Google responds to the Mocality blog post • Hacker News Board

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#131

Post by VMG » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 7:43 PM UTC

okal wrote: post #107

Steko wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a hard time coming to grips with the idea of a billionaire company committing outright fraud for ten dollar domain names. The fraudsters may well have been Google employees and/or contractors. I think Willful at metafilter put it best [1]: I worked at Google for a few years. My experience is that it's like any other huge multinational corporation in that there are regional teams that get more or less super…

So presumably, Kenyans have neither normal standards of ethics nor acceptable backgrounds? Like most other posters speaking in favour of Google, Willful displays an arrogance I can't quite understand. I'd be really curious about what you'd have to say if this was some American (or other "acceptable background") startup.

> So presumably, Kenyans have neither normal standards of ethics nor acceptable backgrounds?

I don't know if you are trying to paint him as a racist or if you really are ignorant of Kenya's crime rate

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#132

Post by VMG » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 7:43 PM UTC

okal wrote: post #107

Steko wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a hard time coming to grips with the idea of a billionaire company committing outright fraud for ten dollar domain names. The fraudsters may well have been Google employees and/or contractors. I think Willful at metafilter put it best [1]: I worked at Google for a few years. My experience is that it's like any other huge multinational corporation in that there are regional teams that get more or less super…

So presumably, Kenyans have neither normal standards of ethics nor acceptable backgrounds? Like most other posters speaking in favour of Google, Willful displays an arrogance I can't quite understand. I'd be really curious about what you'd have to say if this was some American (or other "acceptable background") startup.

> So presumably, Kenyans have neither normal standards of ethics nor acceptable backgrounds?

I don't know if you are trying to paint him as a racist or if you really are ignorant of Kenya's crime rate

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#133

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 10:11 PM UTC

icandoitbetter wrote: post #59

AznHisoka wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also reminds me of what AirBnB did with CraigsList. You're right - it's done everyday. And let's face it... will anyone remember a month from now?

Not the same thing at all. Google claimed to represent Mocality - AirBnB did not claim to represent Craigslist.

[deleted]

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#134

Post by mdwrigh2 » Sat, Jan 14, 2012, 11:16 PM UTC

zobzu wrote: post #71

The point here is not if Google is evil or not. Obviously, the heads of Google weren't aware of this scam. The point is that any employee of Google can access such data. And Google holds a lot of data. A real damn lot of data. Moreover, it sounds like it was much more than a lone employee scamming people. It was probably a small organized group. It means you data, and sometimes your business isn't always safe. Thus,…

"The point is that any employee of Google can access such data."

This is just untrue. Only a handful of people at Google have access to each set of data (e-mail, search, etc.), and their access is heavily monitored and restricted. I assure you not every Google employee has access to the kind of data you're worried about.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#135

Post by nknight » Sun, Jan 15, 2012, 4:20 AM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #122

Tichy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? At the most some team inside went rampant and will probably be fired. Aren't there bound to be some black sheep in any organization with 1000s of members? The notion that Google needs to scam some African directory service for profit just seems ridiculous.

> "The notion that Google needs to scam some African directory service for profit just seems ridiculous." Google's management has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to maximize profits. Running an eight person call center with wages competitive for the local market in Kenya is pretty cheap - but apparently not cheap enough, thus the operation was moved to India. This wasn't rouge warriors led by one bad s…

> Google's management has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to maximize profits.

You need to stop using that word, you don't know what it means. "Fiduciary" has nothing to do with "maximizing profits", corporate executives and directors have no such responsibility. You are perpetuating a dangerous, damaging, and extremely ignorant myth pushed by robber-barons as an excuse for their immoral and unethical behavior.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#136

Post by yock » Sun, Jan 15, 2012, 8:05 PM UTC

TallTalesOrTrue wrote: post #117

ori_b wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? Are you sure that people working at Google didn't just do something for their own profit?

The guy talking to businesses wasn't talking on his own behalf. He was representing Google and acting on Google's behalf. It's stupid to suggest that he was doing this for his own profit.

I'm sure his compensation was dependent on his performance.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#137

Post by ori_b » Tue, Jan 17, 2012, 3:02 PM UTC

TallTalesOrTrue wrote: post #117

ori_b wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? Are you sure that people working at Google didn't just do something for their own profit?

The guy talking to businesses wasn't talking on his own behalf. He was representing Google and acting on Google's behalf. It's stupid to suggest that he was doing this for his own profit.

Have you looked at the transcript of his conversation? Would he be using an '@gmail.com' address instead of an '@google.com' address if he was doing it on Google's behalf?