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

Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 256 posts

Re: Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

#241

Post by z3t4 »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #238
z3t4 wrote: post #12

Don't depend on search for people to find your product. Just like you do not include vesting when comparing salaries between startups.

So I do what? Printout flyers with a link to my unmonetized blog and put them on subway stations? Talk about completely impractical advice.

It's not such a big deal if your unmonetized blog disappears from Google search results. But for a company that lives or dies depending on search traffic it does. Never put yourself in that situation! It's OK to have some of your traffic from search, but you should not depend on it, think of it more like a lucky bonus. Now for your blog it depends on what you are writing about, but it's always a good idea to make public relations. Instead of doing printout flyer's, do something interesting, and good, and make sure it's covered in the news. Make people engaged.

Re: Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

#242

Post by drdaeman »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #234
drdaeman wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By saying "full-on regulation of their activities" do you suggest that it's some (which exactly?) government or committee is who would decide on search ranking algorithms and what shows up in the results and what doesn't? Or is it something else?

I'm suggesting that, in an effort to ensure fairness of opportunity and no anticompetitive practices are taking place, governments might begin to see Google as the public utility monopoly that it has de facto become, and start treating it like one. Google might want to get out in front of this by being a bit more transparent and responsive to its users.

I got it that you suggest the governments (all of them, authoritarian ones included?) to interfere by making some legislative decisions. But what exactly should the government(s) decide upon?

Just saying that $company_name has to be "transparent" and "responsive" doesn't mean anything on its own. I was interested in how you suggest to achieve those feats (read: enforce them)

So here's the problem I see: for the the accountability and transparency you suggest, to decide if Google (Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu, DDG... is it really a monopoly?) does things right or wrong governing bodies must invent some rules how search engines should work. Surely not a full set of algorithms (that would be an unprecedented disaster) but a set of constraints on those algorithm outputs.

And it has to be an extensive ruleset. I'm sure it's not enough to require that e.g. a registered trademarks must be the first result on exact query, or that querying for Tiananmen Square gets no results. It has to decide for what happens on the intermediate positions, what has more priority and what's legally irrelevant and mustn't show up any high. I think that would be just bad - too many ways to abuse this system.

I thought of also not writing any legislatures but doing some ad hoc rulings, when judges decide what's fair and what's not on the case-per-case basis (basically, civil vs common law), but I'm not sure if that would work any well. In such theoretical scenario I just foresee the insane amount "sue because my site is 5th result and I feel it's unfair to be anything less than 3rd place" cases. That would quickly escalate, judges would end up inventing some common criteria, and we're back to the abovementioned scenario, just sourced differently.

Re: Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

#243

Post by 0xdeadbeefbabe »

cjcole wrote: post #113
fastball wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what exactly is your solution? What law do you put in place, precisely? Google has to provide consumers with whatever information they want, whenever they want it, free of charge? Because that seems to be what you're gunning for.

When they, by virtue of their overwhelming market share, nuke a competitor's product off the face of the internet, whether algorithmically or intentionally, it feels reasonable to me to compel them to provide more detail than "we fixed the glitch". Google does not have the right to avoid being regulated in the public interest.

Regulation helps the monopolies like Ma Bell. I heard that argument this morning from the FCC chair. I'm guessing that argument is not valid around here?

Re: Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

#244

Post by saalweachter »

coldtea wrote: post #224
joshuamorton wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(am Googler, am amused by this idea, so let's run with it) Would this apply to all of google, or just specific product areas (ie, would you only nationalize Search, or Search & Ads, or something else)? If yes, do tensorflow development now fall under the purview of the UN? Is Android now a partially closed-source, world-government administered, operating system, used by a significant fraction of every human being? If…

> Would this apply to all of google, or just specific product areas (ie, would you only nationalize Search, or Search & Ads, or something else)? Mostly search. We'll drop the ads. People will be subsidising search already, so no need for ads. > If yes, do tensorflow development now fall under the purview of the UN? No, that Alphabet can keep. > Is Android now a partially closed-source, world-government administered,…

What will be the fate of search "verticals" (Map Search, Product Search, Video Search, ...)?

Will UNGoogle have the "one box" answers (eg, music lyrics, weather) which give real information from the search results, or just ten blue links?

Will the employment contracts of existing staff (SWEs, SREs, PMs, lawyercats) be transferred to the UN as well? Will employment be maintained on the current terms?

Will the UN employ more "customer service representatives"? What would staffing levels look like, across the UNGoogle?

Will UNGoogle maintain the existing data relationships as Google? Will UNGoogle purchase eg, Geo data from third-parties, or will it just be their privilege to submit their data to UNGoogle?

