Live data from Hacker News

Apparently Google hates us now

twitter.com

31–40 of 272 posts

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social sites should have all have a tree-based invite system. This would allow wiping out spammers and their enablers in a single hit. It would allow vetting of good actors too.

Interesting to compare this site and lobste.rs for that

Both from safety and volume perspectives, I’d imagine. Openness has value.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#33

They're a wiki. Wiki spammers are relentless now. Source: a small wiki I help manage, for an obscure game with On a popular wiki, and it sounds like this one was fairly popular, I imagine even CAPTCHA's won't be enough to stop wiki spammers. If those spammers were posting more than just "buy my penis pill" garbage (e.g. they were putting links to malware sites), Google probably, and somewhat legitimately, saw them as…

Social sites should have all have a tree-based invite system. This would allow wiping out spammers and their enablers in a single hit. It would allow vetting of good actors too.

You still need criteria to handle reputation: does an account invited years ago and now spamming affects the reputation of the inviter, how much? What about the hacked accounts?

For small platforms it makes a lot of sense, for larger the potential for abuse is still there in different forms.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#34
My guess is that the combination of Wiki and Pokemon is highly suspect for Google.

The Pokemon Industrial Complex has advanced astroturfing especially on YouTube/Twitch, where streamers mention the damn things in any second episode, they "accidentally" meet people going to Pokemon conventions in live streams and so on.

Try to audit the Wiki if anyone abused it.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s why I moved to in-house advertising. It’s a lot of work, but I hope it is the right decision.

Why is it a lot of work? Could you specify some off the more difficult effort? Wouldn’t LLMs help speed this up? This is the one area where I’d think Llms could really take Google down by empowering in house ad platforms.

Depends on how in-house you want to go. If you go full in-house, you'll need sales staff to make deals with advertisers. You'll then need a way of hosting the media provided. You'll need a way to deal with media that does not match what you've requested. You'll need a system to allocate ad space accordingly to contracts with ad clients. It's like a whole new department in your company.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#38
post #9

I can even tell you that Google hates us all

Google neither hates nor loves any of us, the only thing it cares about as an institution is cramming as many advertisements in front of as many people as it can get away with to generate increasingly ridiculous piles of money. This is not meant to be a defense of Google, which is (like virtually every large corporation) completely sociopathic.

Public corporations have historically been multi-cellular biological organisms made up of individual cells working toward the collective goal of continuing the organism's existence. They're probably most analogous to bee hives.

Each cell receives nourishment from the corporation in the form of monetary compensation (and other benefits). Some cells have a more direct role in the "reasoning" process of the organism than others, depending on their logical position within the corporation.

The corporations aren't sentient in the collective, though it can be argued many of their constituent cells are. The corporations are able to influence their environment using individual constituent cells to communicate with similar cells in other organisms.

Ultimately, the corporation itself has the goal of producing value for its owners, since its owners provide the working capital necessary for the corporation to function.

The methods corporations use to achieve their goal of returning value can be opaque to the owners and potentially inscrutable to the individual constituent cells. Their "reasoning" is a manifest property coming from the interaction of the cells with the environment, the cells interacting with each other (both within and outside the corporation), and other organisms.

(There's the neat rub that individual cells can be constituents of multiple organisms simultaneously, too!)

If the owners stop receiving value and withdraw their working capital the corporation becomes unable to nourish its cells and it dies.

Recently these organisms have become biological / technological hybrids, incorporating unconscious computational models in their reasoning process. This change increases the inscrutability and opacity of the reasoning process. It's likely the unconscious computational models will eventually be tasked with communicating with similar models in other organisms, at which point the inscrutability will probably increase by an even greater amount.

It's going to be interesting when the corporations, talking with other corporations, manifestly decide that they don't need human components anymore. All of that can happen without the pesky need for consciousness, too.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google neither hates nor loves any of us, the only thing it cares about as an institution is cramming as many advertisements in front of as many people as it can get away with to generate increasingly ridiculous piles of money. This is not meant to be a defense of Google, which is (like virtually every large corporation) completely sociopathic.

All large companies are sociopaths, but few tech companies treat their paying customers with the level of contempt that Google does.

I'm not sure most of those calling the shots at Google realizes they even have paying customers other than advertisers. Notably though, website publishers and consumers of their massive products like Search, Gmail, and Android are not really customers.
Post reply on HN