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

We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 888 posts

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#531

Post by bizentin »

cjmoran wrote: post #436
megaman8 wrote: post #383

I think, what these employees don't realize is: Even when a company places values over profits, it is still in an attempt to maximize profits over the long term. By placing values above profits, it increases it's goodwill with customers thus increasing it's moat and it's retention, as well as it's employee retention. This strategy made sense in the early days. Not anymore. As Google's position becomes increasingly st…

What are some potential solutions here? Some form of intervention by the US government? I think many of us will agree that the sort of behavior these employees are speaking out against is at least unethical, and it also seems this "profits-over-values" behavior is a common one for large tech companies to gradually start engaging in. To your point, corporations in all sectors always do what makes the most economic sen…

The US government? I find it hard to believe they would intervene with china unless they plan on using it as leverage in order to gain economic standing. However, seeing as google is already censoring content via prioritizing search results with favored websites before relevant websites and since the government is always happy to find new outlets to get personal information from its own and foreign citizens. I don't see this as being stoppable unless you make your own company and start competing with Google.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#532

Post by Veen »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #359
Veen wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which reality is it distorting? Is the old desktop search reality? Why is it more real than mobile results? In truth, none of them are reality. Google Search is an algorithmicaly curated list of web pages - it’s an unfortunate error to believe it represents any reality other than Google’s opinion of what its users want in that second.

> it’s an unfortunate error to believe it represents any reality other than Google’s opinion of what its users want in that second. That was also true when search results were purely based on terms entered, barring the domain name affecting the default language, and user configuration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble > A filter bubble – a term coined by Internet activist Eli Pariser – is a state of intell…

Google has evolved; whether it's for the better is open to debate. But we agree that it was never reality even if it used to be the same for everyone.

One difference between Google and an old-fashioned library: however arbitrary the collection was, you'd always find the canon, the best selected by the people who could reasonably be expected to know the best. Today, especially on YouTube, there is no canon, no conception of best at all. It's just whatever Google selects according to the signals it deems likely to keep you watching.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#533

Post by rahimnathwani »

nostrademons wrote: post #425
megaman8 wrote: post #383

I think, what these employees don't realize is: Even when a company places values over profits, it is still in an attempt to maximize profits over the long term. By placing values above profits, it increases it's goodwill with customers thus increasing it's moat and it's retention, as well as it's employee retention. This strategy made sense in the early days. Not anymore. As Google's position becomes increasingly st…

The "values over profits" approach was always more of a recruitment tool than a PR tool. It did give a nice PR boost, but realistically Google's been the best choice of search engine since it came out in 1998. They don't need additional customer goodwill for people to keep using them, they just need to continue to give good results for esoteric queries. Since 2005, though, good engineers have had lots of options for…

"or have more growth potential"

Right, but this is different from having higher expected value, or higher likely-case value. Most people don't value compensation offers based on 'growth potential' (aka 'best case').

(I'm assuming you mean growth in the sense of 'growth in value of equity', based on your reply to another commenter)

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#534

Post by omegaworks »

dragonwriter wrote: post #522
omegaworks wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Trump administration has stumbled backwards very publicly with regard to the people that the framers intended for free speech rights to protect: journalists. From overt anti-journalist rhetoric[1], to possible collusion in the murder of US national Jamal Khashoggi[2], a journalist critical of the Saudi regime. "Free speech" has been co-opted so effectively by the far-right movement that the same people who wave i…

> possible collusion in the murder of US national Jamal Khashoggi Not central to the point, but Kashoggi was not a US national. He was a US-resident Saudi citizen. It's possible to be a US national but not a citizen, but Kashoggi wasn't one: https://www.immihelp.com/immigration/us-national.html

Quibbling over status is an interesting fallout of the same right-wing nationalist rhetoric. You're right though. He was a Saudi citizen, US resident on an O Visa with US citizen children on his way to a green card[1].

Should we not care about his murder as much then?

1. https://qz.com/1428499/jamal-khashoggi-what-trump-owes-khash...

