Once a company has too much power, the physics of corporations states that it will be abused: https://medium.com/@ad_insider/googles-latest-monopoly-trick...
Don't Trust Google (2002)
51–60 of 87 posts
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#52And 14 years later there still "is no evidence or even reason to suspect that Google is not being an honest broker. The searches give good results, the rankings seem fair, the service remains free, and we haven’t heard of anyone being arrested for running a dodgy query." So while the author is right about potential dangers mentioned in the penultimate paragraph, it's been more than a decade and those fears haven't re…
Google itself might have remained relatively benign, but the fears have absolutely materialised on the government side. Google is now clearly being used as a point of central control over the internet with the "right to be forgotten", the NSA interceptions, etc. The fact the internet made this far has been largely due to its decentralised nature. The point of the article was that centralisation of any of its functions undoes that robustness.
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#53Something like 5 out of the first 16 comments on this post were all from accounts (1 each) created under 1 hour ago. Weird.
and they're all anti-Google, something smells.
They're not anti-Google for crying out loud. It's the same thing as saying you're afraid of heights. No they're not. They're afraid of falling.
Not anti-Google/Heights
They're anti-Exploitation/Falling
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't surprising. There are lots of reasons why people are unwilling to put their "primary" HN account at risk when they want to say something which can be used against them (or simply down voted into oblivion). When I worked at Google I was very careful about what I said outside of Google, there is very little the company doesn't know about its employees. Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your calibratio…
> Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your > calibration scores and that translates into real money. Based on the successful career progressions of several well-known troublemakers at Google, I believe this statement is not currently accurate (if it ever was).
Can you name some names?
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your calibration scores and that translates into real money. Wow. Did you actually see first hand anyone who was punished by Google for things said outside the workplace? And did this extend to topics other than Google?
I remember some of michaelochurch's comments that mentioned Steve Yegge at Google: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5017446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4462217
Who, you will note, did NOT get in trouble for his public stuff according to michaelochurch's posts.
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember some of michaelochurch's comments that mentioned Steve Yegge at Google: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5017446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4462217
Who, you will note, did NOT get in trouble for his public stuff according to michaelochurch's posts.
Yes, but michaelochurch's point was about why.
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> filtering / censorship of results Could you please elaborate on this one?
What is wrong with HN that simple questions with no obvious agenda are getting downvotes? It's becoming impossible to have even a simple conversation here any more. (sorry, yes, rant ..., and far more deserving of downvotes than the parent)
Not to open up a whole other can of worms here, but I've heard people blame Reddit for an influx of downvote brigade types.
Regardless of where they're coming from, I know what you mean. I wish at the very least we'd see more questions or rebuttals or whatever being replied to the posters.
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps not yet but they have amassed all the data the author describes and much more. For example, I just drove half way across the UK. Google knows that because I was using Google maps. I stopped at Pizza Hut. Google knows that. I stopped at a BP garage. Google knows that. I searched for houses in an area in the UK via right move. Google knows that because the embedded map knows my Google cookie... And so forth...…
Google doesn't specifically know you stopped at Pizza Hut or the BP garage. It uses coarse location (GPS being too taxing on battery to get constant location updates) which has an accuracy of 100+ meters. So it would know you stopped somewhere around the Pizza Hut, but not specifically that you went inside. Could have just as easily gone to the Tesco next door.
If you have an android phone you may want to check out your location history: https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0
Certainly far better than 100 meters in my case.
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because in this instance, the argument/discussion is about the phone specifically, not Google Maps. When my phone is on stand-by, like when I'm driving and not using the GPS, the phone will rely on less battery-taxing things like triangulation, Wi-Fi AP's that Google knows (MAC/SSID ?). Google Maps would however use GPS when it is on, not when the user hasn't specifically turned it on.
> I just drove half way across the UK. Google knows that because I was using Google maps. I think you're a little confused.
> I think you're a little confused.
It's you who's confused (as you said previously, no offence). The post you replied to talked about "I just drove half way across the UK. Google knows that because I was using Google maps", and the mention of not using highest resolution is about Google (not Maps) using other means to determine location. Clear difference between Google Maps and Google.
Silly technicalities, don't know what the downvote was for, was only trying to help your initial confusion :)
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#60um, so what happened to the p2p search engine?