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

Why I’m done with Chrome

blog.cryptographyengineering.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 876 posts

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#821

Post by partiallypro »

hrrsn wrote: post #657
partiallypro wrote: post #248

Google started going down the path I would describe as an "evil" path years ago. I'm glad people are starting to notice. I used to be a huge Google advocate, up until about 2008. So many things have changed since then. Adsense was the first breach in trust for me, when they banned my account for no reason and ruined any chance of every monetizing my content...since they are basically a monopoly in that area. Getting…

> But if you deal directly with Google ad sales (and this is something I never knew existed tbh) they will intentionally screw you if you are under a certain spend. Any more details on this?

I can't enumerate on it much more without likely making an error, as I am not on the PPC team myself. I know several people in the Michigan Ann Arbor hub at Google that have told me this directly.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#822

Post by partiallypro »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #798
hrrsn wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you deal directly with Google ad sales (and this is something I never knew existed tbh) they will intentionally screw you if you are under a certain spend. Any more details on this?

I'm interested in this as well. My current company uses AdWords directly and is almost certainly below that "certain spend". I'm suspicious that we might be getting taken to the cleaners too, but not sure the co-founder would believe me.

Unfortunately the only way to really know is to have a PPC expert audit your account. IMO having a good in-house PPC person is crucial, or at least go through a reputably agency (as an in-house PPC expert can be pricey.) Even though agencies charge a service fee, your results will almost certainly outperform just using Google's in-house service or doing it yourself. There are also classes some people offer on the topic, which can help you tell if you are being had. I'm not saying it's going to happen every campaign, but it is a common practice.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#823

Post by dagenix »

potta_coffee wrote: post #820
dagenix wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory ^

It's easily substantiated by searching different terms and observing the difference between what you're searching for and what results are provided.

That proves nothing.

1. It's subjective if the results are wrong. _You_ know what you are looking for, Google however has to guess. And it's algorithms aren't perfect at figuring out _your_ intent - even though they may do a fine job for the average person. Right now, for me, the top result is from a Reddit thread about this very query. The rest are things like "black and white couple" and "couple with white background". These aren't what you expect, but, it makes sense why they are being returned.

2. Your test does nothing to establish intent. A pretty reasonable explanation for the search results is just that that is what the algorithm does.

3. I'm sure someone can come up with some theory about how tweaking the results of this very specific search is a nefarious plot to promote interracial relationships - but it requires some pretty tortured logic to conclude that such a plan would, even if true, be even remotely effective at accomplishing it's goal. That's basically the Hallmark of a conspiracy theory.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#824

Post by rhizome »

joshuamorton wrote: post #52
rhizome wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I went to turn this login thing off and the only way to do it was to click a button under the heading "Sync" that said "Turn Off." But if these things are unrelated, I guess we'll just have to chalk that up to Google's famously shitty product management and design skills.

Sync and log in are two unrelated settings. They were never related (except that you had to be logged in to be able to sync). You could always be logged in and not sync. You just had previously chosen to be logged in and synced. By disabling syncing, you turned off a feature that you previously had to have opted in to.

Sync and log in are two unrelated settings. They were never related

I know what I saw. I was logged in, then I wasn't after I turned off Sync. They may not be related technically, but in the UI they are part and parcel.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#825

Post by joshuamorton »

rhizome wrote: post #824
joshuamorton wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sync and log in are two unrelated settings. They were never related (except that you had to be logged in to be able to sync). You could always be logged in and not sync. You just had previously chosen to be logged in and synced. By disabling syncing, you turned off a feature that you previously had to have opted in to.

Sync and log in are two unrelated settings. They were never related I know what I saw. I was logged in, then I wasn't after I turned off Sync. They may not be related technically , but in the UI they are part and parcel.

Interesting, that's not what I recall, but apparently that's how it was.

Thanks for correcting me!

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#826

Post by EpicEng »

mgkimsal wrote: post #809
EpicEng wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's over the top (mostly thinking CNN here) only due to the fact that it seems to be all they ever report on anymore. Some are overblown, it's true, but enough legitimate issues come up daily to fill the news cycle with headlines like "you won't believe what Trump did next!"

