Google Doesn’t Want What’s Best for Us | Hacker News Reader

Google Doesn’t Want What’s Best for Us

mobile.nytimes.com

22 pointsmcone12 comments

I stopped trusting Google after they removed Google reader, removed rss feeds from a lot of their services, removed blog search, removed discussion search, and then tried to shoehorn everyone into Google+.

These changes collectively did just as much(in fact, I think more) as twitter and facebook to silo-ize the web.

Of course they don't want what is best for us. They are an incorporated enterprise. Sergey and Larry may sometimes want to do things that make the world a better place, but at the end of the day, Google will do whatever is best for them, their founders, and their shareholders.

This concept that companies should be expected to act in the best interest of their users/consumers/employees is why some people have the misconception that all regulation is bad, and leaders are applauded for blindly repealing them.

Personally, I don't expect anything more of a corporate enterprise than that of which they are legally obliged.

Well, this concept dates from the nineties. Google, as opposed to AltaVista, Yahoo and others, was just a neat, minimalist search engine with excellent results - and they remained in this way for a few years. In the minds of the users it was a company offering a great service while not asking for anything in exchange - and the "Do no evil" mantra seemed plausible back then.

> Peter Thiel, one of the ideological leaders in the Valley, wrote in 2009 on a blog affiliated with the Cato Institute that “since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”

Thiel is definitely a business leader, but is he really an ideological leader? If I recall correctly he was decidedly in the minority when he came out for in support of Donald Trump.

I think he thinks differently and on a philosophical level that few in business admit to publicly. I respect the conviction and thinking different and integrity regardless of the content.

Minority of other rich business leaders?

Most of this short article is guilt-by-insinuation talking about things other people or companies did. And it seems like it's also missing a "nut graph" where it explains what Google is supposed to be doing wrong.

(Although, probably the professor who wrote the article didn't write the headline.)

When did a private company ever want that?

Private companies want what their users express as want through usage or purchases. Users don't always do or buy what's best for them. If they did, nobody would ever eat fast food.

It's really not that hard to remove the "mobile" part of the URL before submitting it.

But why? The page looks good on desktop.

"Last week, Google fired a software engineer for writing a memo that... made statements about women’s biological suitability for technical jobs."

It's frustrating that our intelligentsia parrots this misinformation.

Don't be evil is a pretty low bar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com