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

Google: Open Letter to Australians

about.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 437 posts

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#371

Post by ethbro »

mgraczyk wrote: post #63
ethbro wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who remembers the web before personalization, the product experience was better. It may be true that Google has over-invested in personalization-driven features, and under-invested in user-neutral features. Personalization belongs in the agent. Specifically, the agent that I own and control.

So Google sends metadata for 5B videos to your browser, then your browser ranks them and shows you the best one? How would your agent do personalization?

Why doesn't my browser compile and store my viewing habits, then construct searches for me? Searches which Google then executes?

Centralized services have built personalization systems in which they operate the personalization algorithms.

I don't have a problem with that, per se, except in that their interests (profit) and user interests (effectiveness) are only partially aligned.

The biggest reason, as near as I can tell, these system architectures were built is that control of personalization algorithms means (1) a means and reason to collect and retain data on users (that can be used for targeted advertisement) & (2) a means to execute targeted advertisement (via insertion into "recommended" content).

It's likely the only way these services are possible at the "free" price point. But it's disingenuous to suggest that they're the only model by which personalization could be realized.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#372

Post by ath0 »

rokweom wrote: post #331
thu2111 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This law is the latest iteration of newspaper's attempts to turn Google into an ATM for the industry. The first attempt was in Germany. The law said search engines must pay newspapers to index their content. However it didn't specify what the price should be, so Google simply negotiated a fee of zero and the law was in effect nullified. The second attempt was in Spain. It is the same law, but this time they added a c…

How can government tell you what services you must provide? That's ridiculous.

In the Americans with Disabilities Act, US law states that if you're going to create a place of public accommodation, there are certain minimum standards you must adhere to, to support those with disabilities. So you must install ramps and elevators for the mobility-impaired, offer audio-only interfaces for the blind, sign for the hearing impaired, and so on. These apply pretty broadly.

We can argue whether Australia's legislation is a good thing, but "if you are going to operate here, these are the standards you must follow" is not beyond the pale.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#373

Post by berkes »

mcv wrote: post #353
berkes wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I meant was not that a democratic government has to be the free press, but that I has to keep laws, checks, balances and regulation to ensure that free press is possible. And that a government is a better candidate to enable and ensure free press than a private entity: we can see this in action in e.g. China where either Google keeps away from, or companies self-censor to grab some Chinese cash. Sorry for the co…

I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you saying that the Chinese situation, where the government is the entity that decides on access to the news, is a good one? I think it's vitally important that press can exist and publish completely independently from the government. Yes, that does mean there need to be laws protecting the press from censorship and subtler forms of manipulation. But this particular piece o…

Sorry for more confusion.

I think the Chinese situation is bad. But that was not my point. The point was that a government is the entity to protect, enable and allow free speech; a private entity is not.

The Chinese example shows that when a government does not allow, or protect free speech, the private entity cannot solve it either. Google cannot enable free speech in China: only the Chinese government could do that.

I used this example to show that relying on private entities to protect freedom is not a very good one: you need a government that enables them; even if "enabling" means "not interfering" or "pulling back".

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#374

Post by brainwad »

3131s wrote: post #361
catmanjan wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is utterly false The Australian government isn't forcing Google to index content, and I suspect what op suggested is what will happen and News corp will beg for reindexing

I don't get it... if News Corp doesn't want to be indexed can't they just set their robots.txt accordingly? It doesn't seem like they'll be able to successfully argue this.

What this law gives them is a way to force all their competitors (e.g. Fairfax) to join their boycott, by being able to negotatiate a single, mandatory price for the industry that their competitors won't be allowed to undercut.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#375

Post by pjc50 »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #228
ehnto wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the Australian government does well is control information and controversy. The government is a quiet achiever in that regard. Australians have been comfortable for a while, and are generally disengaged from politics. Most Australians I know are more aware of American politics than their own.

American politics that they're happy to mock, whilst the broth they're wallowing in is rapidly coming to the same temperature.

American politics is a horrifyingly successful reality TV show. It provides the entertainment and conflict people crave, with the intellectual standards of professional wrestling.

Unfortunately real administration is boring - and should be boring. We want to avoid crises.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#376

Post by Strom »

3131s wrote: post #361
catmanjan wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is utterly false The Australian government isn't forcing Google to index content, and I suspect what op suggested is what will happen and News corp will beg for reindexing

I don't get it... if News Corp doesn't want to be indexed can't they just set their robots.txt accordingly? It doesn't seem like they'll be able to successfully argue this.

I'll just note that robots.txt does not affect indexing. It is used for traffic management and will not hide pages from Google. [1]

--

[1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6062608?hl=en

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#377

Post by vageli »

maigret wrote: post #359
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, the government is a true monopoly (for good reason) so you can't just stop being their "customer" whenever you like. You may end up spending your entire life oppressed by your fellow citizens who may be indifferent towards your needs. So I think there is a good reason for not having the government directly run everything. It wouldn't even mean democratic control over everything. It would mean burea…

Turns out it's surprisingly hard to stop being a Google customer, if not impossible. I advise you to check the series by Kashmir Hill if you haven't yet: https://gizmodo.com/i-cut-the-big-five-tech-giants-from-my-l...

From the article, it doesn't sound _too_ hard to not be a customer of any of the companies (and I was Google-free for a long while until I had to use an Android for work purposes); what is difficult is not interacting with any customers of these companies in addition to not interacting with the companies themselves. This person didn't use Signal, for instance, because it is hosted on AWS. That's like saying you'll stop visiting shops that have Verizon Business internet or similar, which to me seems very different from just trying to cut Verizon out of your life.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#378

Post by [deleted] »

eru wrote: post #282
smcl wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia is not (yet?) a Republic

That was probably the least useful thing to criticise in the comment you replied to. I know, I know, pedantry is fun. But I don't think the Queen makes much of a difference to Australia's problems one way or another.

[deleted]

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#379

Post by ignoramous »

ehsankia wrote: post #195
ignoramous wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(rant) > they behave much better... https://medium.com/@rossformaine/i-was-googles-head-of-inter... > decent custodians of their users data They cannot protect that data from law and enforcement no matter what. De-anonymized, aggregated, ephemeral... no matter which way you look at it, data they collect is a ticking time-bomb. And because they amass so much, others that have similar business models are forced to foll…

Just some relevant context to that page, the person there left Google and is now running for office, so I would think twice about the claims they make.

> ...running for office, so I would think twice about the claims they make.

Google is among the highest spending tech lobbyists.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/09/google-is-techs-top-spender-...

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#380

Post by JoeSmithson »

justinjoshuak wrote: post #367
discordance wrote: post #119

Google evil etc etc aside, they have been decent custodians of their users data. I don't really want to trust Google, but they behave much better than the Australian government, who recently admitted they spy on their citizens [0], can coerce citizens and companies to install backdoors into their companies software [1]. I trust Murdoch less than the government, and much much less than Google. Remember when Murdoch in…

> who recently admitted they spy on their citizens [0] The linked article is about planned changes that haven't yet been legislated - "Details of the new powers – which will require legislation – are not contained in the strategy"

I also don't understand why it's necessarily bad...?

Countries face internal security threats. For example, in the UK, the 7/7 bombers were British, ditto the Manchester and London Bridge attacks. In fact most terrorists who attack Britain are British. Are MI5 not meant to spy on Brits?

Post reply on HN