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

The Voice of Google

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: The Voice of Google

#81

Post by JKCalhoun »

scottyah wrote: post #24

I can't help but see most of this as Claire using her gift of elegant prose and crafting narratives to retell a story of a prodigy that had a great product-market fit in the beginning then was unable to maintain relevancy while becoming bitter at the people around her. It must be so difficult to start out as a shining star then watch something you helped shape grow away from you. It looks like some powerful people at…

Not sure it's still virtue signaling when you sacrifice your job. That might actually be virtue.

I wonder though, what counts as actual virtue for some people.

Re: The Voice of Google

#82

Post by JKCalhoun »

totallygeeky wrote: post #37

I'm struck at how brutal it is to be a woman in even pseudo-progressive tech spaces at times. How talking the talk does nothing if HR and leadership quickly and quietly work to undermine at all and make life hell. The HR line of "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" always feels surreal.

HR, it turns out, is not there for the employee's benefit. (I found out the hard way.)

Re: The Voice of Google

#83

Post by godelski »

WarmWash wrote: post #70
godelski wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this, and beyond that, Google is one of the most hated corporations for it. The hate it's about what they did with the power they gained. You can both love and hate something at the same time. Humans have complexity and nuance, don't dismiss that. It's also worth noting that complaints are more vocal than complements. If things are working well t…

It's less a statement about the absolute hatred that Google gets, and more about Google using collected data to target you with ads is the most hated thing about Google (directly or indirectly). Google pretty much figure out how to take an attribute that every human has (desire) and turn that into indefinite sustainable (and growing!) services for every living human no money required. Role the clock back 25 years and…

  > I know people are itching to call false-dichotomy, but lets be real, nothing in 25 years that isn't money-based or ad-based has gained meaningful VC money i.e. VCs dont buy into "donation based" models
There's plenty of counter examples, from Linux to ffmpeg. You're not wrong about VCs but the argument shifts to if that's the structure we should be using if it's just going to optimize for greed.

But I think you also glossed over the enshitification element. That greed optimization has shifted to become user hostile. There was a time when we could make great products and make good money at the same time. But we've moved to living in a world with oligarchs. They're pushed to make more money than they could ever possibly use (I don't mean need, I mean they couldn't spend it if they tried) because others get to ride their coat tails.

The economy was never a zero sum game. It's possible for everyone to get rich at the same time. You don't have to shit on the user to make a profit. I'll say that if a company is hostile to its users then that company is evil. Most companies, including Google, don't start that way. But being good doesn't mean you won't become evil tomorrow. And Google? They've abandoned nearly all the principles that they used to be praised for. I don't think the criticism is harsh. People are allowed to change their opinions about a company as that company changes its actions

Re: The Voice of Google

#84

Post by godelski »

qwerpy wrote: post #78
haunter wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Certainly less evil than Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Saudi Aramco, Meta, JPMorgan Chase, UnitedHealth, Coca-Cola, Oracle, Palantir, Goldman Sachs, LVMH, McDonalds, etc. Certainly… according to who? I think some of these companies are, certainly, less evil than Google

For example, Oracle does evil to its customers and partners and competitors. But Google does evil to every human who uses their products. In my book that’s much worse.

  > to every human who uses the internet
FTFY

Google has a lot of control over the internet. They also track and profile people even if they never created a Google account.

It's one thing to do that to people who are users, it's another thing to secretly turn people into users

Re: The Voice of Google

#85

Post by ieatcandlewax »

imcrs wrote: post #74

> in 2023, Google laid off some twelve thousand people, representing around six per cent of its workforce, and, in the years that followed, an estimated four hundred thousand jobs were eliminated across tech This right here, ooh you're so close! Those 400k people were fired because white collar workers, as a bloc, became powerful, and started making demands of management, demands like "you should do something about s…

> Did they do those DEI things in 2021 because they wanted to, or because they had to? And if they had to, what power compelled them?

These are rhetorical questions. I also don't think your description of an "incredible corporate culture" is widely shared, given how you described it in your comment.

