Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit" • Hacker News Board

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#101

Post by chugger » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 6:10 AM UTC

davidhollander wrote: post #79

chugger wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a false prophet hiding behind the veil of their "don't be evil" mantra. Google is the real evil corporation but these geeks are too blind to see it. Now they know what these guys at Google are up to.

> Google is the real evil corporation but these geeks are too blind to see it. Okay, since there is a singular, "real" evil corporation, are the other non-real evil corporations in the imaginary-evil or fake-evil domain? edit: A bit cryptic, my point is that "evil" has been overloaded to meaninglessness. It decreases one's intelligence to use it in an assertion. In war and throughout history, party A asserts party B…

You're trying too hard. People usually do that when they're defending someone they know is guilty. People usually just let the facts speak for themselves.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#102

Post by brc » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 6:13 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #84

brc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm right with you on this one. I personally think the old 'don't be evil' motto is looking very tatty these days. That was always going to happen, I guess, but sometimes I find it very hard to find a difference between activities of companies Google used to speak out against, and modern Google. Google used to be the thing when it was a bare bones, super fast and accurate search engine. Nowadays trying to find an org…

You may (or may not) be surprised but when I was there a lot of energy was spent by the rank and file on not being evil. The challenge is of course in 'winning' and decades of research on this shows that people who really want to win will be a bit evil if they can get away with it and win at the same time. So what Google has is a competitive culture (for a long time you couldn't get a raise without getting a promotio…

You describe what I was trying to say. It's easy to be non-evil in a startup environment for a variety of reasons.

However, once sold and listed, quarterly performance numbers start to permeate the entire organisation. As you say, the needs of making these numbers start to outweigh the don't be evil mantra. And, because the original services were set up with a 'trust us, we're not evil', the gains to be made from tweaking the 'evil' dial up, even just a tiny bit, are quite large.

I'm not surprised the rank and file are committed to the lofty ideals and goals, and they probably will continue to attract new recruits for the foreseeable future. But in order to keep committed to those types of goals, necessarily some profit is going to have to be foregone. That's mighty hard to do.

My guess is that the big event that makes people trust Google less is close, or maybe has even already been but hasn't been disclosed yet. To me, they're in the same kind of space that Microsoft was post-Windows 95 and pre-Windows 98. Everyone still likes them but questions are being asked. Legal intervention is around the corner.

I see privacy kind of like any economic externality. There's no (immediate) price on loss of privacy, so people are happy to trade it away for benefits like free email and social networking. Can you price privacy? Well, objectively we already are when we forgo private services for free ones. You could say we price our privacy at the cost difference between a free service and a paid one.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#103

Post by bad_user » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 6:19 AM UTC

haberman wrote: post #98

nirvana wrote: post #8

I've been using Google pretty regularly for the past 11 years, and have had a gmail account since soon after it was announced. However with the release of Plus and the revelation of their policies on "real names", I've come to realize that I no longer trust google. Gmail accounts can be effectively anonymous. Yet plus accounts cannot be? Google does not need anyone's real name in order to track and advertise to them.…

> But requiring a real name, tells me that google doesn't just want to track me to advertise to me. They want to correlate my online activities with my offline identity. Do you then conclude the same thing about Facebook, which has had a "real names" policy since basically forever? "Facebook has always been based on a real-name culture. We think this leads to greater accountability and a safer and more trusted enviro…

Who says Facebook gets a pass?

Everybody thought Google+ was going to be a better Facebook, remember?

But no, it's the same crap.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#104

Post by rednaught » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 6:31 AM UTC

haberman wrote: post #98

nirvana wrote: post #8

I've been using Google pretty regularly for the past 11 years, and have had a gmail account since soon after it was announced. However with the release of Plus and the revelation of their policies on "real names", I've come to realize that I no longer trust google. Gmail accounts can be effectively anonymous. Yet plus accounts cannot be? Google does not need anyone's real name in order to track and advertise to them.…

> But requiring a real name, tells me that google doesn't just want to track me to advertise to me. They want to correlate my online activities with my offline identity. Do you then conclude the same thing about Facebook, which has had a "real names" policy since basically forever? "Facebook has always been based on a real-name culture. We think this leads to greater accountability and a safer and more trusted enviro…

As bad_user said, who said Facebook is getting a pass? Facebook started out with very limited reach requiring a university affiliation. Seemed pretty safe and close-knit at the time. Membership has grown to anyone and privacy has slid ever since.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#105

Post by eps » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 6:35 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #76

nirvana wrote: post #8

I've been using Google pretty regularly for the past 11 years, and have had a gmail account since soon after it was announced. However with the release of Plus and the revelation of their policies on "real names", I've come to realize that I no longer trust google. Gmail accounts can be effectively anonymous. Yet plus accounts cannot be? Google does not need anyone's real name in order to track and advertise to them.…

You think Google might be using government-supplied information to figure out real identities on Google+? You seem like a pretty reasonable guy. I'm surprised you'd write something like this.

