Live data from Hacker News

Google Hates You

sfgate.com

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Google Hates You

#31
post #22

It's important for everyone to have their own brand. Matt Levine won't be as impacted by this as this writer. You've got to focus on making it easy to find your content and having it delivered to my email is about as convenient as it gets.

It is probably worth noting Drew very much does have his own brand as a co-founder of Defector.com. While not as popular as Levine’s money stuff, Defector.com survives on user subscriptions alone and a lot of URL requests are direct. Drew freelances for SFGate, and with that said I think he’s writing from the perspective of his “freelancer hat” and lamenting the impact “Google Zero” will have on websites around the world dependent on Google’s traffic.

Re: Google Hates You

#32

As a reminder the mission of Google is: >Google’s mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. Its mission is not to give traffic to websites. If websites are a bad way for users to get information due to endless rambling or obnoxious ads then don't be surprised if that information is made more accessible. It's like if Google Maps didn't have things like business hours…

They didn’t fix that when they were removing “don’t be evil”? Interesting oversight.

They didn't remove don't be evil.

Re: Google Hates You

#33
post #6

Also, I'm pretty sure Microsoft and Meta hate me as well. Honestly, if every major tech company dislikes me at this point, I'm starting to suspect it's a 'me' problem.

I always find titles like “Google Hates You” a bit weird. People usually argue that employees are not personally responsible for bad company decisions, that criticism should be aimed at the corporation itself, not at random engineers or designers working there. But then we turn around and assign human emotions to the corporation anyway.

A company cannot literally “hate” anyone. It has no feelings, intentions, or consciousness. So who exactly is supposed to hate you here? The CEO? The executives? The leadership team? Every single employee at Google? And who is “you,” exactly? Billions of users spread across the planet?

I get the point the title is trying to make, but it feels more accurate to say that Google optimizes for incentives that are often misaligned with users, not that it emotionally despises them.

Re: Google Hates You

#34
I find it pretty funny, that in an article decrying goggle's abusive behavior, the screenshot they link (which obviously needs to be a video) is a link to a goggle owned property:

> Look at this horrible s—t. Look at it!

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6EBMG8OEBI

No, I'm not going to look at it, and neither should you...

Re: Google Hates You

#35
post #6

Also, I'm pretty sure Microsoft and Meta hate me as well. Honestly, if every major tech company dislikes me at this point, I'm starting to suspect it's a 'me' problem.

I always find titles like “Google Hates You” a bit weird. People usually argue that employees are not personally responsible for bad company decisions, that criticism should be aimed at the corporation itself, not at random engineers or designers working there. But then we turn around and assign human emotions to the corporation anyway. A company cannot literally “hate” anyone. It has no feelings, intentions, or cons…

[dead]

Re: Google Hates You

#36
post #6

Also, I'm pretty sure Microsoft and Meta hate me as well. Honestly, if every major tech company dislikes me at this point, I'm starting to suspect it's a 'me' problem.

I always find titles like “Google Hates You” a bit weird. People usually argue that employees are not personally responsible for bad company decisions, that criticism should be aimed at the corporation itself, not at random engineers or designers working there. But then we turn around and assign human emotions to the corporation anyway. A company cannot literally “hate” anyone. It has no feelings, intentions, or cons…

First, what you are arguing is that a corporation itself has no feelings, is merely an algorithm, and that projecting human emotions onto a company is meaningless.

However, based on my general observation, a company's primary purpose is often the self-actualization of its owner. People usually cite monetization as a corporate goal, but since owners rarely hate money, the two usually go hand in hand. In reality, though, an owner's self-actualization takes precedence even in the face of clear financial losses. From that perspective, the employees hired by the company also bear a certain degree of responsibility.

Of course, I don't think that is inherently bad. You can't just divide everything into a moral dichotomy of good and evil; it's a deeply intertwined issue of desire, greed, and self-actualization (such as doing the exact research one aims for through massive corporate R&D investments).

Your point is valid, but it relies on extreme reductionism. For example, I might think a particular nation's system is flawed. A country has its merits, yet we still "hate" specific countries. But when you think about it, a nation is just a system too, isn't it?

Ultimately, we just speak selectively based on these cognitive frameworks. You could argue that Google's employees are entirely blameless, or you could argue they are serving an evil system. It’s merely a difference in perspective.

What is absolutely certain, however, is that Google's current form of business has completely upended the existing economic structure. Whether this is a net positive or negative remains to be seen. In the future, Google might pivot its business model to pay high-quality creators directly, but the real issue is that this new system leaves everyone highly susceptible to being subjugated by Google.

Realistically, we cannot predict everything in such a complex future, nor can we say this is definitively bad. Google users have a desire to find answers more easily, while content creators have a desire to make a living off their work. Striking that compromise is exactly what makes this so difficult.

Re: Google Hates You

#37
post #6

Also, I'm pretty sure Microsoft and Meta hate me as well. Honestly, if every major tech company dislikes me at this point, I'm starting to suspect it's a 'me' problem.

I always find titles like “Google Hates You” a bit weird. People usually argue that employees are not personally responsible for bad company decisions, that criticism should be aimed at the corporation itself, not at random engineers or designers working there. But then we turn around and assign human emotions to the corporation anyway. A company cannot literally “hate” anyone. It has no feelings, intentions, or cons…

> it feels more accurate to say that Google optimizes for incentives that are often misaligned with users, not that it emotionally despises them.

Oh, no doubt. But it's a lot, lot less fun, eh?

Still, I'll push back on the vague sense of jargon-esque doublespeak: Google's management frequently make decisions that do work against the best interests and the desires of its users.

Re: Google Hates You

#39

Can someone solve this equation for me. I give google content and they pay me in traffic. Why would I give Google my content if they stop paying me for it?

If they can just take it, why would they pay you for it?

Re: Google Hates You

#40
post #5

i guess i don't blame a writer who's job is threatened by this technology to write a piece like this. but the perspective is ultimately one where they are complaining about how it affects them, without regard to the end user. it's the same as toll booth operators complaining about fastpass

It's more like a company unaffiliated with the toll booth offering a better deal that lets you avoid the toll booth, pocketing all the money, and the road becoming unusable from lack of maintenance.
Post reply on HN