What will the process look like at UNGoogle for making changes to the ranking algorithms? Will there be an appeals process if a ranking change is detrimental to your business or national interests?

Re: Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

#245

Post by msla »

wfo wrote: post #233
msla wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Require that companies that provide these public goods be run democratically, transparently by their workers as a public co-op. In addition to everything else wrong with this, what do you do when the workers decide that your niche interest is terrible, horrible, and shouldn't ought to be available to anyone at all? Using a competing product isn't an option because, in your world, there would be no competition, just…

You use a different co-op, naturally. You are conflating two solutions I offered, they are distinct and incompatible. A market but with worker controlled firms OR nationalized search. In one case you pick a different firm exactly like today, in the other you vote or petition the government.

But then you're back to square one as far as de facto monopolies go: Everyone cares about that specific co-op, because everyone uses it, so you get the same feedback loop which created Google's dominance.

Only this time, companies will be lobbying the employees to vote certain ways on issues which could affect search ranking and so on.

Re: Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

#246

Post by fastball »

0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #243
cjcole wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they, by virtue of their overwhelming market share, nuke a competitor's product off the face of the internet, whether algorithmically or intentionally, it feels reasonable to me to compel them to provide more detail than "we fixed the glitch". Google does not have the right to avoid being regulated in the public interest.

Regulation helps the monopolies like Ma Bell. I heard that argument this morning from the FCC chair. I'm guessing that argument is not valid around here?

It's definitely a very case-by-case argument, but I definitely think there are times when regulation has hindered progress thru capitalism without improving any lives.

There are also plenty of cases where regulations have greatly improved outcomes by curbing capitalistic eventualities.

I'm personally conflicted about this particular case, and have no idea which will result in a "better" outcome when choosing between non-regulastion and regulation.

However, I strongly believe that limiting Google's overall power is a better solution than regulating particular ways that Google could abuse their power, as I think the former is a better route if regulation is the route you choose.

Re: Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

#247

Post by rocqua »

pzduniak wrote: post #102
rocqua wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this not to be a PR shield (i.e. for Israel to really be able to read protonmail) the link would have to be an outright lie, or protonmail would have to have shared key data. Heck, even if somehow radware (the BGP-based DDoS proxy they use) had access to protonmails private key or had minted their own SSL cert for protonmail, you'd still be protected by PGP. For outgoing mail, they don't use radware so even if yo…

> you'd still be protected by PGP. You wouldn't, PGP is verified by code that can be MITM'd if the traffic is spoofed.

Ah yes, you are right. That darn server-provided client-side code without any decent means of verification really wrecks a lot of security guarantees.

Re: Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

#248

Post by rocqua »

caio1982 wrote: post #159
rocqua wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this not to be a PR shield (i.e. for Israel to really be able to read protonmail) the link would have to be an outright lie, or protonmail would have to have shared key data. Heck, even if somehow radware (the BGP-based DDoS proxy they use) had access to protonmails private key or had minted their own SSL cert for protonmail, you'd still be protected by PGP. For outgoing mail, they don't use radware so even if yo…

Where did you read I proposed any scheme at all, dude? Saying something looks like a PR shield is a problem now?

Is something still a PR shield against accusations if it is correct? I'd argue an actual rebuttal to the accusations is more than a PR shield. As described in my response, I consider the article to be a rebuttal of the accusations presuming they are not lying. Thus I conclude that it is not a PR shield. Notably, I'd say that outright lying about facts isn't a PR shield.

Re: Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

#249

Post by nucleartacos »

seppin wrote: post #214
awestroke wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could stop doing business with a company that has strong links to IDF.

That would be any Israeli tech company. Or any Chinese company (ties to PLA). Quickly becoming more true in the US as well.

Nothing at all wrong with the IDF or Israel. I happily support my Jewish brothers and sisters buy buying Israeli-made goods.

Re: Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

#250

Post by LordDragonfang »

pc86 wrote: post #126
coldtea wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... It should be, though. It's not 1776. A website like Google is more than a company, it's a public service with immense power of manipulation and influence over countless industries. The law shouldn't be written like we live in the stone age.

Strawman garbage aside, Google is a private company (in the sense that it is not owned by the government), and you objectively do not have any right to appear in their search results. If you can make an argument to the contrary that doesn't revolve around "it's not 1776!" I'd love to hear it, but I seriously doubt that it would be in line with any US law. I don't think there's anything "stone age" about not requiring…

Internet service providers like Verizon and AT&T are private companies as well, and recent events make clear just how comfortable we are asserting a "right" to fair treatment of all traffic through their service (as we should).

Google indexing fairly is every bit as essential to the maintaining equal opportunity for websites and businesses on the internet as net neutrality is.

Post reply on HN