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

Why we're saying no to Google

blog.ecosia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#81

Post by NikkiA »

ppseafield wrote: post #73
cameronbrown wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then who chooses which browser is Android's default? And which search engine is the browser's default? You've just shifted the problem down the stack.

The EU had a solution for that when Microsoft was doing the same thing with browsers: post install offer the user a choice of web browsers, which IIRC was based on market share.

Which is exactly what google is being forced to implement here, except that because there are thousands of search engines, they're auctioning rather than picking the top 10.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#82

Post by imihai1988 »

joelx wrote: post #75
stiray wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The competition was what made those services better. Now there is situation where is almost no competition. Which is killing the possibility to get even better services. Google has gone its way to the mega corporation where nothing else matters but money. And they are moving into direction where this money is comming from worse possible sources. Regarding "true evil", to some people google IS true evil. And based of…

True evil is MBS ordering the murder of journalist Khasshogi. True evil is invading and conquering Crimea. True evil is murdering your generals with anti-aircraft guns or watching dogs tear them apart while still alive. Serving banner ads across sites does not even remotely compare.

So, what you are saying is it's fine because russians and north koreans ?! do way worse things... did I get that right ? How is that even contributing to the discussion ?

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#83

Post by jammygit »

ppseafield wrote: post #73
cameronbrown wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then who chooses which browser is Android's default? And which search engine is the browser's default? You've just shifted the problem down the stack.

The EU had a solution for that when Microsoft was doing the same thing with browsers: post install offer the user a choice of web browsers, which IIRC was based on market share.

That’s a nice compromise, I like that as a default

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#84

Post by Nasrudith »

stcredzero wrote: post #80
Nasrudith wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah that charge - not liking that their bubble isn't universal and declaring "No it is the children that are wrong and declaring Google is rigged against them. Blaming them for the state of society is sheer scapegoating as frankly society can and has fucked itself up far more without any outside involvement. It is like accusing rock music of making teenagers rebellous when it is really the result of development of age…

declaring "No it is the children that are wrong and declaring Google is rigged against them." The kids are alright. There are Google whistle-blowers coming forward to about Google's manipulation, and there are internal documents corroborating this. It is like accusing rock music of making teenagers rebellious when it is really the result of development of agency No, it's like calling out the media trying to push that…

What "whistleblowers"? Proven liar and manipulative editor, felon, and direct cause of a spree shooting James O'Keefe and his mark of inaccuracy Project Veritas?

As for "having their speech" - they already have it but nobody has to help them spread it.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#85

Post by michaelmarion »

cameronbrown wrote: post #44

Sorry, but this really is the best way to go about this. What's the alternative? 1. Random list of all search engines - most of which may be far worse/less advanced/more evil (read: poor & desperate) than Google. 2. Hand picked list by Google? If you want neutrality, then you are joking... Right? 3. 'Independent' committee who decide every so often - I'm not against this, but who's going to fund this? I can guess the…

You do (1). Give me an alphabetically-ordered list of search engines and let me choose for myself. If the user takes .0001% of the responsibility here and makes anything resembling an informed decision, everyone wins — Google avoids antitrust action, the user gets the search engine they want, and all competitors are represented.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#86

Post by wartijn_ »

cameronbrown wrote: post #68
wartijn_ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe option 6: Don't have a search app by default? I don't see why such an app is required. If user need to search for something, they can use their browser. And if someone wants to have a browser app/widget they can download it from the Play store. This "solution" by Google is just a way to prevent more fines, while most people will still have a huge Google search bar on their phone and Google can make some extra m…

Then who chooses which browser is Android's default? And which search engine is the browser's default? You've just shifted the problem down the stack.

I thought this was only about the search app/widget, not also about the browser and the browsers default search engine. My bad.

But I don't think it's just shifting down the problem.

