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

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: The Voice of Google

#121

Post by glimshe »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #106
glimshe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the top names had unique, great cultures at some point. Early Microsoft was awesome, as well, I hear, early Apple.

Early Microsoft (well, and current micorsoft) did not/does not shower their employees with massive stock grants. Google was one of the first tech companies to pay so well that people switched industries to get into tech both to work alongside brilliant people from various backgrounds and to make a lot of money. Before Google, it was very rare for an independent contributor/software engineer in tech to retire early if…

It did not shower people with grants but I met plenty of people who made a killing with post IPO stocks and pay at Microsoft. It also had a great culture with vibrant campus life, lectures, free soda and other things that were uncommon at the time.

Re: The Voice of Google

#122

Post by khurs »

dansquizsoft wrote: post #87
kccqzy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Off-topic somewhat, but NYT once tried to convince their readers to call Elizabeth Holmes "Liz" and not send her to jail after her fraud conviction. The implication being that it was a highly paid puff piece. They lost a lot of credibility with me that day.

What the media stay silent on is often worse than what they publish.

Media is materially controlled by the state in each county, some hide it very well.

Re: The Voice of Google

#123

Post by inigyou »

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…

Nobody hated Google for making search, they hated Google for converting search from search into a money grab.

Re: The Voice of Google

#124

Post by Grimblewald »

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…

I think google hate is summarised nicely by their removal of the "do no evil" slogan.

Re: The Voice of Google

#125

Post by inigyou »

dismalaf wrote: post #113
hn_acc1 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it wasn't for Google (and ads), my bank might not have even considered selling my data.. They only sold the credit bureaus in the past, AFAIK. Now it's considered a "must have"..

Lol, traders and hedge funds are 100x more interested in the data banks have than advertisers.

¿Por qué no los dos?

Re: The Voice of Google

#126

Post by QuantumGood »

WarmWash wrote: post #70
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…

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…

A one point a very hated thing was how they defrauded advertisers using their services. They have increased the fraud over time, so that hate hasn't gone away.

Re: The Voice of Google

#127

Post by WarmWash »

godelski wrote: post #114
WarmWash wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what is the alternative, and why is it better? An Apple-esque internet that gets you a full google-like suite of services, along with news and other general entertainment, all ad/tracking free, but for a cool $300/mo? User friendly, pro-consumer, but only for those who can afford it? I genuinely struggle to say that a user friendly internet that cuts out 80% of the current global internet user base because they a…

> But what is the alternative, and why is it better? Is this a legitimate question? There's hundreds of projects working on alternatives[0]. There's also... you know... the internet before Google took over. So I'm not quite sure what you're actually asking here. Is this some kinda "gotcha"? > An Apple-esque internet Let me stop you right there. No one wants that either. We want to * go back to* a free and open intern…

I've been on the internet since the mid 90's, and thankfully grown up since then. People don't want to work for free, and the people who are paid to work produce far better products for far wider audiences. This is just flatly true

So having established that, repeatedly, over 30 years, it's clear that a functioning internet needs money (what a surprise) to run optimally.

You hand wave away my first point and didn't provide any examples. So please, give me a service or product with mass-market penetration (read: you can frequently find people on the street using it) that isn't ad-funded or direct payment funded. It's hard to come up with one, much less five, much less the tens of thousands that would need to exist.

Re: The Voice of Google

#128

Post by frollogaston »

georgemcbay wrote: post #23

> “We need moon shots,” Larry would say, big, world-­changing ideas and initiatives, to make employees excited about innovating again. (Curing cancer wasn’t necessarily a moon shot, he once suggested, since it would only extend the average human life span by about three years.) And yet I'd much prefer to have one kid with cancer be saved and allowed to live an average lifespan than to have thousands of old rich peopl…

What they instead did during that period was give thousands of people in Africa thousands of chat apps

Re: The Voice of Google

#129

Post by mannanj »

warkdarrior wrote: post #93
mannanj wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, please point to the statistics showing that most people on Earth are depressed.

What have you looked through already and what kinds of sources do you consider reputable and trustworthy?

Asking because there's a lot of trolling and hostility disguised as curiosity on hacker news lately, and I've wasted a lot of time engaging with these people. Not saying thats you or the guy above you, but I'm not open to spending my time only to receive a dismissive and hostile response discounting my sources when your preferences (obviously different from every other person) would point to different level of burden of proof.

In which case I'm curious, why haven't you already looked for this? What's stopping you? or did you check and couldn't corroborate - why would I answer then for someone who has already started with dismissiveness and demonstrated a filtering perception that won't be open minded? I find it akin to talking to a wall when someone asks for proof when they've already made up their mind that it cannot exist.

Re: The Voice of Google

#130

Post by gghackernewsgg »

mannanj wrote: post #129
warkdarrior wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, please point to the statistics showing that most people on Earth are depressed.

What have you looked through already and what kinds of sources do you consider reputable and trustworthy? Asking because there's a lot of trolling and hostility disguised as curiosity on hacker news lately, and I've wasted a lot of time engaging with these people. Not saying thats you or the guy above you, but I'm not open to spending my time only to receive a dismissive and hostile response discounting my sources wh…

Hi again

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

No need for that in particular. What I would appreciate evidence for is this part specifically:

> the technical addiction and attention economy that has created more depression and a lower quality of life for most people on earth.

Basically, a source or sources demonstrating all of the following:

1. "Technical addiction" (presumably meaning internet, smartphone, social media etc) is present in the majority of the worldwide population.

2. Technical addiction is the cause of depression (not just associated with depression)

3. Most people on Earth have depression.

4. The overwhelming majority of cases of depression are caused by a technical addiction.

> What have you looked through already

I didn't look up anything in particular in reaction to your message because I was already familiar with plenty of the research on adjacent subjects. For example, I know that while there is a strong correlation between excessive use of digital devices/social media and depression, causation is notoriously difficult to established. I also know that depression prevelance worldwide is far below 50%. Taken together, these made me skeptical of the claim.

But then again, I'm no expert on this topic, and I've been out of the loop for the past 2-3 years, so perhaps there have been some new developments that I'm unaware of, or maybe I'm just not reading the situation correctly. Hence my request. I'm not here to troll.

> and what kinds of sources do you consider reputable and trustworthy?

I'm only asking for the sources that your claim was based on, whatever they may be. I do not expect you to do extensive research for me. But it was a strong claim that you made, so I presumed it was based on some source(s) that you consider trustworthy. If they're easy for you to pull up real quick, I would appreciate the links. If it's too much of a hassle, I understand and no worries at all.

Post reply on HN