know the n…

Both open-source and closed-source have their problems.

Closed Source:

- Team behind it could add trackers, backdoors, etc that are difficult to detect.

- Attackers could find an exploit that will go unnoticed and unfixed for an indeterminable length of time. Or perhaps use the team's own aforementioned exploits/backdoors.

- Can't tell if their app is well-tested and well-written, which means it could be a buggy hot mess from the get-go. Which is the most common reason for hiding source from my anecdotal experience.

Open Source:

- Much easier for anyone to find a bug, including attackers. You'd hope the maintainers/community will find the bug before them, or at least take less time to fix it than if it were closed-source.

- Attackers could add their own exploit that will go unnoticed or unfixed for an indeterminable length of time.

I think the conclusion to draw from is:

Closed Source = less likely for attackers to find bugs, but more likely for bugs to persist. Can only trust in the company's reputation for code quality.

Open Source = more likely for attackers to find bugs, but less likely for bugs to persist. Don't need to trust the company's reputation for code quality.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#74

Post by _tulpa »

sandov wrote: post #52
tryingagainbro wrote: post #3

Vivaldi CEO – “Google: it is time to return to not being evil” Me: that train has left the station. When you have monopoly power (70%-98% of market share) the governments should return Google and Whatever Corp to not being evil.

Me: When a company treats its users badly, users can stop using Google and Whatever Corp treats them badly. If users voluntarily subject themselves to mistreating, then I don't see why governments should intervene.

This is just the stupid 'vote with your wallet' argument again.

Which is stupid because

1) the average user/consumer wallet is 3/10ths of nothing in terms of economic voting power.

2) the average user/consumer can only vote for stuff which exists, and google has done a great job of making sure that there are no competitive alternatives

In this case you're "paying" with your data, which has even less voting power because you can't even opt out of that payment just by not using their services. You'd pretty much have to stop using the internet entirely.

Unfortunately many people have bought the stupid 'regulation=bad 100% free market is best' rhetoric which is totally crap for everyone except the really big fish. There's just no incentive for big corporations to 'not be evil' without the artifical incetive of being regulated and punished for treating their users shittily.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#75

Post by jasonkostempski »

Steeeve wrote: post #67

Isn't vivaldi just another branded chromium? Seems a bit disingenuine for them to be complaining about the company that built their product.

When the hand that feeds you starts jamming food down your windpipe, it's time to bite.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#76

Post by alexryan »

akerl_ wrote: post #13
tryingagainbro wrote: post #3

Vivaldi CEO – “Google: it is time to return to not being evil” Me: that train has left the station. When you have monopoly power (70%-98% of market share) the governments should return Google and Whatever Corp to not being evil.

It seems like companies are stuck in a losing game. We constantly push small companies to capture more market share. Any companies that fold during that effort, we bring out the pitchforks because the services they ran get shut off. Any companies that succeed , we bring out the pitchforks because they own too much market power. It seems a bit much that we ask for companies to constantly grow and simultaneously ensure…

It's certainly true that companies seem to get corrupted as they get larger, but does it HAVE to be that way? Many of us are totally cool with very large companies so long as we believe them to be led by people of good character. My hypotheses is that growing companies are magnets to people of low character and if you don’t have a strategy for dealing with that, they will infiltrate and destroy the company.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#78

Post by unityByFreedom »

I wonder what the correspondence between Vivaldi and Google looked like. Specifically, regarding this section:

> When we reached out to Google to resolve the issue, we got a clarification masqueraded in the form of vague terms and conditions, some of which, they admitted themselves, were not a “hard” requirement. In exchange for being reinstated in Google’s ad network, their in-house specialists dictated how we should arrange content on our own website and how we should communicate information to our users.

> We made effort to understand their explanations and to work with them on their various unreasonable demands (some of which they don’t follow themselves, by the way). After almost three months of back-and-forth, the suspension to our account has been lifted, but only when we bent to their requirements.

This is one side of the story. Without seeing the correspondence it's hard to decide who's being evil.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#79

Post by rasz »

nialv7 wrote: post #54
nostrademons wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I used to work on the webserver for Google Search. Left Google several years ago, have no more vested interest in them.) The reason for the browser-sniffing in search is a combination of ease of testing + latency reduction. By supporting a known set of browsers, you can write a test plan for each and shard it out among contractors (or ideally, automate it with a Selenium config). Manual tests run on every release (2…

I interned at Google once. And the first thing they told us at the orientation is that they put the users first. Is that a lie then? Because what you said seems to imply Google puts the convenience of the developers first.

Adword/Doubleclick clients are their users, not you and me.

Re: “Google: it is time to return to not being evil”

#80

Post by unityByFreedom »

MikeGale wrote: post #7

There's a pattern here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-...

So you'll believe any story that critiques Google now?

I would take this article with a grain of salt.

Vivaldi's version of events is one side of the story. We don't know how Google would respond.

Post reply on HN