Hacker News Reader

Comment by plinkplonk | Hacker News Reader

From a comment on the article.

"You can't absorb all those people from Microsoft and not get infected by the same mindset. ".

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this initiative were being driven by an "acquired" (set of) VP s. DoubleClick maybe? Sounds right up their alley.

View on HN

Setsuna's law : "As an online discussion about Google/Apple grows longer, the probability of a comment comparing Microsoft to evil approaches 1."

You've now compared Microsoft to Hitler :-)

Godwin's law says it's time for everybody to go home now.

stanleydrew's law: as any online discussion about anything grows longer, the probability of any particular comment appearing approaches one.

I'm not sure that's true - certain comments negate the need for others. For example, if I eventually get around to mentioning my mother's maiden name, the probability of the question "What is your mother's maiden name?" decreases.

Have you ever actually taken part of an online discussion?

Are you just being cynical, or are you intentionally negating my "theorem" by asking a question that is implicitly answered by the fact that you were able to ask it? If the latter...ha.

Interesting that you brought that up. What IS your mother's maiden name? (Also, I need the name of your first pet, and your high school mascot, if you don't mind.)

Stick around long enough and you're likely to find out. ;)

sephr's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of sephr's law being mentioned approaches one."

Only strictly true as the length of the discussion approaches infinity.

The ensuing discussion has completely failed to add to the thread in any way, and now it's taking up all this real estate at the top. For future threads, please refrain from indulging in this sort of thing.

Google's always done what's in its best interest - it's not like they were some pure entity that was contaminated by evil talent they acquired from somewhere else.

It's easy to dismiss any good deed as "Everybody acts in their own interest"

"Organizing the world's information for _everybody_ to access" seems as benevolent as it can get. Taking care of your employees by providing facilities only confirms the point of view.

PS: I am not commenting about, how Google is now. I liked what someone else said it yesterday, "Creating a new successful social network is like starting a new night club"

> "Organizing the world's information for _everybody_ to access" seems as benevolent as it can get.

Except that Google doesn't claim to organize the world's information - there's plenty of stuff that they intentionally avoid.

Also, Google doesn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Would you think that a company that charged you $1 for each search was benevolent? If not, Google's benevolence is due to either charging less or charging someone else - which is it?

I don't place much value on benevolence - most of the world's horror stories are due to folks claiming that they were trying to "do good", but Google is not benevolent.

"benevolence" does not mean "doing it for the sake of some one else". It is more like, "doing what is right; right for me and right for others"

> "benevolence" does not mean "doing it for the sake of some one else". It is more like, "doing what is right; right for me and right for others"

My sources, which include http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benevolence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolence disagree.

What are your sources?

It also did help a lot with their revenue stream

It's not as simple as that. There are short-term interests and long-term interests, and which is best depends on both the pressures on the company and how far sighted its leadership is.

Actually, most of the criticism aimed at Google for this issue stems from the fact that they do claim to be a pure entity by trumpeting "Don't be evil".

Most people are resigned to large corporations always acting in their self interest, but when you be claim to be non-evil and imply that you will do this regardless of self interest, any infarction, however minor, will be met with criticism.

  infarct    - an area of dead tissue caused by a loss 
               of blood supply; a localized necrosis.
  infarction - the process which causes an infarct. [1]

I think you meant infraction but infarction works too. :)

[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infarct

Good catch. Firefox's auto-correct is still not smart enough to catch misused words :)

Except, this isn't just "any infraction". This is the Big One(TM). This is Google turning against the open internet.

I challenge you to find an example of any company making such a major, fundamental u-turn.

You'll have to forgive some of us for believing that Google was a principled company when it came to fundamental issues such as carrier control of content and services.

"Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success...A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny." - Vint Cerf

Google Chief Internet Evangelist and Co-Developer of the Internet Protocol

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html

Makes you wonder what will happen next. Will a high placed Google exec resign out of principle? Will there be any public statements by people such as Vint Cerf about what they believe that conflict with other statements by google execs?

I'd be really interested to know where he stands, he seems to be a very ethical person.

This is what I would like to know as well.

Google employees some of the most respected and seminal names in the history of the internet and I imagine their reputations and principles are worth more than whatever Google pays them.

I'm dying to hear the first comments from Vint, et al.

Yeah, I bet Cerf is considering resignation.

http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/08/netw...

Uh, why would they resign now when they were OK with Google flaunting its previous (anti net neutrality) stance for the same nakedly selfish reasons?

Anyone naive enough to think Google was sacrificing Billions in revenue in order to pursue net neutrality was seriously out of touch with reality.

Google was attempting to "innovate through legislation". What better way to stop Bing from making a deal with Verizon or Comcast than to make such a deal illegal!

This was the first page I found after the news stories when I did a Google search for "google net neutrality".

Everything bad has to be somebody else's fault

Reply on news.ycombinator.com