Why I’m done with Chrome • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#831

Post by sjwright » Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 1:48 AM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #828

unethical_ban wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh no, my opinion is being voted down. Must be the algorithm!

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#832

Post by sjwright » Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 1:54 AM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #831

sjwright wrote: post #828

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh no, my opinion is being voted down. Must be the algorithm!

Here's another reply so you can vote me down again.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#833

Post by sjwright » Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 1:54 AM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #832

sjwright wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no, my opinion is being voted down. Must be the algorithm!

Here's another reply so you can vote me down again.

And another. Why would I care.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#834

Post by sjwright » Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 1:55 AM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #833

sjwright wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another reply so you can vote me down again.

And another. Why would I care.

But hopefully at some point you'll engage with the argument?

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#835

Post by mycall » Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 2:28 AM UTC

vezycash wrote: post #518

mgkimsal wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIR, they weren't doing WP on their own hardware. The end user experience on various WP was (as with many android devices) a mixed bag. Coupled with being perceived as 'late to the game', and people wanting to jump on the app-bandwagon but not having enough resources... WP never got mindshare. PERSONALLY... I think MS could mount another shot at the phone market - but they'd have to be serious, commit long term, an…

>MS could address privacy and fee issues I don't think privacy is a mass market appeal. Here's an experiment you could do. Stop a few random persons on the road or on the train and ask their opinion about equivax, Cambridge Analytica, and Chrome's recent privacy violations and I'm sure you'll get blank stares on 90 out of 100 people. As for developer fees - the jumping CEO reduced the app registration fee. No one not…

Microsoft is investing into IoT now. I could see smartphones morph into different specialized wearable devices, which puts Microsoft ahead of themselves, once again (they are always early to the party without the best party favors).

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#836

Post by mycall » Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 2:29 AM UTC

GW150914 wrote: post #444

vezycash wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If MS had done their thing only with hardware they made I recall Ms was banned from building their own hardware. Just like how Car companies are banned from retailing their own cars in the US.

As far as I know (which isn’t perfect knowledge by any means) MS has had a hardware division since 1982, it’s just that it was never their focus. IIRC Bill Gates famously didn’t want to become a major hardware vendor, but wanted to focus on the software. Certainly I’ve never heard of a ban or anything like it, and I was under the impression that dealership laws were essentially unique to cars. If you have some other…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_hardware

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#837

Post by RobertRoberts » Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 2:51 AM UTC

whyever wrote: post #807

RobertRoberts wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Germany trademark issue was relevant to the moving from gmail.com to google.com/whatever is the case, why were we all allowed to have @gmail.com email addresses?

In Germany they used @googlemail.com addresses.

I know that. I was merely pointing out that if gmail.com was the issue, then having youremail@gmail.com would also be an issue. But since it never has been, the issue in Germany has nothing (based on this simple logic) to do with Google changing the email access from gmail.com to google.com.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#838

Post by intended » Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 3:55 AM UTC

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.

How.

For me or anyone to believe this, is a huge ask.

Any attempt to algorithmically shape perspectives is crude with today’s state of the art.

How precisely would such an algorithm work, while not creating obvious artifacts and errors throughout the search results for all people using the service.

And how would it work for people only in the us and not elsewhere?

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#839

Post by intended » Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 3:58 AM UTC

creaghpatr wrote: post #693

Lazare wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That could have a very simple explanation: There is no Wikipedia page for "Gun Rights". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_rights is a valid link, and seems like the obvious wikipedia page to deem relevant for that phrase. And Bing gets it right. I have no reason to think it's some dark conspiracy, but it's certainly a pretty silly failure of their vaunted algorithms. Are there a lot of searches for common phrases w…

It’s not a conspiracy when emails leaked of employees discussing how they could put their thumb on the scales of sensitive political topics

It is a conspiracy, if there’s proof of a conspiracy.

Put a finger on the scales, show us how it’s done.

Modeling this behavior, without tilting the scales completely is perhaps impossible.

I’m interested in seeing how such code could work, while scaling and not creating artifacts. I can’t think of anyway for such code to be deployed without breaking search and letting attackers gain even more

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#840

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 3:58 AM UTC

creaghpatr wrote: post #693

Lazare wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That could have a very simple explanation: There is no Wikipedia page for "Gun Rights". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_rights is a valid link, and seems like the obvious wikipedia page to deem relevant for that phrase. And Bing gets it right. I have no reason to think it's some dark conspiracy, but it's certainly a pretty silly failure of their vaunted algorithms. Are there a lot of searches for common phrases w…

It’s not a conspiracy when emails leaked of employees discussing how they could put their thumb on the scales of sensitive political topics

[deleted]