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

Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 428 posts

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#201

Post by anonymousab »

323 wrote: post #32

Let's not blame a whole company for what some small part of it did. Google does a lot of good in this world. They were the first "ethical" tech company, the first tech company with "hacker values" at heart. "do no evil" is still a core value there.

> Let's not blame a whole company for what some small part of it did.

Let's absolutely blame them. Titanic power requires titanic responsibility, and requires titanic consequences for shirking or betraying that responsibility.

These companies make a tradeoff, playing fast and loose in order to move faster at their scale. But the consequence of that tradeoff is that, when they do stumble, when they do commit evil, the hammer must come down all the fiercer. Because they knowingly choose a structure and a way of operating that was prone to such outcomes.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#202

Post by karaterobot »

This is a list of accusations, right? This is all pre-trial, so a journalist would want to put the word "alleged" in front of this rather than writing it up as though they'd discovered the undisputed truth? Just checking, I know it's not going to make a difference. Not a fan of Google at all, but I do like to pretend there's a process.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#203

Post by webmaven »

tata71 wrote: post #112
ganzuul wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reputation.

Merit-based society.

Meritocracy sounds pretty good in principle, until you realize that 'merit' is usually defined by whoever happens to be in power, and thus often ends up entrenching and perpetuating existing power structures.

It is convenient to be thought of as having attained your position by merit, and also to be able to define the criteria by which others must seek to displace or succeed you.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#204

Post by dang »

greenyoda wrote: post #2

Big discussion of the original source (the 173-page antitrust complaint that's referenced in this tweet): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28975222 A full article on Jedi Blue: "Google acknowledges it foresaw possibility of probe of 'Jedi Blue' advertising deal with Facebook" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28975782 A big discussion of an article on "Project NERA": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=289747…

Also related:

An enormous thread on alleged Google Facebook collusion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28965949 - Oct 2021 (335 comments)

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#205

Post by webmaven »

goldenkey wrote: post #149
hamilyon2 wrote: post #98

I sometimes wonder, what if there was a universal governing principle, that was simple to enforce, obvious, formulated in few words, so that everyone understands it. All those priveleges which every of theese corporations enjoy, some simple, like not publishing schematic for 1000$+ device, some complex, like making backroom deals harming millions of people in a some insignificant and obscure way daily, like showing c…

A world of B-corps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation Unfortunately, just like with non-profits, these designations just end up being gamed. You can't rule out evil because evil thwarts rules. Sometimes evil even makes rules to rule out good. It's a nice thought though.

> You can't rule out evil because evil thwarts rules.

Nice turn of phrase! I'm stealing it.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#206

Post by multiplegeorges »

hamilyon2 wrote: post #98

I sometimes wonder, what if there was a universal governing principle, that was simple to enforce, obvious, formulated in few words, so that everyone understands it. All those priveleges which every of theese corporations enjoy, some simple, like not publishing schematic for 1000$+ device, some complex, like making backroom deals harming millions of people in a some insignificant and obscure way daily, like showing c…

Currently, companies have to put the needs of shareholders first above all else.

It could be changed through legislation that companies need to put the needs of all *stake*holders first.

This would mean chemical companies would have to take into account pollution past what is allowed by regulation, this would mean that Google would have to at least consider the well-being of web users as a whole when making decisions.

And, I believe, this would give people the basis on which to sue a company if they didn't take all stakeholders' interests into account, like creating a program like Jedi Blue.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#207

Post by A__Account »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #63
qnsi wrote: post #8

What can we as people in top 1% with 1) information about big tech abuses 2) skills to fix this do? Individually we can use browsers like firefox or brave and probably donate time or money to them, but I think it's not enough. I think we would need something like a movement against those abuses, but probably the biggest win would be a business model that could win with them in the free market. Is this possible? Has a…

I tell everyone about Firefox and uBlock Origin. Blocking YouTube ads is enough of an argument to convince anyone to at least try it out. I've never seen someone who didn't love the ad-free web experience. It's actually safe to just install this software on random computers: people's quality of life will be invisibly yet thoroughly improved, they will notice that things are just better even if they can't explain why.…

Firefox barely runs though. I've had to start opening up Edge just to get Reddit to load because FF slows to such a crawl.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#208

Post by jrmg »

notjustanymike wrote: post #111
aasasd wrote: post #43

> Re: forced Chrome logins. Don't need cookies if you own the browser! ( https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/145209451374118912... ) The swindle with FLOC was pretty obviously tied in this, but people still went in circles discussing whether it's private or not, and downvoting those who said FLOC is a trap. Let's consult the plan, nothing is even secret about this: - Google disables third-party cookies, crippli…

Well they dropped the "don't be evil" motto a while back.

That’s actually a myth. Check out the last line here: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#209

Post by monkeybutton »

mysterydip wrote: post #185
monkeybutton wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google also runs their own public DNS servers which afaik Chrome defaults to. They can just sit server side waiting for DNS lookups of domains they've never seen before and queue them up for the Google bot. No browser telemetry needed.

Why does chrome need to use DNS other than what I have set up through my IP stack? How does that work for inranet sites?

Because they see their solution as more secure. Intranet sites still work because Chrome only prefers their DNS first, it will still use your system settings if it doesn't work.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#210

Post by salawat »

Zenax wrote: post #16
qnsi wrote: post #8

What can we as people in top 1% with 1) information about big tech abuses 2) skills to fix this do? Individually we can use browsers like firefox or brave and probably donate time or money to them, but I think it's not enough. I think we would need something like a movement against those abuses, but probably the biggest win would be a business model that could win with them in the free market. Is this possible? Has a…

Data intermediaries - our data is placed there, like our cash in a bank - and Fuckerberg and Co have to pay us for access. Like the banks pay us interest for giving them cash. Point being Google, FB, Twitter et al pay out more and get less and therefore are less exploitative douchebags whose activities and unintended consequences at scale are also less. Well explained here - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Np5ri-KktNs

Poison pill. You're assuming and entrenching the practice of gathering such heaps of data and tracking behavior are okay to do in the first place. Remember, the money is a symptom of the root problem. A microcosm of humanity has built a surveillance infrastructure to monitor the rest with no consent. That's the problem.
Post reply on HN