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

European Parliament votes in favour of breaking up Google

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: European Parliament votes in favour of breaking up Google

#151

Post by vdaniuk »

tptacek wrote: post #139
vdaniuk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because surely YC would give up one of their most important generators of competitive advantage willingly. Also, ofc, with you being one of the top HN members would not support that. I don't have any personal benefit from any outcome, but you do. Who is all class now? edit: I am curious, in what way, shape or form "external entity or random event" part of my comment is related to either presence or lack of my c…

It'll be amusing to watch you try to build an intellectually coherent narrative out of (a) insulting strangers for supposed conflicts of interest, as if it was possible to do that without directly questioning their integrity, and (b) openly suggesting that coercive force be used to shut down a forum that happens to host arguments you don't agree with.

You are being disingenuous.

(a) "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." "The conflict in a conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests."

It is reasonable to believe that a person discussing his employer on public forum creates a RISK that his posting decisions MAY be unduly influenced.

Stating that a conflict of interest exists doesn't question the integrity of the person per se. I am not sure why would you choose a COI definition that is easily disproven by Wikipedia.

(b) Simple. That is not what I said. "suggesting that coercive force to be used to shut down" != "[to] be not against some external entity or random event shutting down".

And finally, (c). You were the one going full ad hominem without addressing anything in my original argument.

I don't get your motivation, though. It is obvious that HN is skewed in UX/UI and in the discussion contents in the favor of YC and YC alumni. That's the point. What is your reason to be aggressive about that?

Re: European Parliament votes in favour of breaking up Google

#152

Post by gress »

tptacek wrote: post #146
gress wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you can't be this blind to the power imbalance. A Googler defending Google on HN has the backing of one of the most powerful corporations in the industry, and no risk to his future career. Calling out this bias or even being critical of the Google carries potentially huge career risk. Anonymity is a necessity if unpopular opinions are to be heard. And by all means assume I work for a competitor (which I do not…

Anonymity is vitally important to civic discourse, which is why it's so galling when it's recklessly abused for cowardly and pointless drive-by character assassination. But that's what I'd expect to see from a secret shill for Yahoo.

There is no character assassination going on here. I'm simply pointing out the incentives. Bear in mind that DannyBee is also engaging in what you call 'character assasination' on the same basis.

You, on the other hand, are now name calling, denying the power imbalance I mentioned, and accusing me of lying.

Why do you feel the need to put so much emotional energy into defending DannyBee, who seems quite capable of defending himself?

You seem to have clearly deviated from what you call 'civic discourse' - why have you chosen to do that? Does it seem justified by my comment?

If you think so, then ask yourself why it is acceptable for you to break from 'civic discourse', and yet it is not justified for me to do so, as you claim I have. Do you think your opinion is more right, or more likely to receive support?

Re: European Parliament votes in favour of breaking up Google

#153

Post by snuxoll »

richthegeek wrote: post #135
snuxoll wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beats me, both Apple and Microsoft require an account be created to get the most out of their devices and services, but making an account doesn't force you to create a new email address in the process unlike Google.

I suppose it's that 90% of offices around the world use Microsoft products (Windows, Office, etc...) so it's very difficult to not use them both for users (they must use it in work) and for companies (try explaining that you fucked something up because Pages displayed something different to Word) Similarly, massive chunks of the internet rely on Google (and Facebook) for functionality like authentication. Aside from…

> I'd struggle to suggest a different mail provider than gmail such is there monopoly in that space.

Outlook.com is great, I love it more than GMail personally, especially since I can pay a relatively affordable $19/year to get rid of the ads and know that my email provider doesn't have programs scanning every word of every email I send or receive.

Privacy is a feature, you don't get that when using Google services.

Re: European Parliament votes in favour of breaking up Google

#154

Post by snuxoll »

davidgerard wrote: post #133
snuxoll wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only real customer service Google has is for active AdWords advertisers, if you are on the AdSense side or an end-user of any of its other services then good luck getting any real assistance from them. Microsoft has amazing customer service in comparison for its Live services, which is saying a LOT.

That's okay! Google treats its actual customers with contempt, as well as treating its product with contempt.

> as well as treating its product with contempt.

Well, Google's customers are its product, seeing as it lives off ad revenue. :)

I hear what you are saying though, Google doesn't even care about its own services for what they are, just how much data they can collect from them for advertising.

