Google is FUBAR • Hacker News Board

Re: Google is FUBAR

#61

Post by ellyagg » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 5:46 PM UTC

joebadmo wrote: post #30

spodek wrote: post #22

It just occurred to me a main reason they chose "Don't be evil" as their slogan. The foundation of the company is a slippery slope that will forever motivate it to get more personal information and to do more with it -- generally meaning profiting from that personal information in ways people don't know about. Also, they will forever be asked or demanded that information from governments and other companies who want…

The real problem is people don't really understand the context of "Don't be evil." If you read Steven Levy's In the Plex , or any first-hand account, really, you realize it's more about always thinking about the user experience first. It has nothing to do with personal information. As far as I know, when "Don't be evil" was coined, they used little to no personal information to provide search results.

That doesn't really seem to agree with Paul Buchheit's quote on the wikipedia entry regarding the topic, where he said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out," adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent." I'm pretty sure the plain meaning of the phrase was one of the intended senses, suggesting that any aggressively selfish behavior falls under its umbrella.

It would be a little opportunistic to, on the one hand, have the founders include the following line in a company manifesto: "Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains" and garner all the amazing PR that's come from that association over the years--but then turn around and claim, oh, no, that was really mostly just talking about user experience. And I doubt they'd make that claim.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#62

Post by amstr » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 5:48 PM UTC

0xABADC0DA wrote: post #57

amstr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently when Apple has a unified ecosystem, the purpose is to "perfectly tailor its devices to its users" but if Google does it, it's "maniacal" and "tyrannical"? The state of tech blogging is so, so poor.

Is the state of tech blogging so, so poor or do you just not agree with the conclusions? For instance: "It must force Chrome and Google+ down the throats of users who are simply looking for a brilliant search engine." Google just recently started showing Chrome 'faster internet' ads to Firefox users (before it was only displayed to IE users). This blog is a bit over the top especially with claims like "[Google] searc…

I actually agree with the overall thesis -- Google is integrating its services in emulation of Facebook and Apple in order to become more profitable.

The "poor" parts are 1) the over-the-top sensationalist language and 2) the implication that it's okay or even beneficial for Apple and FB to integrate but that Google has "sold its soul to the capitalist devil" in doing the same.

Regarding the Chrome ads, this would be a complete non-issue in any other industry. Suppose I go to Amazon to buy a computer-related book and am there shown an ad for Amazon Web Services. Are AWS now being shoved down my throat?

Re: Google is FUBAR

#63

Post by chintan » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 5:54 PM UTC

alexgartrell wrote: post #60

cletus wrote: post #50

Disclaimer: I am a Google engineer. These opinions are my own. Nothing I say in any way represents the company's position, officially or unofficially. That being said, I see all this as much ado about nothing. Privacy policies are complex beasts governed by many regulatory environments. Reducing a huge number of these policies to a handful, announcing it ahead of time and giving you controls over privacy all seem lik…

> As far as SPYW goes, it's all about giving the users more relevant results. For the majority of users, Facebook/Twitter results are more relevant than Google Plus results. There's nothing in the rule book that says you can't leverage a successful property to promote another, but it's unfair to everyone to try to pass that off as a move to increase relevance in search results. Disclaimer: I'm a Facebook engineer who…

> For the majority of users

Can I have an independent "authoritative" search engine and "cool" social networking tool. You both have Ad platforms on your respective platforms to "promote" products. Thank you.

Disclaimer: A singleton instance of an average user

Re: Google is FUBAR

#64

Post by smspence » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 5:57 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #12

> Nothing happens on an Apple device without Cupertino’s knowledge, and as a result Apple can perfectly tailor its devices for it users (and ratchet up record-breaking quarterly earnings in the process). Are Apple's devices "perfectly tailored for it[s] users"? I don't see any of that tailoring when I use them. The reason why Apple ratchets up record-breaking earnings is that they build things people want; they build…

"Google is playing with fire... If they break search, they will die."

Please explain how they might "break search". I keep seeing comments on HN about how Google is messing up search, and also G+ is ruining peoples' lives somehow.

I have seen Google do absolutely nothing that you can't opt out of, or just plain ignore. For example, I technically have a G+ account, but I never ever click on G+ and I never actually see or use it, so it has no effect on my search results or my life at all. But i can see how it might add a lot of value for people who choose to use it. Again, i emphasize that it is a choice. Google is not holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use G+. They are never going to sacrifice accurate search by only presenting you with "social" search results.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#65

Post by 5l » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 5:57 PM UTC

joebadmo wrote: post #30

spodek wrote: post #22

It just occurred to me a main reason they chose "Don't be evil" as their slogan. The foundation of the company is a slippery slope that will forever motivate it to get more personal information and to do more with it -- generally meaning profiting from that personal information in ways people don't know about. Also, they will forever be asked or demanded that information from governments and other companies who want…

The real problem is people don't really understand the context of "Don't be evil." If you read Steven Levy's In the Plex , or any first-hand account, really, you realize it's more about always thinking about the user experience first. It has nothing to do with personal information. As far as I know, when "Don't be evil" was coined, they used little to no personal information to provide search results.

