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

Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

zyppy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 309 posts

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#231

Post by hnbad »

simonh wrote: post #215
srswtf123 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but we can agree that IBM powered the holocaust, and that those tattoos on survivor’s arms represented the punch cards for IBM systems, right? Because really, when there’s a profit to be made, American companies are there to fill a “need”, right?

It sounds like German employees in Germany and it’s territories working for the german subsidiary did work for the German government yes, and after the war was declared they did some very shady stuff. Similarly American citizens working for German companies in America did work for the US government during the war. I don’t really see what’s surprising about any of this. The implication seems to be that the US director…

This comment is peak HN. Congratulations.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#233

Post by aix1 »

toast0 wrote: post #68
greatgib wrote: post #52

I was a direct witness of such a brain washing case a few years ago. Google was about to release a new version of Android or of Nexus phones. (I don't remember the exact details) And there was an insider leak, so the details of the innovation were published on internet a few days before the official announcement. Leaks are now very common and often organized by companies, but a few years ago it was not yet the case.…

To some degree, having the work discussed is great. But depending on the way it leaked, it can diminish the focus on the product, and sometimes it can make the official release flop and that's not great. From what I hear, Google has/had a policy/culture of largely free information flow inside the company while not having information flow outside the company; a leak undermines that culture/policy and leads to more loc…

> Google has/had a policy/culture of largely free information flow inside the company

Sadly, this is "had" rather than "has" (it was the latter until a few years ago). As you point out, not least due to leaks.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#234

Post by hnbad »

It's odd to see so many comments siding with Google on this one considering HN historically celebrates small startups "disrupting" existing markets and sides against big monopolists and Google especially.

I wonder if this is a consequence of early-stage underdog startups having grown to significant sizes over time (or being bought out by the more established competitors) and loyalties continuing to align with those companies rather than their original positions.

Maybe the US's political polarization of the discourse around regulating "big tech" (with the anti-regulation Republicans insisting on tight regulations and the "pro-regulation" Democrats siding against it in response) is also having an effect.

I don't know when I last saw so many people implicitly arguing Google is not acting anti-competitively or that antitrust laws are just a pesky legal technicality that is moral and just to guard against by shaping your company's internal communication about your market dominance.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#235

Post by Y_Y »

simonh wrote: post #215
srswtf123 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but we can agree that IBM powered the holocaust, and that those tattoos on survivor’s arms represented the punch cards for IBM systems, right? Because really, when there’s a profit to be made, American companies are there to fill a “need”, right?

It sounds like German employees in Germany and it’s territories working for the german subsidiary did work for the German government yes, and after the war was declared they did some very shady stuff. Similarly American citizens working for German companies in America did work for the US government during the war. I don’t really see what’s surprising about any of this. The implication seems to be that the US director…

Are you just guessing though? There certainly was coordination between IBM in the US and IBM in Nazi Germany even during the war. Look at IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black for example.

We can argue about the scale of involvement and its meaning, but if you're not just speculating you should mention a source.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#236

Post by _nalply »

skybrian wrote: post #8

This is about being careful what you put in writing, because the discovery process for lawsuits will find your carelessly written email and opposing lawyers will take it out of context, and do you want to end up in court years later explaining what you meant? Google has so many employees that they need training to limit the damage from random chatter and speculation. It’s more cumbersome to have to talk about some th…

A hard-of-hearing friend of mine got tired listening to videos. He told me that he sneakily ran speech-to-text software and read the text in a separate window.

In a different vein, when I was younger I didn't understand why people preferred phoning.

I as a Deaf engineer rely on written communication. This exposes myself and people communicating with me to «showing what has been said». I am sure that in my career I missed some important information just because people weren't willing to create a persistent record of communication.

My friend «solved» this problem, but I am sure his interlocutors would be miffed if they knew that.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#237

Post by simonh »

Y_Y wrote: post #235
simonh wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like German employees in Germany and it’s territories working for the german subsidiary did work for the German government yes, and after the war was declared they did some very shady stuff. Similarly American citizens working for German companies in America did work for the US government during the war. I don’t really see what’s surprising about any of this. The implication seems to be that the US director…

Are you just guessing though? There certainly was coordination between IBM in the US and IBM in Nazi Germany even during the war. Look at IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black for example. We can argue about the scale of involvement and its meaning, but if you're not just speculating you should mention a source.

My apologies, I thought it was clear I was speculating. Hence "sounds like" and "that would be incredibly damning". Thanks for the reference.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#238

Post by pjerem »

roenxi wrote: post #203
kmeisthax wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this is that I can't really point to a competition-stifling regulation that actually benefits Google. Copyright and patent law would be the closest thing, but Google's core business isn't selling licensing agreements. They owned the search market way before Android was even a public project, much less the open-core monstrosity it is today. Google got to where it is because it legitimately hunted the…

Can you point to actual harm done by Google that people can't walk away from? I've been working to untangle myself from them for a while. It isn't particularly hard, there are just a lot of really good services that need to be replaced. The only thing I can't evade is the constant snooping all over the web. And that isn't something antitrust regulators are going to be dealing with.

> Can you point to actual harm done by Google that people can't walk away from?

The idea that things such as access to information, mailbox, applications, storage, … should not cost you any money and that it’s acceptable (for the few people who even know) to pay with a log of every move you do.

Just go read any paid app reviews on any of the App Store to read tons of comments like « 1/5 It’s not free ».

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#239

Post by _nalply »

dredmorbius wrote: post #131
hlau wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really surprised to hear that you’re not getting the relevance out of Google. Are most of your searches in a specific domain that’s somehow not covered properly by Google? And is there a search engine that does a better job for you? I’ve tried using services like DDG and find myself falling back to Google more often than not.

The problem is generally typical of online content as a whole given SEO gaming and commercialisation. DDG's bang searches and the ability to fluidly target searches to specific sites with less typing and fewer hops is a key differentiator. The most relevant quality content tends to come from published rather than online sources, or by going direct to source. The Web has been a mistake. That said, Google's SERP page c…

> The Web has been a mistake.

In hindsight, what would have been better?

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#240

Post by robertlagrant »

smhost wrote: post #125
jollybean wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much more simple once you realize that 'language is not reality'. People can use all sorts of language, colloquially, and it can be interpreted in many ways. You could absolutely use language within the company like 'crush the competition' wherein the culture is fully product oriented, great quality, support etc. and 'win the market'. That's perfectly legal and frankly ethical. Legal's job is to protect from scr…

"Language is not reality" is the problem at stake, because language is really how people and organizations think. Language structures the field of possible self-justifications, and it's the ruler against which behaviors are measured. But, like you said, the fact that monopoly-related language is prohibited doesn't change reality. All the prohibition does is that it stops the organization's (and regulators') ability t…

> is really how people and organizations think. Language structures the field of possible self-justifications, and it's the ruler against which behaviors are measured

This works less well when employees are not taught from birth only the language Google's legal team want them to learn.

Post reply on HN