Right now the search app, browser and search engine of the browser are all Google. I don't think an unremovable* search widget on phones is necessary. And I think Google wants to keep it there because they know people will choose Google, especially since that one is installed by default and users just get the choice between installing an extra app or skip that step.

*unless you install a new launcher.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#87

Post by stcredzero »

Nasrudith wrote: post #84
stcredzero wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

declaring "No it is the children that are wrong and declaring Google is rigged against them." The kids are alright. There are Google whistle-blowers coming forward to about Google's manipulation, and there are internal documents corroborating this. It is like accusing rock music of making teenagers rebellious when it is really the result of development of agency No, it's like calling out the media trying to push that…

What "whistleblowers"? Proven liar and manipulative editor, felon, and direct cause of a spree shooting James O'Keefe and his mark of inaccuracy Project Veritas? As for "having their speech" - they already have it but nobody has to help them spread it.

What "whistleblowers"? Proven liar and manipulative editor, felon, and direct cause of a spree shooting James O'Keefe and his mark of inaccuracy Project Veritas?

The object of the 1st fragment is not the same as the person described in the 2nd fragment.

As for "having their speech" - they already have it but nobody has to help them spread it.

It's one thing to "not spread" something. It's another thing entirely when there are people who want information, even want to pay for it, and big companies get in the way to push their own agenda. It's not just the most radical segments this applies to, but lots of normal people nearer to the center. Also, it's really something that big companies do this, all the while claiming they're "platforms" not "publishers."

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#88

Post by joshuamorton »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #22
pb7 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shows me to me that the EC shouldn’t have meddled to begin with. Android is free but Google isn’t providing it out of the goodness of its heart. If it can’t recoup its costs from offering the Google suite of apps (including search), then Android will be monetized by other search engines paying to be included in the options. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

To me, it demonstrates the fines aren't an adequate remedy: Google still turned it into a profit model. The EC needed to split up Google, and force Google to divest Android if they wanted to remain in business there. (Note that if you ask Google why they created Android, it reads something like "out of the goodness of our heart", but it's bull. It's about ensuring everyone's on a platform that defaults to Google serv…

Is your suggestion here that google be barred from monetizing android? That goes well beyond anything having to do with anticompetitive practice.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#89

Post by ocdtrekkie »

joshuamorton wrote: post #88
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, it demonstrates the fines aren't an adequate remedy: Google still turned it into a profit model. The EC needed to split up Google, and force Google to divest Android if they wanted to remain in business there. (Note that if you ask Google why they created Android, it reads something like "out of the goodness of our heart", but it's bull. It's about ensuring everyone's on a platform that defaults to Google serv…

Is your suggestion here that google be barred from monetizing android? That goes well beyond anything having to do with anticompetitive practice.

No, however, tying Android to Google Search (even through a supposedly competitive market, where Google always wins a space, and Google makes money either way) is illegal.

Google can monetize Android pretty successfully through a way it already also does: Selling apps in the Play Store. And if Google was forced to divest Android, it is likely that is how the newly independent Android would fund itself.

In fact, if Google were forced to give up Android, the proposed search engine bidding process would work fairly: Google would have to compete and bid and pay to be listed just like everyone else.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#90

Post by labawi »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #26
reaperducer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users I don't really care what Ecosia's motive is; I never even heard of it before now. What Google is doing is simply wrong. Anyone who can't see that has been in the SV bubble too long. "Oh, the EU says we have to give people a choice to promote fairness an…

> It would be interesting if none of the other search engines participate in this auction. Then what is Google going to do? Ignore the EU and suck up another billion dollar fine? The FAQ answers that already. It will choose randomly from among the search engines that register and don't offer a bid (and charge them nothing). That would be a really surprising outcome, as it would suggest that no one other than Google d…

> .. it would suggest that no one other than Google derives any economic value ..

Or that they refuse to pay. It still seems anti-competitive as Google doesn't have to pay, i.e. you can't outbid Google.

Post reply on HN