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

The Voice of Google

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 141 posts

Re: The Voice of Google

#61

Post by atomicfiredoll »

kccqzy wrote: post #46
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this (Google services are largely taken for granted), and beyond that, Google is one of the most hated corporations for it. I feel like this is some majorly false revisionist history. At least in my circles, Google was revered and lauded up until 2010-2012 or so, whenever enshittification started in earnest. And this isn't just some outsider opin…

The New York Times is actually part of the reason why Google’s reputation went downhill. Somewhere around 2010–2015, the NYT and other traditional newspapers finally woke up and realized that their traditional job of disseminating information to the masses had been supplanted by a new generation of tech companies including Google and Meta. So the NYT and other newspapers soured their opinions around the time. If you…

- Shutting down products.

- Shutting down accounts with almost no way to recover them and nobody to talk to.

- Going back on promises of unlimited storage when you buy their products, then constantly nagging you about storage space.

- The worsening quality of search results.

- Cramming incorrect AI answers into the top of their search results, or pushing it in other products.

- Using their control over Chrome to try and end ad blocking.

- The wholesale enshittification and lobotomization of YouTube.

- They have $1800 phones they're putting restrictions around being able to run your own code on.

- The fact that when you search an app in the Play store, the first result is an ad for some other app.

- Their UIs is just death by 10,000 papercuts in general.

- Their engagement in politics, not just lobbying but a donation of $1 million to the inauguration fund for a wildly unpopular president.

[Modern] Google is a big company, with a lot of users, and more than enough problems for those users to eventually stumble into at least one thing that leaves a bad taste in their mouth.

Re: The Voice of Google

#62

Post by entrepy123 »

haunter wrote: post #53
panarky wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you could calculate a good-evil score for every large corporation by netting the good they do against the evil they do. I don't know if Google would be net-good or net-evil, but I'm pretty sure they would be far less evil than most of the other large corporations on that list. Certainly less evil than Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Saudi Aramco, Meta, JPMorgan Chase, UnitedHealth, Coca-Cola, Oracle, Palantir, Gold…

> Certainly less evil than Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Saudi Aramco, Meta, JPMorgan Chase, UnitedHealth, Coca-Cola, Oracle, Palantir, Goldman Sachs, LVMH, McDonalds, etc. Certainly… according to who? I think some of these companies are, certainly, less evil than Google

> McDonalds

McDonalds should start allowing full 50% off order discounts in exchange for customers opting-in to receiving custom-printed wrappers with hyperpersonalized advertising printed on-demand just for them.

Could they afford to do it? IDK, advertising is effective and seems like a big business.

I think with their McDonalds App discounts for more normal pricing (last I checked), they're half way there?

Re: The Voice of Google

#63

Post by warshinder »

WarmWash wrote: post #16

Google figured out how to create a classless suite of internet services for anyone on Earth with an internet connection to use. I struggle to see how this didn't meet their original goals, what people celebrated about Google, and what made Google such an attractive place for people like the author to work. What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this (Google services are largely taken fo…

This is how I feel about excel whenever someone dismisses msft. The ultimate software for the anyman.

Re: The Voice of Google

#64

Post by regularization »

WarmWash wrote: post #16

Google figured out how to create a classless suite of internet services for anyone on Earth with an internet connection to use. I struggle to see how this didn't meet their original goals, what people celebrated about Google, and what made Google such an attractive place for people like the author to work. What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this (Google services are largely taken fo…

> So if we use Google as a case study for "progressive business", having mostly succeeded at giving the poorest people one Earth an equal product to the richest people on Earth, what is the takeaway?

How should the people of Gaza thank Google for Google's Project Nimbus etc. targeting them for blockade starvation and bombings?

As Anatole France said - they have to work before the laws' majestic equality, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

Re: The Voice of Google

#65

Post by taneq »

dismalaf wrote: post #50
godelski wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this, and beyond that, Google is one of the most hated corporations for it. The hate it's about what they did with the power they gained. You can both love and hate something at the same time. Humans have complexity and nuance, don't dismiss that. It's also worth noting that complaints are more vocal than complements. If things are working well t…

> The hate it's about what they did with the power they gained. Which is??? Serve ads without selling data? I'm not sure if y'all are aware, but CC companies sell your data. Your telecom provider sells your data. Banks sell your data. Google figured out a system to sell access while keeping your privacy. And somehow they're more hated than people who just straight up give your data away. If most people hate Google al…

> Google figured out a system to sell access while keeping your privacy.

This would be the new Google’s definition of privacy, ie. only you and Google have access to your private data.

The new Google does not, of course, have a word (nor hence the concept) of data to which Google does not have rightful access.

Re: The Voice of Google

#66

Post by csallen »

WarmWash wrote: post #16

Google figured out how to create a classless suite of internet services for anyone on Earth with an internet connection to use. I struggle to see how this didn't meet their original goals, what people celebrated about Google, and what made Google such an attractive place for people like the author to work. What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this (Google services are largely taken fo…

1. Vocal minority will be, by definition, the loudest. And complainers/haters tend to be more vocal. Studies have looked at which emotions lead people to share, and outrage tops the list; satisfaction barely ranks.

2. Speaking of satisfaction, there is hedonic adaption to consider. None of us walk around day to day screaming, "Oh my god, airplanes! Computers! Tropical fruit! WiFi! Indoor plumbing!" We just acclimate, and it becomes background noise.

