Why we're saying no to Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#11

Post by guitarbill » Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 1:58 AM UTC

pb7 wrote: post #10

mhkool wrote: post #3

This behaviour of Google shows that the fines of the EU are still not high enough.

It shows me to me that the EC shouldn’t have meddled to begin with. Android is free but Google isn’t providing it out of the goodness of its heart. If it can’t recoup its costs from offering the Google suite of apps (including search), then Android will be monetized by other search engines paying to be included in the options. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I'd be okay with your objection if I could pay to have the spying/data gathering turned off, like the Kindles offer with ads/no ads. But you can't, probably because the world would go crazy if someone finally puts a price on personal data.

Sucks if their business model isn't profitable with current legislation, but they aren't the first company something like that has happened to. And they're hardly a bastion of ethics and morality, which is fine (I'm not stupid and realize how companies work), but I find it hard to feel like there's a great injustice here.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#12

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 2:44 AM UTC

joelx wrote: post #6

chupa-chups wrote: post #2

This sounds like 'I want money by being "not google" and thus people have to like me'. The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users. Which is nice, but if you want that I support tree planting initiatives explicitly (which I do), why don't you just encourage someone doing just that, maybe by point…

The ongoing attacks on Google are crazy to me. Google has done wonders for all of us - remember how terrible search engines used to be? Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps? In my opinion these attacks are a paid PR driven distraction from the truly evil actors in the world - see the losses of freedom for people in Hong Kong or citizens of Russia who been impr…

Those were all achieved pre-IPO. The MBAs run Google now and they want unconstrained growth at all costs. Socially conscious principles are worthless distractions to these people.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#13

Post by pmoriarty » Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 2:54 AM UTC

joelx wrote: post #6

chupa-chups wrote: post #2

This sounds like 'I want money by being "not google" and thus people have to like me'. The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users. Which is nice, but if you want that I support tree planting initiatives explicitly (which I do), why don't you just encourage someone doing just that, maybe by point…

The ongoing attacks on Google are crazy to me. Google has done wonders for all of us - remember how terrible search engines used to be? Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps? In my opinion these attacks are a paid PR driven distraction from the truly evil actors in the world - see the losses of freedom for people in Hong Kong or citizens of Russia who been impr…

Google is a business built on mass surveillance.

I'd gladly go back to pre-Google search and MapQuest if they weren't based on mass surveillance as well. Sadly, they were. Many if not most internet businesses are. The problem runs much deeper than Google, but they're one of the biggest offenders.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#14

Post by nugget » Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 2:59 AM UTC

chupa-chups wrote: post #2

This sounds like 'I want money by being "not google" and thus people have to like me'. The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users. Which is nice, but if you want that I support tree planting initiatives explicitly (which I do), why don't you just encourage someone doing just that, maybe by point…

Ecosia has its own narrative to push but the real problem is much deeper than that.

By setting up an auction system, Google has effectively ensured that ALL of the options on the screen will be Google search syndication partners, because no primary search competitor (Bing/Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu) can afford to compete in EU countries. Google will give up some app market share but all search traffic will flow back to them at what is likely to be a very low TAC. If I'm Google, I just view this new TAC as part of a separate, on-going EU fine.

Google is very clever in their approach to these regulatory challenges. However, the EU anti trust authorities are more aware and empowered than ever before. It will be interesting to watch how this develops.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#15

Post by sarcasmOrTears » Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 2:59 AM UTC

joelx wrote: post #6

chupa-chups wrote: post #2

This sounds like 'I want money by being "not google" and thus people have to like me'. The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users. Which is nice, but if you want that I support tree planting initiatives explicitly (which I do), why don't you just encourage someone doing just that, maybe by point…

The ongoing attacks on Google are crazy to me. Google has done wonders for all of us - remember how terrible search engines used to be? Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps? In my opinion these attacks are a paid PR driven distraction from the truly evil actors in the world - see the losses of freedom for people in Hong Kong or citizens of Russia who been impr…