> but enough legitimate issues come up daily to fill the news cycle agreed, but it becomes a bit of "boy who cried wolf!" If everything is 'over the top' and 'worst ever', etc, then nothing is. there's legitimately enough to be covering about policy and real political issues at stake - the 'fist bump' coverage and 'outrage' from anyone was worse than trivial - it gives cover and legitimacy to the folks who are on the…

>agreed, but it becomes a bit of "boy who cried wolf!" If everything is 'over the top' and 'worst ever', etc, then nothing is.

But should we just allow the normalization of such behavior? I don't think so; I think we should continue to call him out on it.

>there's legitimately enough to be covering about policy and real political issues at stake - the 'fist bump' coverage and 'outrage' from anyone was worse than trivial - it gives cover and legitimacy to the folks who are on the fence about 'fake news' charges.

Agreed.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#827

Post by mgkimsal »

EpicEng wrote: post #826
mgkimsal wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but enough legitimate issues come up daily to fill the news cycle agreed, but it becomes a bit of "boy who cried wolf!" If everything is 'over the top' and 'worst ever', etc, then nothing is. there's legitimately enough to be covering about policy and real political issues at stake - the 'fist bump' coverage and 'outrage' from anyone was worse than trivial - it gives cover and legitimacy to the folks who are on the…

>agreed, but it becomes a bit of "boy who cried wolf!" If everything is 'over the top' and 'worst ever', etc, then nothing is. But should we just allow the normalization of such behavior? I don't think so; I think we should continue to call him out on it. >there's legitimately enough to be covering about policy and real political issues at stake - the 'fist bump' coverage and 'outrage' from anyone was worse than triv…

> But should we just allow the normalization of such behavior? I don't think so; I think we should continue to call him out on it.

what behaviour?

let opinion journalism call him out for stuff that is opinionably bad. let fact-based news call him out on 'real' stuff. again, i go to the fist-bump thing (but the 'koi fish food' thing last year fits too) - there's no need for that to be covered by the same folks and with the same level of coverage as state of the union speeches or cabinet appointments.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#828

Post by sjwright »

unethical_ban wrote: post #778
lagadu wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it was. The concept of gun rights cannot exist without the concept of gun control, it's quite literally the same theme. Gun control is what defines which gun rights people have.

Search "Free speech" and get "Censorship" would be your stance, then.

The implication being what, that returning the “Censorship” article is pro-censorship? That people who choose to type in “free speech” are so stupid as to flip their position because Google responded with an article on the exact same topic, which is no more pro-censorship than the free speech article is pro-free-speech?

You’re being silly.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#829

Post by sjwright »

potta_coffee wrote: post #793
jMyles wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right - of course. So the question is: are the other "things that matter" designed to: 1) Inform the user and help the user quickly find facts, narratives, and meaningful content related to the search phrase? 2) Sell things? 3) Promote modes of political control by narrowing the scope of acceptable thought and connection between search phrase and content? We all hope for #1. We all accept #2. But I think that most of…

Try Googling the term "white couple" as an image search - you will be provided with a page of interracial couples, not white couples. Not that I have a problem with interracial couples, my own family is interracial. But it's obvious how Google is attempting to influence the perspectives of it's users.

Is it though? The term “white couple” is already racially charged and its use across the internet will often be in that context.

Are you implying that there are Google employees manually tinkering with the result of millions of search terms for the purposes of influencing the American population? And nobody at Google has leaked it? That’s hilarious.

And how is that influence campaign going to work on a practical level? Are you assuming people are so dumb as to change their opinion on core political matters because their racially charged search term didn’t acid wash the internet of its diversity??

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#830

Post by r2dof »

palant wrote: post #609
r2dof wrote: post #549

Some of you here might be thinking, "well you can always use a passphrase while using chrome sync" to mitigate all privacy issues. I generally advocate use of a passphrase to people I know. BUT digging a bit into it I found that chrome's encryption is NOT STRONG AT ALL. Here[1] the author describes that brute force is possible within 4 days if the sync passphrase has 40 bits of entropy, with $1000 hardware. So with m…

Yes, Firefox could do better, but at least Sync there was designed with privacy in mind - Chrome Sync wasn't, and even if you set a passphrase it will only encrypt passwords and none of the other data such as your browsing history. Either way, Chrome exists to give Google's web services an advantage, that's the only reason. I wrote about that seven years ago: https://adblockplus.org/blog/google-chrome-and-pre-install…

>even if you set a passphrase it will only encrypt passwords and none of the other data such as your browsing history.

This[1] seems to imply otherwise.

[1]:https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139#passphrase

Post reply on HN