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

Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome (2008)

mattcutts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 88 posts

Re: Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome (2008)

#11

Post by pimlottc »

ur-whale wrote: post #8

Matt Cutts was one of the Google search OGs. The kind of cultural values (e.g. make user happy all else will follow) he and a number of other original Google employees believed in and tried to defend have loooong been overridden by the Sundars and other Prabakhars who only kowtowed to the short-term demands of wall street. Cutts, Ben Gomes and similar-minded do-gooders have all neatly been benched a long time ago.

He also went on to serve as the second administrator for the United States Digital Service, which has just recently been hijacked and gutted by DOGE. Sadly it’s not just the cultural values of Google that have shifted since then.

Re: Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome (2008)

#12

Post by barbazoo »

isodev wrote: post #2

Interesting how things have changed in the past 17 years! Google of today, would rather own one's thoughts if they could, let alone things we write in their address bar.

One day they’ll write the things into the address bar for us :)

Re: Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome (2008)

#13

Post by ViktorRay »

Mistletoe wrote: post #7
isodev wrote: post #2

Interesting how things have changed in the past 17 years! Google of today, would rather own one's thoughts if they could, let alone things we write in their address bar.

There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda. . . . You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . . And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we did…

It’s interesting how this quote can apply to so many different things throughout history.

I know it specifically references the 1960’s San Francisco counter culture but it’s a poignant quote because it can apply beyond that too.

Re: Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome (2008)

#14

Post by isodev »

barbazoo wrote: post #12
isodev wrote: post #2

Interesting how things have changed in the past 17 years! Google of today, would rather own one's thoughts if they could, let alone things we write in their address bar.

One day they’ll write the things into the address bar for us :)

"I'm feeling lucky" but brain-implant edition :))

Re: Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome (2008)

#17

Post by notpushkin »

eykanal wrote: post #15

Any reason why this is on the front page today? Is there some context for why this is interesting now?

Firefox. [1]

Note that Google does want the rights to things you do using Chrome now, too.

[1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastWeek&query=firefox

Re: Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome (2008)

#18

Post by nige123 »

There was always content in users’ click paths / search trails.

Google has mined that for profit from the beginning. Cutts and Co turned a blind eye here.

It was ALL OK though - because Google’s mission was DONT BE EVIL!

In 2008 Google was besieged by SEO consultants spamming their index.

Mining the collective intelligence of the hooman’s search trails was their algorithmic escape clause.

Their escape clause in 2025?

Mine for MORE!

Re: Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome (2008)

#20

Post by egypturnash »

This sort of agreement keeps on popping up. Again and again.

The most forgiving reading of the intent of this sort of agreement is that "it is the basic function of a web browser to transfer your stuff across the internet, and it is the basic function of a website to do stuff like make thumbnails of your images and send them to people looking at your stuff, and you are cool with us doing this" but it always ends up being written in the most incredibly grabby way possible, demanding a perpetual, irrevocable license for all potential future uses so that you can't sue if one thumbnail gets forgotten when you delete your stuff or because it got turned into a new format or something.

And this kind of license just happens to cover other stuff nobody thought of at the time like "we can totally train an AI on everything you generate and let people ask it to generate work explicitly derivative of your work without owing you a single cent". Which is a total dick move. So's stuff like "track everything you do and share that data with a distributed surveillance industry that sprung up around advertising". And eventually some asshole comes along and says "hey I could make a lot of money doing this thing that everyone "agreed" to when they scrolled down that lengthy terms of service and hit OK".

Post reply on HN