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

Sergey Brin's Clarification On Guardian article

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Sergey Brin's Clarification On Guardian article

#51

Post by tferris »

j_col wrote: post #39
j_col wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook have given back plenty of open source to the dev community. Scribe (their federated logging server) and HipHop (their PHP compiler) come to mind immediately, but there may be others.

> (please don't mention some minor FB side-products; Apple has tons of innovative products but none of them is free). Please don't rewrite your original comment after I've responded, not cool.

You are right, I re-edited and took the passage out (as written below I wasn't able to reply before directly).

Re: Sergey Brin's Clarification On Guardian article

#52

Post by tferris »

[deleted] wrote: post #49
tferris wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't reply before to your post because the reply link was missing (guess the system does not allow too many post in a given period of time), so I used my former post and put an "EDIT+my reply" in order to comment on your words. I should have waited and replied properly. Thanks for your understanding.

[deleted]

Done.

Re: Sergey Brin's Clarification On Guardian article

#53

Post by tferris »

rbarooah wrote: post #32
tferris wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pardon, you are totally misleading. Google could do this—there are multiple options to silently wallgarden the user. Just check how much traffic Google moves. If they want they could arbitrarily redirect traffic and subtly punish user's not using their tools. But that's not their culture. Just look at their products, how far they pushing the boundaries and still stay open, give back and contribute to the community. L…

You've actually made my point for me. "Redirecting traffic and subtly punishing users" is far from a walled garden, and would lead to an instant backlash if detected. As I said, they don't have the power to close the internet that you attribute to them. This has nothing to do with their culture, however great you might think it is.

Discussing a hairsplitting definition of a walled garden doesn't make sense here. Google do not deadlock wether users nor site owner/publishers (referred above as "users" as well) to use their products but they could as explained above (deadlock=walled garden).

Re: Sergey Brin's Clarification On Guardian article

#54

Post by jad »

Let me paraphrase: "I bemoan the rise of Internet tollbooths and gatekeepers, such as the ones put up by Facebook and Apple. By the way, please build native apps for Android, and please use Google+ to connect with your friends and family."

Re: Sergey Brin's Clarification On Guardian article

#55

Post by mindcrime »

j_col wrote: post #28
tferris wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pardon, you are totally misleading. Google could do this—there are multiple options to silently wallgarden the user. Just check how much traffic Google moves. If they want they could arbitrarily redirect traffic and subtly punish user's not using their tools. But that's not their culture. Just look at their products, how far they pushing the boundaries and still stay open, give back and contribute to the community. L…

Facebook have given back plenty of open source to the dev community. Scribe (their federated logging server) and HipHop (their PHP compiler) come to mind immediately, but there may be others.

Scribe (their federated logging server) and HipHop (their PHP compiler) come to mind immediately, but there may be others.

Thrift[1] and Cassandra[2] as well, FWIW.

[1]: http://thrift.apache.org

[2]: http://cassandra.apache.org/

Re: Sergey Brin's Clarification On Guardian article

#56

Post by j_col »

tferris wrote: post #51
j_col wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (please don't mention some minor FB side-products; Apple has tons of innovative products but none of them is free). Please don't rewrite your original comment after I've responded, not cool.

You are right, I re-edited and took the passage out (as written below I wasn't able to reply before directly).

Thanks for that.

Re: Sergey Brin's Clarification On Guardian article

#57

Post by zerostar07 »

dchest wrote: post #50
zerostar07 wrote: post #24

To me this is another example of a fundamental difference between the Web 1.0 entrepreneur generation and today's superstar startup CEOs. The former's ambitions ranged from data liberation, information freedom and up to interplanetary travel. The new generation's ambitions end in their stock valuations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosy_retrospection

I believe it's more because they had the first mover's advantage and naivete

Re: Sergey Brin's Clarification On Guardian article

#58

Post by rbarooah »

tferris wrote: post #53
rbarooah wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've actually made my point for me. "Redirecting traffic and subtly punishing users" is far from a walled garden, and would lead to an instant backlash if detected. As I said, they don't have the power to close the internet that you attribute to them. This has nothing to do with their culture, however great you might think it is.

Discussing a hairsplitting definition of a walled garden doesn't make sense here. Google do not deadlock wether users nor site owner/publishers (referred above as "users" as well) to use their products but they could as explained above (deadlock=walled garden).

It sounds as though you are now claiming that Google has already turned the Internet into a Walled Garden but are simply nicer in their policies than anyone else.

This is the first time I've heard anyone make this claim.

Re: Sergey Brin's Clarification On Guardian article

#59

Post by lukeschlather »

eternalban wrote: post #37
sounds wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I follow your logic. I agree. What concrete action would you suggest to make the internet more democratic?

Central servers must go. We must also disentangle presence management, identity, and services built on top of those layers. Access to identity must be layered and fully subject to user control. I am personally remiss in this matter as I thought deeply about all this when ICQ came out in mid 90s (and even filed a PPA on April 1st 1997 with USPTO on my take on the solution) but did not advocate effectively enough for t…

Can we create a trusted identity service that doesn't rely on centralized highly-trusted nodes? It seems necessary to me that the government or other large associations (/corporations) are the only entities with the resources necessary to secure and maintain decent authentication services. I can't say I'm fond of the idea of maintaining a personal auth server so I can participate in society (and I'm one of our privileged class who can actually contemplate doing such a thing.)

Re: Sergey Brin's Clarification On Guardian article

#60

Post by lukeschlather »

rmc wrote: post #21
tferris wrote: post #3

Imagine Apple, Facebook or whoever controlled the Internet like Google does: How long would it take until they abused their power? If someone is dominating the web it's Google and looking at their power and how much traffic they move—their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player.

Imagine Facebook or Google controlled the music industry like Apple do. Imagine Facebook or Google controlled the mobile phone market like Apple do. Imagine Apple or Google controlled social interaction like Facebook do. Imagine Apple, Google or Facebook controlled desktops like Microsoft do.

>Imagine Facebook or Google controlled the mobile phone market like Apple do.

Verizon and AT&T control the mobile phone market, all the new money tech cos wish they had that kind of government-granted monopoly.

Post reply on HN