Imagine you are a state and you have this company that sits on an incredible treasure trove of personal information, something that was previously available only to your own specialized agencies. Not trying to get a hold of this information would mean not doing the best job protecting state security. So it is highly likely that Google is already very tightly fused with the state. And that would trivially explain the push for real names - Google doesn't really need it to advance their business, but it'd be incredibly useful for the state.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#106

Post by rednaught » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 6:36 AM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #99

nirvana wrote: post #8

I've been using Google pretty regularly for the past 11 years, and have had a gmail account since soon after it was announced. However with the release of Plus and the revelation of their policies on "real names", I've come to realize that I no longer trust google. Gmail accounts can be effectively anonymous. Yet plus accounts cannot be? Google does not need anyone's real name in order to track and advertise to them.…

This is seriously silly. I agree with the other poster that I normally see sane things written by you, so I don't totally understand where this is coming from. Moreover, why is this being held to the top of this comment section? (I guess the subject brings in people that agree) To respond: First, it doesn't follow at all that the only reason to include a real name is to correlate online activity with your real life p…

Trust is ever-changing. For instance, if you trust sane thoughts or actions from an entity only to one day perceive that the same source creates not so-sane thoughts or actions, do you lose trust in that entity? Perspective is an interesting thing just as is your pseudonym here.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#107

Post by chubot » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 6:48 AM UTC

luckydude wrote: post #97

I was the 4th guy at Google and back then they were not evil (duh). I left to do my own thing but I email Larry and Sergey from time to time and so far they have been pretty cool about listening to me (they have a 747 or whatever it is, I have a Dodge Sprinter, sort of establishes the pecking order, I'm way way down on the list, so the fact that they sometimes listen is cool) I think that Google wants to not be evil…

Are you one of the guys who worked with them at Stanford, or after the company started? What did you work on and how did you find them? (just curious)

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#108

Post by andrewljohnson » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 6:55 AM UTC

luckydude wrote: post #97

I was the 4th guy at Google and back then they were not evil (duh). I left to do my own thing but I email Larry and Sergey from time to time and so far they have been pretty cool about listening to me (they have a 747 or whatever it is, I have a Dodge Sprinter, sort of establishes the pecking order, I'm way way down on the list, so the fact that they sometimes listen is cool) I think that Google wants to not be evil…

4th guy at Google eh? I'd love to see an Ask-Me-Anything post!

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#109

Post by magicalist » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 7:10 AM UTC

rednaught wrote: post #106

magicalist wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is seriously silly. I agree with the other poster that I normally see sane things written by you, so I don't totally understand where this is coming from. Moreover, why is this being held to the top of this comment section? (I guess the subject brings in people that agree) To respond: First, it doesn't follow at all that the only reason to include a real name is to correlate online activity with your real life p…

Trust is ever-changing. For instance, if you trust sane thoughts or actions from an entity only to one day perceive that the same source creates not so-sane thoughts or actions, do you lose trust in that entity? Perspective is an interesting thing just as is your pseudonym here.

My point is perhaps narrower than you are seeing. It was not that trust levels don't change, or advocating for some level of trust. Just that his conclusions do not follow from the evidence presented, to the point where the connection borders on the irrational (to me).

I don't think my username here is particularly interesting, just a variation on a typical one that was already taken.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#110

Post by kbanman » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 7:34 AM UTC

How did this post get so popular? Google isn't doing any of this behind your back. If you don't want to share your identity with Google, don't use their services. Simple as that.

It is no secret that Google is a corporation. The only thing that matters to a corporation is to make money. Google doesn't spend millions on improving their search engine and developing a fantastic social networking service because of some altruistic motive. Don't be so naive as to expect companies like Google and Facebook to adhere to your idealistic views of privacy and anonymity if that means a reduction in profit.

Direct your energy to keeping the internet free. As long as we have that, we can represent ourselves however we like by being able to choose which services we use.