They just had to keep themselves out of politics, but they did not and now they're hated from the left and the right.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#16

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 3:03 AM UTC

nugget wrote: post #14

chupa-chups wrote: post #2

This sounds like 'I want money by being "not google" and thus people have to like me'. The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users. Which is nice, but if you want that I support tree planting initiatives explicitly (which I do), why don't you just encourage someone doing just that, maybe by point…

Ecosia has its own narrative to push but the real problem is much deeper than that. By setting up an auction system, Google has effectively ensured that ALL of the options on the screen will be Google search syndication partners, because no primary search competitor (Bing/Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu) can afford to compete in EU countries. Google will give up some app market share but all search traffic will flow back to the…

> because no competitor (Bing/Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu) can afford to compete in EU countries

You're saying that Google syndicators value a unit of traffic more highly than Bing/Yahoo/Yandex/Baidu do? That does not seem especially likely to me. Perhaps in some small countries, but I would be surprised if Bing, Yandex, and Baidu don't bid in e.g. France, Germany, etc.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#17

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 3:06 AM UTC

deogeo wrote: post #4

> By artificially limiting user options, Google is creating scarcity where there is none. Does this refer to only the default selections screen, or will users be unable to choose a search provider that doesn't participate in the auction? I.e. there's no "other" option to type in a URL?

The FAQ on the auction page clearly indicates that users will be able to select whatever search provider they want, after device set up. This just affects the options that are shown at device setup. Google is using a price mechanism to determine who should be included in the pre-installed set of search providers, essentially.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#18

Post by reaperducer » Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 3:13 AM UTC

chupa-chups wrote: post #2

This sounds like 'I want money by being "not google" and thus people have to like me'. The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users. Which is nice, but if you want that I support tree planting initiatives explicitly (which I do), why don't you just encourage someone doing just that, maybe by point…

The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users

I don't really care what Ecosia's motive is; I never even heard of it before now. What Google is doing is simply wrong. Anyone who can't see that has been in the SV bubble too long.

"Oh, the EU says we have to give people a choice to promote fairness and competition? Let's figure out how to make money off of it!"

It would be interesting if none of the other search engines participate in this auction. Then what is Google going to do? Ignore the EU and suck up another billion dollar fine?

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#19

Post by reaperducer » Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 3:19 AM UTC

joelx wrote: post #6

chupa-chups wrote: post #2

This sounds like 'I want money by being "not google" and thus people have to like me'. The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users. Which is nice, but if you want that I support tree planting initiatives explicitly (which I do), why don't you just encourage someone doing just that, maybe by point…

The ongoing attacks on Google are crazy to me. Google has done wonders for all of us - remember how terrible search engines used to be? Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps? In my opinion these attacks are a paid PR driven distraction from the truly evil actors in the world - see the losses of freedom for people in Hong Kong or citizens of Russia who been impr…

remember how terrible search engines used to be? Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps?

You seem to be under the impression that Google is the only company that could have achieved this. Fastmail is proof that this is simply not true. Google was the leader, and used slimy tactics to kill competition wherever it could. That's not innovation, that's monopoly.

Here's the corollary to your statement:

"Remember how great the internet was when there were lots of choices for services? Remember when web sites competed to produce the best content in order to attract readers, instead of gaming Google's SEO? Remember when sites didn't have to make separate AMP versions of their content? Remember when you could surf the web and not be tracked from site to site to TV to store? Remember when your credit card purchases were between you and your bank, and not handed over to a Mountainview advertising company? Remember when you bought into an internet service and it would keep running until it went out of business, instead of just being randomly terminated for no reason?" I could go on.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#20

Post by Causality1 » Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 3:20 AM UTC

>Android users deserve the option to freely choose their search engine, and that choice should not be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Man, Google is getting some SERIOUS mileage out of removing "Don't Be Evil" from their mission statement.