I find it interesting that a motto so straight forward a child could understand now requires knowledge of the context and history in which it was coined in order to interpret it correctly.

From the Wikipedia article[0]:

Buchheit, the creator of Gmail, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out," adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent."

a letter from Google's founders:

"Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains."

The intent seems quite straight forward to me, but if we're actually at the stage where we're debating the meaning of "Don't be evil", then perhaps it's already too late.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_evil

Re: Google is FUBAR

#66

Post by spindritf » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 6:01 PM UTC

Ecio78 wrote: post #48

Destroyer661 wrote: post #3

I have a hard time understanding the whole deal everyone is making of Google finally combining the whole ecosystem they have into one nice package. I don't think the author knows that Google already knows what you use in Google docs, they already mine your email to show ads to you, they already do everything he talks about, they're just now going to let you have access to it through search instead of having to go to…

they already mine your email to show ads to you, they already do everything he talks about, they're just now going to let you have access to it through search instead of having to go to mail/reader/youtube/etc individually Uhm ok tell me if you like this scenario: * I'm fed up of my employeer so I'm sending tons of jobs applications from my personal gmail account * I dont write these mails while at work, but sometime…

> of course in this case I should've logged out from google

Yes, exactly, what is to stop anyone from just going through your sent mail if they were already willing to go through your web history?

Re: Google is FUBAR

#67

Post by incongruity » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 6:01 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #50

Disclaimer: I am a Google engineer. These opinions are my own. Nothing I say in any way represents the company's position, officially or unofficially. That being said, I see all this as much ado about nothing. Privacy policies are complex beasts governed by many regulatory environments. Reducing a huge number of these policies to a handful, announcing it ahead of time and giving you controls over privacy all seem lik…

> As far as SPYW goes, it's all about giving the users more relevant results. This is something you can opt out of (to some extent with privacy controls, otherwise with logging out).

Except adwords is in this mix. This makes it one step closer (or is it already upon us?) for ads to be targeted to me based on the contents of emails I send and receive.

To me, email is one of the more personal and private things that I do online and even the possibility that Google will use my gmail account to target ads is too much.

edit: perhaps I should clarify – as I understand it, the ads that are currently displayed are relevant only to the email on screen when using gmail's web interface. What I meant was that SPYW opens the door to ads everywhere targeted based on the contents of all of my email. I don't believe that Google does that currently, but I have every reason to expect it's coming. And that bothers me.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#68

Post by laconian » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 6:02 PM UTC

This trope is getting super-tired. We even heard from someone saying that Google reducing the stock of bagels in the snack bars is EVIL!

Re: Google is FUBAR

#69

Post by bytefactory » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 6:02 PM UTC

GoCatGo wrote: post #46

rbanffy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH, we might discover adding a social dimension to search results may yield better results for a substantial chunk of the general population. If I am looking for a how-to, knowing whether my geek friends found it useful would be a good indicator. It has to be carefully balanced to avoid forming social echo chambers and perpetuating instantaneous events, but, in the end, it may prove useful. And it's a bit of exagge…

> And it's a bit of exaggeration when people gets worried about privacy when they voluntarily submit the data to the very machines they fear. Don While a valid point, I signed up to g+ and then logged out permanently as I didn't want all my data submitted to a single company (i.e. Google has my search, calendar and gmail) I don't like that they have so much in one spot already but I certainly wasn't going to give the…

I can't believe people are making such a fuss about a non-issue. Google isn't being 'evil' by aggregating data from all its properties. I'm surprised they hadn't been doing this already!

Think about it. If you owned Facebook and Microsoft, wouldn't you want to co-relate the data in Facebook with Windows? For example, to see how many users of Windows 7 use Facebook, and how it affects bounce rates? Do you think companies don't already do this (Bing and Microsoft, Safari and iTunes, etc.)?

Do you think Google ALREADY wasn't co-relating data from its different properties? And what exactly is wrong with that anyways? You'd have to be pretty naive (and unreasonable) to expect a parent company not to have access to data from all its subsidiary operations. How does one "opt-out" of letting Windows co-relate data with Internet Explorer, short of just not using one of them?

Have you ever tried visiting https://www.google.com/dashboard/? This page shows you all the accounts and information Google associates with your account. This was always the case. All that's changed is that the privacy policies associated with all of these disparate accounts have been combined and simplified.

You CAN opt-out of the Google tracking for ads here: http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/ I've known about this option for ages but haven't used it, simply because I respect Google's approach here. I'd like to see Facebook offer a similar option.

You can also see the profile Google has collected about you here: https://www.google.com/settings/ads/onweb/ as well as opting out of personalization.

Does this really seem evil to you?

Re: Google is FUBAR

#70

Post by laconian » Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 6:03 PM UTC

MCompeau wrote: post #47

myko wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by Google is moving towards a closed platform?

I mean it in a colloquial sense. By tightly integrating their services and beginning to aggregate primarily their own content through search it seems they are taking a protectionist stance.

You are talking about Facebook and Twitter, right?