3. I think, culturally, there is just massive distrust for corporations. Look at any Hollywood movie or popular work of fiction. If there's a corporation, it's inherently evil, and helmed by some sort of sociopath who wants to harm as many people as possible.

Re: The Voice of Google

#67

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

pluralmonad wrote: post #27
jeffbee wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't like google I only wanted to clarify that you must have implied that this statement applies among people who don't like Google, but whatever their reasons, those people are few. In aggregate, Google has a strong reputation and is one of the most well-liked businesses on Earth. It is on par with Cheerios. Disliking Google for "creepy stalker" reasons is not a mainstream thing.

Your clarification aligns perfectly with the final statement in GPs comment. Most people do not realize the extent and invasiveness of googles voyeurism.

Wrong. Most people don't care and think it's a fair exchange. This trend of infantilizing people instead of acknowledging other adults may not share your perspective is pretty irritating.

People want free stuff. Most people understand their lives are boring and that really no one cares. Their "data" is only valuable in aggregate. In return they get "free" services. How does this betray anyone's understanding?

No one at Google is watching you have sex. They don't care. Your own government is more likely to spy on you in such a "voyeuristic" manner. Google doesn't give a shit. Have you been on the ad buying side? There are far more invasive data collectors than Google, delivering consumers far less utility. It seems like the only person not making the correct realizations here is you. People are told time and time again by people like you about how invasive Google is. Yet they keep using it.

What should we do, send them to your personally owned indoctrination camps? No one cares.

Believe people when they vote with their time and their wallet. You don't get to tell people what they think because in your mind they are insufficiently brainwashed. "Most people would agree with me if they knew what I knew" after repeated evidence to the contrary is akin to psychosis.

Re: The Voice of Google

#68

Post by mft_ »

panarky wrote: post #51
godelski wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this, and beyond that, Google is one of the most hated corporations for it. The hate it's about what they did with the power they gained. You can both love and hate something at the same time. Humans have complexity and nuance, don't dismiss that. It's also worth noting that complaints are more vocal than complements. If things are working well t…

Let's say you could calculate a good-evil score for every large corporation by netting the good they do against the evil they do. I don't know if Google would be net-good or net-evil, but I'm pretty sure they would be far less evil than most of the other large corporations on that list. Certainly less evil than Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Saudi Aramco, Meta, JPMorgan Chase, UnitedHealth, Coca-Cola, Oracle, Palantir, Gold…

I think the premise is wrong: I don't think Google is more hated than all of the organisations you list.

Within the tech world, I believe people generally dislike meta, Palantir, Oracle, and Microsoft more than Google.

Out in the real world, in the US at least I'd bet money that UnitedHealth must be more hated. And anyone with at least a modicum of rationality would probably dislike Big Oil and Big Junk Food more too?

---

That said, I think this is an excellent cautionary lesson:

> We secretly started to believe... ...we hate them more because we dared to believe, and Google let us down.

Re: The Voice of Google

#69

Post by mannanj »

gghackernewsgg wrote: post #42
mannanj wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK sure, Google deserves credit for that. On the other hand, they also directly contribute to the technical addiction and attention economy that has created more depression and a lower quality of life for most people on earth. Maybe google taking responsibility for that can help improve their reputation. is the correct answer what you are saying though, to pretend this other bad thing hasn't happened and only say goo…

> that has created more depression and a lower quality of life for most people on earth. Very strong claim. Any sources for the "most people on Earth" part?

Most people on earth: Let's just look at how many people use technology. How many use it? And how many are obviously also using it more than 4 hours/day to consume information in a fashion that doesnt' serve their health, connection or wellbeing?

Those statistics are widely known and accepted. Do you need me to provide evidence from that?

Re: The Voice of Google

#70

Post by WarmWash »

godelski wrote: post #40
WarmWash wrote: post #16

Google figured out how to create a classless suite of internet services for anyone on Earth with an internet connection to use. I struggle to see how this didn't meet their original goals, what people celebrated about Google, and what made Google such an attractive place for people like the author to work. What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this (Google services are largely taken fo…

> What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this, and beyond that, Google is one of the most hated corporations for it. The hate it's about what they did with the power they gained. You can both love and hate something at the same time. Humans have complexity and nuance, don't dismiss that. It's also worth noting that complaints are more vocal than complements. If things are working well t…

It's less a statement about the absolute hatred that Google gets, and more about Google using collected data to target you with ads is the most hated thing about Google (directly or indirectly).

Google pretty much figure out how to take an attribute that every human has (desire) and turn that into indefinite sustainable (and growing!) services for every living human no money required. Role the clock back 25 years and this idea is so powerful and utopian, no wonder Googlers were riding on top of the world. Anyone on Earth of any background and any wealth level will be able to have web search, e-mail, an office suite, maps, youtube, a blog, data storage, all the tools you need for productive online life, for free, for everyone. I cannot think of any business idea more progressive than that.

However, the point is that the above is inseparable from Google's data collection. There is no other solution to achieving the above. None. It's either data collection or pay walls. Walls that naturally run along the huge wealth divides globally, and leave behind those who need it most.

So I suppose at heart the question is: If free services for all humans and mass scale data collection are two sides of the same coin, is this something that we want or something we need to avoid?

(I know people are itching to call false-dichotomy, but lets be real, nothing in 25 years that isn't money-based or ad-based has gained meaningful VC money i.e. VCs dont buy into "donation based" models)

Post reply on HN