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

Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 428 posts

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#211

Post by vehemenz »

karaterobot wrote: post #202

This is a list of accusations, right? This is all pre-trial, so a journalist would want to put the word "alleged" in front of this rather than writing it up as though they'd discovered the undisputed truth? Just checking, I know it's not going to make a difference. Not a fan of Google at all, but I do like to pretend there's a process.

They're not all accusations.

One of the tweets is about Chrome forcing logins to Google products (and vice versa), which has officially been a thing for like 5 years, at least.

This anti-feature is very well known and is why many of us switched to Firefox.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#212

Post by billylindeman »

luxuryballs wrote: post #179
DSingularity wrote: post #82

It’s interesting that only republican states are holding google accountable on all this.

The other ones are welcoming the help of the blue Jedi… that’s how they “saved” the 2020 election.

"wE cAnT eVeR lEt tHis HaPpEn AgAiN"

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#213

Post by jollybean »

thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #148
jollybean wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of rhetoric is problematically naive. Advertising effectiveness is often vague, but it also works well in many circumstances. It takes a certain kind of hubris to suggest that all these companies spending $500B on advertising have no idea what they are doing, and that if only they listened to HN/Reddit they could save so much money and make the world a better place. The issue here is to what extent G has ma…

>It takes a certain kind of hubris to suggest that all these companies spending $500B on advertising have no idea what they are doing And yet they don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28724806

Oh gosh, please understand that none of this is new to anyone who works in the industry.

Everyone knows how fuzzy it is. Everyone knows the scheming from the VP Marketing, to the Agencies, to the Exchanges etc..

But we also know when it works, and when it works well. The more experienced marketers have an intuition for how all the various different marketing activities combine to form a synergy. And how it gets disproportionaly harder to do in a low cost way, to the extent that large, fat, profits exist that can be extracted.

But that's no different than any other part of a company. P&G could drop 1/2 of their White Collar workers and probably figure out how to get along just as well. Union workers in Auto Plants have benefits that put them way ahead of what they'd have otherwise, but they have the power to extract it. Governments pay out to 'no bid contracts' - and especially lawyers - considerably more than they have to.

Every sector of every industry is making sausage, the issue is to highlight the actually illegal stuff, and put some legal parameters around it.

Google bidding on it's own auctions is a problem.

Google's control over adjacent parts of the value chain is a problem.

Google's metrics, if they were fabricated, that's a problem.

But bad marketers that spend too much on ineffective campaigns, that's not a legal problem.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#214

Post by moffkalast »

aikinai wrote: post #84
braveyellowtoad wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, so if a user is logged into chrome, Google has permission / is able to track all web activity for that user?

There’s a setting (Web and App Activity) to let Google collect activity on Google properties to use for personalization features. I’m pretty sure it does not track any activity on non-Google properties.

Or they only let you turn off tracking for google products, because those track you internally anyway and it makes no difference, while there's no way to turn off 3rd party tracking...

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#215

Post by ksec »

aasasd wrote: post #43

> Re: forced Chrome logins. Don't need cookies if you own the browser! ( https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/145209451374118912... ) The swindle with FLOC was pretty obviously tied in this, but people still went in circles discussing whether it's private or not, and downvoting those who said FLOC is a trap. Let's consult the plan, nothing is even secret about this: - Google disables third-party cookies, crippli…

>The baffling part.....

The baffling part is 99.9% of the internet inclusive but not limited to HN were sold as they "Do No Evil". Even after they drop it.

None of these is new. The strategic thinking of Google has been clear since Day 1. And now revealed in multiple email shown in court, both in terms of Chrome browser during Firefox era and Ads. ( And possibly Google Earth ? )

While it is nice to see sentiment finally changing after nearly 20 years. For some strange reason I just feel rather sad about it.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#216

Post by BiteCode_dev »

karaterobot wrote: post #202

This is a list of accusations, right? This is all pre-trial, so a journalist would want to put the word "alleged" in front of this rather than writing it up as though they'd discovered the undisputed truth? Just checking, I know it's not going to make a difference. Not a fan of Google at all, but I do like to pretend there's a process.

They don't respect due process with illegal mass spying or bazooka dmca on youtube. They just do it, and you can't appeal.

So at this point, even if none of that ended up being true (unlikely), I still hope it will hurt their reputation badly.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#217

Post by salawat »

crawfordcomeaux wrote: post #140
hamilyon2 wrote: post #98

I sometimes wonder, what if there was a universal governing principle, that was simple to enforce, obvious, formulated in few words, so that everyone understands it. All those priveleges which every of theese corporations enjoy, some simple, like not publishing schematic for 1000$+ device, some complex, like making backroom deals harming millions of people in a some insignificant and obscure way daily, like showing c…

Meets all needs while denying none. Establish a category theory based foundation of human needs, which will necessarily include the environment and its needs, and all legislation must show how it meets the fundamental needs and all of their compositions, (eg. every need composes with the need for learning to result in the need to learn how to identify and meet any given need).

Needs of whom? How are mutually exclusive needs reconciled?

It's not anywhere as easy or free of potential villainy as you think.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#218

Post by swiftcoder »

karaterobot wrote: post #202

This is a list of accusations, right? This is all pre-trial, so a journalist would want to put the word "alleged" in front of this rather than writing it up as though they'd discovered the undisputed truth? Just checking, I know it's not going to make a difference. Not a fan of Google at all, but I do like to pretend there's a process.

Burden of proof is not identical between a journalist and a judge (or a jury of your peers). A journalist who has verified something to be true to the best of their ability is within their remit to report it as fact.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#219

Post by hdjjhhvvhga »

A__Account wrote: post #207
matheusmoreira wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tell everyone about Firefox and uBlock Origin. Blocking YouTube ads is enough of an argument to convince anyone to at least try it out. I've never seen someone who didn't love the ad-free web experience. It's actually safe to just install this software on random computers: people's quality of life will be invisibly yet thoroughly improved, they will notice that things are just better even if they can't explain why.…

Firefox barely runs though. I've had to start opening up Edge just to get Reddit to load because FF slows to such a crawl.

There might be something wrong on your system. I switched a long time ago but sometimes run chrome to compare performance, and it's on a par.

If you come across a site where the performance is noticeably worse than in Chrome, it may be worth notifying the owner. The alternative is to live in a Google-controlled dystopia.

Post reply on HN