They're in stark contrast to Microsoft who will keep things on life support forever because they think the service provides value to someone since they can prop it up with funds from elsewhere and a little TLC on occasion, because frequently they can spin them differently or make the changes neccesary for them to become profitable on their own (see BPOS to Office 365).

Re: European Parliament votes in favour of breaking up Google

#155

Post by davidgerard »

snuxoll wrote: post #154
davidgerard wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's okay! Google treats its actual customers with contempt, as well as treating its product with contempt.

> as well as treating its product with contempt. Well, Google's customers are its product, seeing as it lives off ad revenue. :) I hear what you are saying though, Google doesn't even care about its own services for what they are, just how much data they can collect from them for advertising. They're in stark contrast to Microsoft who will keep things on life support forever because they think the service provides va…

Yes, I meant the end-users as product :-)

Re: European Parliament votes in favour of breaking up Google

#156

Post by tptacek »

gress wrote: post #152
tptacek wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonymity is vitally important to civic discourse, which is why it's so galling when it's recklessly abused for cowardly and pointless drive-by character assassination. But that's what I'd expect to see from a secret shill for Yahoo.

There is no character assassination going on here. I'm simply pointing out the incentives. Bear in mind that DannyBee is also engaging in what you call 'character assasination' on the same basis. You, on the other hand, are now name calling, denying the power imbalance I mentioned, and accusing me of lying. Why do you feel the need to put so much emotional energy into defending DannyBee, who seems quite capable of de…

I stand by what I said and don't see any need for us to continue talking.

Re: European Parliament votes in favour of breaking up Google

#157

Post by tptacek »

vdaniuk wrote: post #151
tptacek wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be amusing to watch you try to build an intellectually coherent narrative out of (a) insulting strangers for supposed conflicts of interest, as if it was possible to do that without directly questioning their integrity, and (b) openly suggesting that coercive force be used to shut down a forum that happens to host arguments you don't agree with.

You are being disingenuous. (a) "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." "The conflict in a conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the…

I stand by what I said and don't see any need for us to continue talking.

Re: European Parliament votes in favour of breaking up Google

#158

Post by presootto »

gress wrote: post #126
DannyBee wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do work for Google, but i explicitly don't speak for them on HN. I also don't work for Google Legal, and don't work on issues related to this stuff. I have opined on this stuff long before i worked for Google, and will long after. Google literally does not pay me for my views on this. Ben is literally paid for his anti-google views on this stuff. You are of course, welcome to discount whatever you like. You should…

You are part of Google, an you are paid by them. You are invested in Google, and your interests are heavily aligned with them. Claiming that they don't pay you for your views may be true in the sense that this is not an official assignment for you, but to pretend that you are not heavily incentivized to act in what you perceive to be Google's interests is dishonest.

Not every Google employee is part of the sect. Some of us have our own opinions outside of what Google's PR-bullshit department comes up with.

Disclaimer: I work for TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes)

Re: European Parliament votes in favour of breaking up Google

#159

Post by venomsnake »

archgrove wrote: post #39
venomsnake wrote: post #36

EU bureaucracy logic at its best - go after google and microsoft, but we let apple do whatever they want. For me they with their closed ecosystem are both bigger danger and more anti competitive than both Google and Microsoft combined. Or at least force them to accept other web browsers in their store.

Apple don't have anything even vaguely approaching a monopoly in any area. Their market share in everything from phones to computers is 90% for search. You can't have a "Monopoly on the contents of the iPhone app store" any more than Coke has a "Monopoly on the contents of Coke cans", and thus should be forced to fill some with Pepsi.

Apple app store have roughly 100% market share of distributing software to IOS devices.

Safari rendering engine has 100% market share of ios browsers.

Re: European Parliament votes in favour of breaking up Google

#160

Post by Oletros »

ouiya wrote: post #95
Oletros wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using SEPs for suing others is wrong. Source for that?

Does google hire like astroturfers with all their free stuff? I post one comment and I'm downvoted without explanation? Source for what? Are you dumb? It's an opinion. Opinions don't have a source. You can't murder someone. Source for that?

> Google is because they misused SEPs.

Opinion? You stating that they misused SEP's, can you provide a source for that or will you again talk about astroturfers when perhaps people is downvoting you for that nonsense

Post reply on HN