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

251–260 of 309 posts

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#251

Post by makeitdouble »

ma2rten wrote: post #243
makeitdouble wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusing interpretations of being "uncharitable" feels really odd when we're talking about communication training material. It's not some Slack thread taken out of context, we're reading quotes from reviewed and crafted material. Also I don't see how changing "Cut off competitors' access to target" to "Integrate target with Google" matches your idealistic view of "focus on our product; competition is good and okay".…

I think you are reading something into it that is not necessarily there. The slides give examples of things that are appropriate to say and are not appropriate to say. It doesn't necessarily mean that one thing has to changed into the other.

That "good vs bad" table doesn't work if the element on the same line don't refer to the same situations/behaviors. The examples above of reneging "Dominant" for "Successful" is a clear example of that.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#252

Post by marcus_holmes »

handoflixue wrote: post #78
marcus_holmes wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read a certain amount of entitlement in TFA too. Like "I deserve to have my site on the front page of Google, rather than its paid advertisers or its own pages". Why? This isn't a government-provided public service. It's a commercial product. Why should they direct traffic to your site for free? They, like everyone else, walk the line between providing an excellent product for customers and creating revenue for sha…

Worth noting that many times, the complaint is that the query is answered by an infobox... and the info in that box is provided by a website... and that website is the one complaining about a lack of clicks, because now people just use Google's scraped answers instead of actually visiting the site. It seems valid to complain that Google is profiting off of a site while simultaneously harming that site's visibility.

> It seems valid to complain that Google is profiting off of a site while simultaneously harming that site's visibility.

I don't understand how Google is "harming the site's visibility" - it still gets some traffic free of charge from Google, right? If Google didn't list the site in the first place, it would be less visible and get less traffic. So I don't understand how Google is harming the site's visibility? Why does Google have an implied responsibility to send all possible traffic to a site it lists?

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#253

Post by lelanthran »

endominus wrote: post #185
imglorp wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's horrifying. I was not aware. The horror is hundreds of IBM employees were directly involved in extermination activities; literally maintaining tabulation machines on prem, as it were, in the camps. I hope every HN reader has the awareness and moral strength to resist, where the corporations are unable, the next time such à job comes. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52879

I wouldn't get my hopes up. The number of times I've seen people, even here, equate legality and morality is frightening.

> I wouldn't get my hopes up. The number of times I've seen people, even here, equate legality and morality is frightening.

I have literally never seen anyone here argue that "murder and genocide isn't morally wrong if it is legally right".

Are you sure you aren't equivocating "I don't support $FOO political position" with "I support murder and genocide"?

Because I have seen a number of people argue that some aspect of their personal moral code, which isn't currently written into law, should be written into law and enforced on the rest of the people who don't have that moral code.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#254

Post by TeMPOraL »

vasco wrote: post #228
equality_1138 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthier way? This is wrong. First, to admit your goal is to crush your competitors is completely appropriate. That is the exact way the market is supposed to work. Thoughts about hiding this inherent part of any businesses strategy is, well, fine for lawyers, but essentially ignorant for engineers. Lawyers are not paid to make things, nor to develop your strategy. They are paid to manipulate laws and the truth. To…

You can win a 100 meter race by having a goal of running sub 8 seconds, or you can win a race by having a goal of crushing the other athletes. It's up to you if during your training you're focused on the times versus on the other athletes. It's also up to you if during the race you're looking left and right to see how fast they're running or if you're just focused on going the fastest you can. I think this is the dif…

Except in the race, your goal is to be the first, not to eliminate your competition. On the market, your goal is literally to crush your competitors in any legally possible way. Making the best product is one way to do it, though not the most effective one.

People seem to forget that the market, as a system of competing actors, doesn't care. It's like the lawnmower/Oracle mentioned elsewhere in the thread. It just doesn't give a damn. All the wealth any member of society enjoys is merely a side effect - the same way the motive force for a car is a side effect of combustion in the ICE. Gasoline doesn't give a damn about you being late for work, it only wants to violently oxidize. We make the market economy work the same way we make a car work - by carefully harnessing powerful forces that, inadequately constrained, are deadly.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#255

Post by krsdcbl »

deathanatos wrote: post #184

This is such an uncharitable interpretation of the training materials. The material there is not saying "if you want to speak about things that raise antitrust concerns, use this coded language", it's saying "don't do these things, and just focus on building a good product". Like, the thing here that really boggles my mind: if the training materials had said literally the exact opposite of what they do: "crush the co…

But it is not training material that tries to convey "focus on the product".

