161–170 of 237 posts
I'm asking this seriously. When they pulled out of China, China blocked them, so they effectively lost. But Europe's countries do not block websites. Google could just pull out of those countries, continue to localize content for those countries' languages, and the users, page views, ad revenue wouldn't go anywhere. And those countries wouldn't be able to lay a finger on Google in terms of fines.
What if Google simply pulled out of those countries? I'm asking this seriously. When they pulled out of China, China blocked them, so they effectively lost. But Europe's countries do not block websites. Google could just pull out of those countries, continue to localize content for those countries' languages, and the users, page views, ad revenue wouldn't go anywhere. And those countries wouldn't be able to lay a fin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of rhetoric is coming often from tech giants, travestying words and claiming the exact opposite of what they do in practice. There is an interesting parallel to make here with the Soviet Union: they used to set up puppet states which were nominally sovereign, independent, "people's republic", etc, while in practice were obviously just colonies. I guess extremely powerful institutions founded on abusive prac…
> This kind of rhetoric is coming often from tech giants, travestying words and claiming the exact opposite of what they do in practice. You have provided exactly zero (0) examples of this happening - just accusations. You accuse "tech giants" (whatever that means) of being abusive and deliberately confusing the common person, then you bring up Google's AI infrastructure as an "institution" dressed up in good causes.…
Examples of rhetoric from those companies where they do the opposite of what they say: they often claim "you [the user] are in control". For instance
1. https://privacy.google.com/# ("put you in control") 2. https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info ("make the world more open and connected")
While it's debatable what "in control" is and what "open and connected" means, they make a bold claim without revealing the subtlety of the topic.
Not being honest about user data collection in NSA PRISMA is not exactly putting the user in control.
Google has a track record of deprecating services that were used by a sizable user base, such as Google Reader or Picasa. Shutting these down without even giving them out as open source or providing some migration path is not really letting the users be in control.
Google's core strategy is shifting towards suggestions, away from search. Page and Brin said this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpjOZGxKhRM&feature=youtu.be While it could be argued that suggestions just create assistance like a personal secretary does, Google doesn't just assist on demand, it proactively suggests (and will do more of this, according to Page and Brin), and also shapes users' perception of reality (through Google Search results, which is the topic of the fine). So an entity has pervasive information about a person, does proactive suggestions and shapes their perception of reality is not exactly what I would call a mere assistant. I would compare that role to parenthood, which is consistent with Google's strategies: to know more about you than you know yourself, and to take care of you (which is aligned with their "Don't be evil" / "Do the right thing" motto. It seems they genuinely believe they are benevolent). That is, arguably, Google in control.
Now onto example 2, Facebook has long said it makes the world more open and connected. The mere fact that Facebook holds massive amounts of relevant content locked up behind a login wall means content is not accessible to search engines. This is the exact opposite of an "open" scenario. It's also debatable what they mean by "connected". It sounds like "people connected to each other", but in practice it is "people connected to Facebook", and incidentally also connected to each other. If their goal was to connect people to each other, they would pursue P2P, mesh networks (e.g. https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/ is one implementation), etc that allow local communities to connect with each other and with the external world despite the lack of internet infrastructure. In practice, their internet.org program is widely known to have dropped net neutrality when it was implemented in India and other countries, favoring Facebook's walled garden. This is the opposite of open and connected (e.g. it eliminates interaction with other people on different social networks like forums, Reddit, etc). They have plans to provide internet to regions that lack internet infrastructure through drones and satellites (http://www.computerworld.com/article/2855979/why-google-and-...) but the priority here seems to be getting those people connected to Facebook first, and then connected to other people. Cheaper and quicker solutions could be implemented simply with phones and P2P, allowing people to connect to each other first, and share data in a gossip style which is also scalable.
So there you go, two examples at least. It should be enough to confirm that I am contributing to the conversation, and I'd appreciate if no ad hominen comments are made, they just distract.
What if Google simply pulled out of those countries? I'm asking this seriously. When they pulled out of China, China blocked them, so they effectively lost. But Europe's countries do not block websites. Google could just pull out of those countries, continue to localize content for those countries' languages, and the users, page views, ad revenue wouldn't go anywhere. And those countries wouldn't be able to lay a fin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google wants to give the best search results possible Citation needed. Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns (e.g. manipulating tests results to boost paid advertisers or its own properties) as it has been known to do?
> Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations.
What if Google simply pulled out of those countries? I'm asking this seriously. When they pulled out of China, China blocked them, so they effectively lost. But Europe's countries do not block websites. Google could just pull out of those countries, continue to localize content for those countries' languages, and the users, page views, ad revenue wouldn't go anywhere. And those countries wouldn't be able to lay a fin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only been 5 hours since it was posted, and the story has ~450 upvotes. In contrast, I see another story on the front page right now that was posted 18 hours ago and only has ~250 upvotes.
It could be the algorithm: Maybe the original EU story got many downvotes from HN users that work at Google?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In return EU have healthy job market with ~40hr work week and proper healthcare. Most of EU companies are not trying to keep me as developer in a golden cage, offering me everything so I wouldn't have to go home anymore. There are many healthy business hubs here in Europe (London, Cardiff-Bristol-Bath, Berlin and many others), maybe they do not have that superstar status as SV but they are still good places to be. So…
From what I've seen, salaries in EU tech hubs are significantly lower than in provincial markets in the US - where weeks are close to 40 hours and managers would laugh at paying for lunch or putting in cots so you can spend the night. Most Americans don't work in the tech hubs, yet still earn significantly more on average. FYI, anyone with a decent job in the US has access to some of the best health care in the world…
And have the possibility of seeing their life savings evaporate and facing financial ruin when paying for this health care.
"Our data show that people usually prefer a built-in browser on their start menu by default, not browsers they need to download/install/configure manually" -Microsoft 20 years ago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think these articles make really good points. But they seem completely off-topic. Nothing in there makes the connection between antitrust laws and a Silicon Valley economy.
Not from the US so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US had (and exercised) solid antitrust laws way before Silicon Valley developed? The case of Standard Oil in the early 20th century comes to mind.