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#536

Post by sumeno »

mbrumlow wrote: post #491
tjoff wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Now if you give the impression that you are all bout money but don't act like it then shareholders can be rightfully upset. But if you clearly state your values and ambitions and shareholders don't like it? Then, sucks to be them! There is nothing more to it than that. Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder value,"…

I am sorry, I think both you and Lynn Stout, are wrong, regardless of her credentials -- she sort of is making a name of her self by swing this sort of nonsense -- so her articles are self serving. And yes, we can define shareholder value -- its the stock price. But I see your point and why I have talked about the grey area of what is the best move. But you would be hard pressed to find a group of shareholders who wh…

It doesn't matter if the shareholders believe it is not the best move. It matters if the board believes it is the best move for the long term benefit of the company and its shareholders. The duty of loyalty does not require a board to do everything the shareholders want or to maximize short term profits. If a majority of the shareholders disagree they can vote to replace the board, but that doesn't mean the board hasn't met its fiduciary duty.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#537

Post by electrograv »

tomschlick wrote: post #517
electrograv wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps concerns about 'the over-militarization of police' is essentially a concern for situations where an extreme power imbalance exists between police and civilians, creating a much higher risk of totalitarian abuse and oppression by police in situations where the police force in question becomes corrupt or 'bad' in some way. (Disclaimer: I'm not making an anti-LEO argument; quite the contrary, I'm very pro-LEO, a…

> Can a civilian buy an MRAP? If so, I think your argument works very well Yes you can if you found one for sale (not sure what that market looks like). Civilians can also buy decommissioned tanks, Two ton trucks, humvees, etc.

In that case, I'm definitely convinced to your side of the argument! If a civilian can buy it, I see no reason why a police force shouldn't be able to as well. That said, I'd love to hear any counter-arguments to this notion, if they exist.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#538

Post by scarcely »

amckinlay wrote: post #381
g9yuayon wrote: post #351

Even though Google's search engine will censor some content in China, it will still be miles better than Baidu. People who use Google will find highly relevant results quickly when searching about health, academic research, and a million of other things. They won't have to worry about finding thinly disguised promotions of illegal hospitals ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wei_Zexi ) on the first page of Goog…

They do deserve it, just not a censored one.

As a Chinese living abroad, I censor my internet voluntarily via custom ublock cosmetic filters that kick in automatically upon match of certain regex patterns. I call it my "outer great firewall". Very effective protection against hate speech

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#539

Post by dragonwriter »

omegaworks wrote: post #534
dragonwriter wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> possible collusion in the murder of US national Jamal Khashoggi Not central to the point, but Kashoggi was not a US national. He was a US-resident Saudi citizen. It's possible to be a US national but not a citizen, but Kashoggi wasn't one: https://www.immihelp.com/immigration/us-national.html

Quibbling over status is an interesting fallout of the same right-wing nationalist rhetoric. You're right though. He was a Saudi citizen, US resident on an O Visa with US citizen children on his way to a green card[1]. Should we not care about his murder as much then? 1. https://qz.com/1428499/jamal-khashoggi-what-trump-owes-khash...

> Should we not care about his murder as much then?

Actually, the correction was so that people wouldn't continue making the mistake, not because his citizenship status is a critical point. The error is a distraction from the main point that is avoidable in the future.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#540

Post by driverdan »

tomschlick wrote: post #443

> MRAP's are for combat, not police work While they were designed for combat, they are effectively the same thing that Brinks uses to transport money. They are meant to stop bad things from killing the people inside. They have 0 offensive weapons. They are entirely defensive vehicles that have been used to rescue downed officers, civilians in harms way (gunfire), and multiple times in natural disasters where other ve…

They are not the same thing as a standard armored truck. The name itself gives that away (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected). Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles.

MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs. The simple fact that they are former military vehicles contributes to the military mindset of many police depts, something that should be avoided. Militarization of police forces is bad for citizens.

Post reply on HN