Re: The Voice of Google

#86

Post by godelski »

dismalaf wrote: post #50
godelski wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this, and beyond that, Google is one of the most hated corporations for it. The hate it's about what they did with the power they gained. You can both love and hate something at the same time. Humans have complexity and nuance, don't dismiss that. It's also worth noting that complaints are more vocal than complements. If things are working well t…

> The hate it's about what they did with the power they gained. Which is??? Serve ads without selling data? I'm not sure if y'all are aware, but CC companies sell your data. Your telecom provider sells your data. Banks sell your data. Google figured out a system to sell access while keeping your privacy. And somehow they're more hated than people who just straight up give your data away. If most people hate Google al…

  > Serve ads without selling data?
They sell data. Why do you think they don't?

  > CC companies sell your data. Your telecom provider sells your data. Banks sell your data.
You're over simplifying. WHAT data being sold is a critical variable. Same with HOW MUCH. Not all data is created equally. Last I checked, my bank doesn't have real time access to my location. My bank doesn't know everyone I communicate with. Not even my telecom operator knows that! None of your examples know every person that is within ~100 ft of me at any given time.

Look, I don't like that the banks and telecoms have as much data as they do, but let's be serious here, Google has some very serious data on people. Don't be so glib.

  > Which is???
And don't get me started on all the other things. What they've done to the open web. Email. Smartphones. And much more. I don't know how you can think Google is just an ad company when I'm pretty sure you use so much more from them.

Re: The Voice of Google

#87

Post by dansquizsoft »

kccqzy wrote: post #46
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this (Google services are largely taken for granted), and beyond that, Google is one of the most hated corporations for it. I feel like this is some majorly false revisionist history. At least in my circles, Google was revered and lauded up until 2010-2012 or so, whenever enshittification started in earnest. And this isn't just some outsider opin…

The New York Times is actually part of the reason why Google’s reputation went downhill. Somewhere around 2010–2015, the NYT and other traditional newspapers finally woke up and realized that their traditional job of disseminating information to the masses had been supplanted by a new generation of tech companies including Google and Meta. So the NYT and other newspapers soured their opinions around the time. If you…

Off-topic somewhat, but NYT once tried to convince their readers to call Elizabeth Holmes "Liz" and not send her to jail after her fraud conviction. The implication being that it was a highly paid puff piece. They lost a lot of credibility with me that day.

Re: The Voice of Google

#88

Post by Centigonal »

WarmWash wrote: post #16

Google figured out how to create a classless suite of internet services for anyone on Earth with an internet connection to use. I struggle to see how this didn't meet their original goals, what people celebrated about Google, and what made Google such an attractive place for people like the author to work. What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this (Google services are largely taken fo…

Google is loved for the things they built that cause people to love Google (GMail, Search, Drive, K8s, Android, Patents, Books, Nest, Wave, Workspace, YouTube) and Google is hated for the things they built that cause people to hate Google (the targeted advertising money machine, Google+, the many negative second-order effects of their loved products). I don't see these two things being mutually exclusive. On balance, I think more people have a positive opinion of Google than do for Microsoft, Amazon, or Facebook.

Also, humans are a pretty tough audience when it comes to utilities, with that hedonistic adaptation and all. You don't see many people walking around waxing lyrical about the wonders of modern sanitation, water purification, and plumbing -- but people do complain about water bills.

Re: The Voice of Google

#89

Post by hglaser »

pkasting wrote: post #13

I was there 06-25, and this matches my recollection. Honestly, it's a very restrained document.

Agreed. From firsthand experience, it's accurate, captures the feeling of being there at that time, and is more restrained than I would have been.

Re: The Voice of Google

#90

Post by Centigonal »

scottyah wrote: post #24

I can't help but see most of this as Claire using her gift of elegant prose and crafting narratives to retell a story of a prodigy that had a great product-market fit in the beginning then was unable to maintain relevancy while becoming bitter at the people around her. It must be so difficult to start out as a shining star then watch something you helped shape grow away from you. It looks like some powerful people at…

I didn't get that vibe from this piece at all. Claire sounds disillusioned more than she sounds bitter, and I really don't see too much supporting the narrative about her becoming upset because of her lack of relevancy.
Post reply on HN