It's literally communication guidelines of a profit oriented company dominating it's market in a monopolistic way that says "avoid talking about market or market share, this is bad"

The only way to have a "charitable" interpretation of this is to partake in their game, imho.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#256

Post by rnhmjoj »

mda wrote: post #197
rnhmjoj wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost never get useful results out of a web search, nowadays, unless the query is very specific (like looking up a website I forgot the domain of). This is not particular to google search, which in fact I don't use anymore. Trying to find information given only fuzzy details almost never produce relevant links; anything remotely commercial, like trying to find a product reviews, film to watch, a store nearby, etc.…

"I almost never get useful results out of a web search" This I find impossible to believe. So you basically don't get any useful results for 80-90% of your searches? I wish you could give some examples.

Ok, here's a few real example where I had only partial (but 100% correct) information had a hard time finding the right answer:

1. There's a shell (program) which feature a built-in file manager inspider by ranger, I forgot its name: try to find it. Answer: [1]

2. There's a particular gas that can (temporarily) kill a smartphone, but you forgot which. Find the article about this. Answer: [2]

3. There's a blog post (well-known if you're into networking) that argues IPv6 was meant to replace MAC addresses. Answer: [3]

[1]: https://elv.sh/

[2]: https://www.ifixit.com/News/11986/iphones-are-allergic-to-he...

[3]: https://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201708#10

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#257

Post by belorn »

slownews45 wrote: post #227
pencilcode wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopolies in the long term tend to lead to higher prices because without good competition what’s the incentive to sell with low profit margins? So, sell cheap for years, kill any competition, then the market is yours and you can do whatever you want to the inevitable detriment of the consumer. The consumer also looses in monopolies.

But the complaints against apple have focused on things they do that at least too me seem helpful and a positive part of my experience with apple. I feel MUCH more comfortable spending money via apple then I do almost anywhere else. Software on the web - endless issues buying / refunding / renewing. And if I don't like apple (which only has like 15% market share) I can switch to any number of android phones. It's jus…

If apple allowed other stores on their phones you could still buy exclusively from apple. All your applications to could have a "verified by apple" sticker.

Nothing prevents apple from providing the exact same experience and still have a setting in the phone that allow third party markets from installing their applications. It would be just like the app store in windows.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#258

Post by _Algernon_ »

titzer wrote: post #32
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…

They also have a corporate email policy where mails get auto-deleted after 18 months, unless you apply labels or are on a litigation hold (which would make such policy completely illegal). The email policy has no other purpose than to limit legal exposure. There is no legitimate business reason for that policy. In fact, it actively harms institutional memory and is frankly Orwellian, IMHO.

How is it Orwellian?

>"Orwellian" is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink), and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson"—a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

Stop overusing terms you don't understand

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#259

Post by Yizahi »

deathanatos wrote: post #184

This is such an uncharitable interpretation of the training materials. The material there is not saying "if you want to speak about things that raise antitrust concerns, use this coded language", it's saying "don't do these things, and just focus on building a good product". Like, the thing here that really boggles my mind: if the training materials had said literally the exact opposite of what they do: "crush the co…

To simplify - if the actions of an entity are bad (or perceived as bad), then whether they are saying truth about those actions or lies - DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL. So yes, indeed, Google will be damned whatever they say, as long as their actions stay the same.

Re: Googlespeak – How Google limits thought about antitrust

#260

Post by 2hatredboned »

throwaway201025 wrote: post #225
tytso wrote: post #25

When I was at IBM 15 years ago, IBM was far from being a monopoly, since there were plenty of competitors in the hardware space (HP, Sun, Dell, etc) and in the software space (Oracle, SAP, etc.) and in the Services space (Accenture, PwC, KPMG, etc.) employees still had to complete annual legal training that was very similar to what was described in the post. Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is…

> Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is going to tell their employees not to say, "our goal is to crush our competitors, dominate the market, and hear the lamentation of their women." I don't think that's true. I work for Samsung and we talk about market share and competitors all the time . I mean, why shouldn't we? Being crystal clear is a very good step to achieve a goal. We need to be more hon…

Somehow related Comic: > //s20.directupload.net/images/210825/v4dbak6h.png ^^

BTW: (Yesterday-News) "News For South African Looters As Samsung Moves To Block Stolen TVs..."

Post reply on HN