Beware of Google Bearing Gifts
notonihilism.org
notonihilism.org
I don't see this as any difference than any other company trying to promote their products by giving away free classes and tutorials.
When I was a kid, there was a huge push from Apple to get their computers into schools -- because people were more likely to buy Apple computers for the home.
Yes, being able to put a resume together and coaching a team is something which is of absolutely no value whatsoever outside Google's walled garden.
Google has also probably done more than any other organization in human history to make information on careers (and any other subject) easily and readily available to people - without needing to use Docs, Sheets etc to do it.
"Local government officials should follow Google’s example: look to public libraries to help create equitable paths to prosperity and ongoing education."
It's ironic this is hosted at a site called "No to Nihilism." This is the most nihilistic world-view blog post that I have read in a while.
There isn't anything particularly newsworthy or notable about this story other than the fact the author hates Google, and then derides them for giving free classes on their technology.
Most of their rhetoric is about painting google as a monopoly, but they offer no evidence. They talk about the mealiness of the offering, but registration limits on free classes are hardly unreasonable.
Full disclosure: I am an ex-googler who's currently quite pissed at the company.
Are we flagging posts for being critical of Google all of a sudden?
>Students are limited to just three classes at the learning center, a fact that is not mentioned either in Google’s promotional material or in any of the launch publicity.
I remain surprised and somewhat dismayed that many people still believe any company has the best interest of the public anywhere on their priority list.
and chouinard is a real weird guy in all the good ways. He’s not the CEO anymore but he’s left his mark very solidly.
Patagonia is deeply aligned with its customers' interests. Preserving the natural world which its customer base enjoys and for which they buy the company's products. That makes it an easier choice.
Google profits off of its users in ways that are not aligned to their interests. They ride a fine line because users tolerate the inconvenience in exchange for the product.
My rule of thumb is "follow the money". In this case, Google is a more aligned with their customers (who pay them money) than with their users (who might be or become customer of its customers). Of course, there is a nuance: Google can't alienate its users, otherwise it will lose its customers. It's serving 2 sides at a time. But when there are competing interests between the users and the customers, there is a bias towards the customers.
See this is not clear cut. Google profits off me, primarily when I click on an ad through search or through the display network. It's not clear either of these are non-aligned to my interests, or that I do all that badly out of it.
If Google shows me a search ad and I click on it, generating payment for Google, it's because I've searched for the item in the first place. I've shown an interest in the product. That's not obviously _not_ aligned to my interest. At best, it's kind of orthogonal. Google's entire search value prop, bear in mind, is 'only pay for people who are interested in your product'.
If I click on an ad through the Google Display Network, again it's likely because I've been on the website of the company that is retargeting me in the first place. Again, not obviously not in my interest.
On the other hand, the benefits that Google provides to me as a customer are so immense in terms of search, mapping, email, organization that it's difficult to say that I don't do enormously well out of the deal.
I'm putting up with a company making a profit from something that I was theoretically already interested in - in order to have an incredible service for free.
For Facebook and other third party ad networks it is less obvious, as their net contribution to society is arguably much more negative. But Google, it's really not clear.
The value proposition of advertisement is not to lay out unbiased facts to aid me in making a decision, it's to push me to purchase a product that I otherwise would not have purchased, or that I would have delayed in purchasing, for example until I properly saved for it or until I really needed it.
To summarize, it's not in my best interest to pay interest on a product I'm merely interested in, as opposed to actually needing.
...do the thing that I think the money should be spent on.
I remain surprised that this line of thinking comes up so often. Why do people so often have this idea that because they want money to be spent on something, that spending it elsewhere means it's somehow being taken away from where they want it?
This was front and center with the Amazon HQ2 stuff when people were up in arms about where the non-existent money that was manifested in future tax breaks to Amazon could be better spent. I don't know what is propagating this line of thinking but it's starting to seem like a real problem.
This is a bizarre meme. Companies do have lots of reasons to care what people think about them.
Being socially responsible is good business in terms of brand, attracting and retaining talent, from a consumer perspective, employee engagement and beating out the competition. If customers start switching from your company to another one that is more socially responsible, that can only be bad for business.