Live data from Hacker News

Google Fights Back

stratechery.com

211–220 of 475 posts

Re: Google Fights Back

#211
post #176

Yet another hit piece. It's disgusting how obvious and desperate these are getting. > To put it more succinctly: “Yes, we collect a lot of data. But that data makes amazing things possible.” I don't like Google, but stating that collecting data is bad just because, doesn't sell it for me. Oh, and this refers to data already available to the general public. It makes me wonder if there is something behind. What's the a…

It could be that it's a hit piece concocted by the secretive privacy cabal, still working at their evil plan to hurt people by making them control their private information and at the same time to inconvenience powerful corporations from doing whatever they want.

There is no privacy cabal that you sarcastically suggest, but there is a lot of money to be made out of paranoia, justified or not. Protonmails worthless encryption, the dubiously safe vpn ads I see everywhere. I tend to see a lot of exaggerations from some privacy oriented companies. I still trust those companies far more, and a sizable portion doesnt try to spread fear and exaggeration, though, but I do believe that a lot of companies are trying to make a ton of money off of paranoia they help create.

Re: Google Fights Back

#212
post #21

>It all begins with our mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful, and today, our mission feels as relevant as ever. I said this 15 years ago and I will repeat it again. Google is like a man selling boats after a dam brake. They are profiting by managing the problem, not by fixing it. It is to their benefit if the problem actually gets worse. In other words, looking at…

There, I fixed it for you:

https://imgur.com/a/enJ3C8V

Re: Google Fights Back

#213
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discovery. From a technical point of view search doesn’t have to be centralized. Economics and the nature of markets may say different though

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I'm not following. How could they solve discovery once and for all, instead of managing it? I don't see how decentralization would permanently solve discovery. I can see how it could be useful in other ways, but you'd still be managing an ongoing problem.

I _think_ the GP's point is that Google is "managing" discovery, i.e., if Google were to up and disappear we would have a large problem on our hands. If search were decentralized then no single entity could bring it down.

Re: Google Fights Back

#214

I'm impressed with the direction Google is taking, and how they've pivoted in the face of public awareness of privacy concerns. I like the Google products and services that I use. There are some that I miss (Reader) and some that just confuse me (Bookmarks), but the core works for me. Based on commentary I've seen, I may be the only person on Hacker News to think so. Regardless, I'm hopeful for the future.

[deleted]

Re: Google Fights Back

#215
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is well taken, but 100 years will anyone care that you had the flu on May 7 2019? >Who the fuck owns MySpace now? It's all deleted. https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/18/18271023/myspace-music-vi...

> but 100 years will anyone care that you had the flu on May 7 2019 My future health care provider might. Maybe they’ll spike rates by figuring out how often I’m ill using this data. Maybe I will marry a congressman someday and the sext that I sent today to my BF will be used to blackmail us. Maybe 30 years from now, people will be able to use my youthful indiscretions as leverage. Maybe I won’t get certain jobs beca…

Maybe they'll lower your rates by figuring out how often you're ill. Similarly with life insurance. Or they might not change.

Maybe someone will try to blackmail you and your congressman husband, but both of you will just shrug, because no one cares at all about nudes. Not even you, after a few more decades of information wanting to be free and becoming free and public.

Maybe it's better that you didn't get those jobs and you find something else. With all the extra data out there, maybe there'll be a service that'll match you up with doing something you really want to do that fulfills your soul instead of sucks it.

Why do you suppose that with more information election manipulation will be one-sided in favor of certain manipulators over other manipulators or even suppressors? I'm told FB does a great job suppressing all kinds of data from spreading, I don't imagine they'll get worse at it. We also have all the other manipulators manipulating in exactly the opposite direction as any particular manipulator you want to call out. Seems like a wash.

Your concerns all boil down to big maybes about mildly increased financial burden and people increasing their sensitivity to private info being exposed despite decades of trends implying the opposite. In the hands of a Caesar, this isn't the power to reshape the Earth at all, especially when it's never going to be in the hands of one entity.

Re: Google Fights Back

#216
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, Google does not sell personal data. They use personal data to sell ads.

They also forward personal data to government agencies when asked, like it or not.

So does the phone company, right? This seems like something everybody should know before they send a text message.

Re: Google Fights Back

#217

In the video, they say they have compressed translate, vision and speech into "just over 100kb." That seems pretty magical. Perhaps it is all server-side?

This is definitely a sneaky twisting of words in my opinion. Maybe they mean the size of the js that powers the app, or something along the size. Even simple dictionaries on my phone are never less then 500kb.

Re: Google Fights Back

#219
post #7

Google owns my soul. Their boxes know when I sleep, when I wake, how much I exercise, what I listen to, my innermost thoughts, my chats with loved ones, what I watched on Netflix last night, what my company does, the flu I have at the moment, what the hypochondriac in me looks up in the middle of the night, what I buy, whom I call, what I spend money on, where I spend it... I nominally pay for these services, but I s…

Google is already not Google. The "Don't Be Evil" corporation that valued open source rather than open-washing, that valued openstandards over "oops, we didn't mean to break that for you!" isn't here anymore. The company that bends over backwards, much farther than the law requires, to enable the surveillance state. I despise Apple. Especially on mobile. No SDCards, no headphone jack, walled garden app stores. Ugh ug…

> But my next phone will be an iPhone.

If it pans out, you may want to wait for the Librem 5[1], that's definitely my next phone.

1 - https://puri.sm/products/librem-5

Re: Google Fights Back

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I'm not following. How could they solve discovery once and for all, instead of managing it? I don't see how decentralization would permanently solve discovery. I can see how it could be useful in other ways, but you'd still be managing an ongoing problem.

I _think_ the GP's point is that Google is "managing" discovery, i.e., if Google were to up and disappear we would have a large problem on our hands. If search were decentralized then no single entity could bring it down.

I mean, there are a bunch of other search engines out there, and I still don't see how having even more would somehow 'solve' search for good.
Post reply on HN