Hacker News Reader

Comment by ilovetux | Hacker News Reader

This is sad. When you follow the link they provide for the Better Ads Standard there is a link to the coalition's privacy policy at the bottom of the page which says clear as day that third parties such as social networks are monitoring your use of the site to facilitate "interest based advertising". That says it all, they want ads to be more palatable so them and their accomplices can track your every digital move. This will make Creepy Google tons of money by selling out their most precious resource while they continue to build skynet.

Whatever happened to "Don't be evil"?

View on HN

"Don't Be Evil" was basic PR: figure out what you're most hated for, and loudly, repeatedly insist that you're the opposite of it. Delta promises comfort and ease in coach, which should only remind you of how hellish that experience can be; Google bragging that they weren't evil should've been an instant red flag.

I don't know ... I fly Delta coach twice a week and it's pretty comfy, and I'm a big guy. Also 'don't be evil' was around before anyone really hated Google for anything. I think they actually meant it at the time. I like a good dose of cynicism as much as the next guy but we should give credit where it's due.

The continuing repetition of this PR catch phrase by Google fans as "proof" that Google is benevolent is mindblowing to me.

Well, I've read that Google coded XKeyscore for the NSA. And in retrospect, Shumeet Baluja's The Silicon Jungle almost confirms it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was true, particularly given Google's incredibly close relationship and revolving door with the government. I haven't read The Silicon Jungle, but I might have to do that now.

It's a great book.

"Shumeet Baluja, Ph.D., is currently a Senior Staff Research Scientist at Google..."

https://research.google.com/pubs/author35.html

Ha, that's a great SV hit piece title. Will look into

Didn't they change it besides?

They don't call it PR doublespeak for nothing.

The context in which "Don't be evil" was coined was one where the dominant tech company was being sued by multiple nations for rampant abuse of its monopoly position to do things like push competitors out of business and force business partners into ridiculously bad positions.

By contrast, tracking people who by and large don't care enough to try and stop it is not particularly evil. You and I might see it as a great evil, but it seems unfair to accuse Google of hypocrisy for not valuing the same things as I do.

Good point, but I would argue that people who don't care today might start to care tomorrow when the intelligence they unwittingly provided is used against them. Taking advantage of people's ignorance is not the same as allowing for real informed consent.

This is an exact example of Google abusing its monopoly position to push competitors out of business, and Google is currently under antitrust investigation in several countries (including three separate antitrust charges in the EU).

No, it isn't. Read the actual Better Ads Standards site. There is nothing specific to Google about it.

Are you aware of how the Open Handset Alliance works? It's a 'partnership' where Google decides if you get to be in it, you have to sign a contract with Google, and Google can threaten to kick you out.

Suffice to say, Google claiming to listen to industry standard agencies Google was part of founding doesn't mean much to me.

Right. I hate the idea of being manipulated at least as much as I hate being distracted by ads. I would happily pay for ad-free content, at the same rates that ad networks pay to insert ads. But otherwise, I will do whatever it takes to block tracking and ads.

> Whatever happened to "Don't be evil"?

Greed killed it.

I was angry when I posted this yesterday. My anger has dissipated a bit, but I haven't been able to stop thinking about this issue.

I think what might actually help this situation is a simple new regulation giving people the right to be notified when data about them is bought or sold including the name of both buyers and sellers and the data in question. If Google had to inform you when they sold your data we could at least be aware when we are being tracked and by whom. The current system where we blindly click "I agree" is broken. people do not want to wade through all the legalese and shouldn't have to. What they would be more likely to read is a simple csv containing every datapoint which was collected about them and to whom it was sold.

The whole "Don't be evil" thing, I believe, led to an expectation of Google to act in at least a responsible manner. Given the control they have over our lives it is time to start enabling us to verify the veracity of their claims.

If this was enacted, then I don't think people would mind ditching the ad blockers as much.

I don't know if Google is evil or not, but its looking scary as hell from over here.

It was superseded by "Make money first".

You mean "make the quarterly reports look good".

It's hard to compete with evil companies like Facebook if you're not evil yourself.

It's a competitive market.

How did that work out for Google? I don't see G+ winning over Facebook any time soon.

Neither is in the social networking business, make no mistake, they are advertising companies. Ever seen Mad Men?

I wasn't going to give-up uBlock origin just because Google introduced "better ads", and the reason for that is tracking. Where's the "better tracking" policy (by which I mean less tracking)? But as you say, tracking is only going to get worse with Google's "better" ads.

As for don't be evil, I think that was completely lost right around the time they started using their algorithms to favor their services in the "neutral" Google search, and when they started influencing search results to help certain political candidates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com