Hacker News Reader

Comment by rickncliff | Hacker News Reader

I'm guessing it's some sort of a rule here to have at least one anti-google link on the front page at all times but I think this needs addressing:

1. Ads keep the lights on and they are labeled as such.

2. The Basecamp guy was complaining that ads for competing services are showing when searching for his service which is something that courts have affirmed time and again as being pro consumer because it exposes new users to competing services.

This describes a recent case and links to others: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/05/another-court-...

View on HN

Fair points, but on the other hand, to quote Page and Brin:

"we noticed a major search engine would not return a large airline’s homepage when the airline’s name was given as a query. It so happened that the airline had placed an expensive ad, linked to the query that was its name. A better search engine would not have required this ad, and possibly resulted in the loss of the revenue from the airline to the search engine. In general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want." [1]

[1] Larry Page and Sergey Brin, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine, 1998

I think that might’ve been a problem in the pre-Google era, but surely it no longer is.

The anti-google (or anti-amazon, anti-FB, basically anti-FAANG) garbage that gets plastered on HN is really childish and tiring.

Reminds me of all the “M$” bashing back when slashdot was still relevant. I can recall top comments for articles about larger HDD’s were usually people decrying “bloated software” or wondering who would ever use all that space. Articles about LCD monitors were full of people bemoaning the loss of “superior CRT’s”. Anything new was suspect. Of course all that “M$” anti-tech bashing eventually made them completely irrelevant and now they are but a footnote in history.

Dunno where I’m going but besides being “two minutes of hate”, these anti-FAANG articles totally remind me of slashdot.

I don’t think that had anything to do with why Slashdot faded into obscurity. Slashdot refused to allow users to post stories, so Digg (and then Reddit) ate its lunch.

Being constantly attacked is just a reality of being at the top. Doesn't matter what it is, individual achievement, business political entertainment etc... if you're on top people are going to just come after you, no matter what.

HN is basically r/technology these days, wish they made HN2 where it was just about cool tech and startups like the good old days.

The sentiment against MS was legit. They abused their OS monopoly to try to own the web and also tried to destroy Linux by labelling it communist (think about how ridiculous that seems now.)

Their current mea culpa phase should be evidence that the angry nerds on slashdot may have had a point.

edit: Why the downvotes? Perhaps peoples' memories need jogging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/31/ms_ballmer_linux_is...

I find ad labeling on Google increasingly subtle. Ads seem to be so voluminous on Google lately that there’s no organic results to contrast them with above the fold. By definition (2), if I only see paid results above the fold, I think it’s fair to argue it has become an advertising engine. Search users are scrolling down results less and less, and there’s a tremendous bias towards the top results. When there’s no organic results above the fold, to users Google often feels like it’s completely driven by ads.

There is about 149 billion dollars of difference between the amount of money Google needs to "keep the lights on" and the 150 billion dollars that Google will see in revenue this year. Also, if "ads keep the lights on" then why aren't there toll booths on all paved roads, since "tolls pave the roads"?

Gasoline tax and vehicle registration fees pave the road.

So you get my point, then!

I agree with you. The fact that Google serves ads for search results is not the problem, the real issue is their indifference to user privacy. They would have to sell ads to keep lights running. But they can do away with privacy transgressions.

What privacy transgressions? Are you referring to the data they collect or their use of it (or both)

Yeah when I search "basecamp" I get 2-3 competitors clearly marked as "Ad", and the top actual search result is Basecamp homepage, with six(!) different pages inside the Basecamp site listed under it: Basecamp 3, Basecamp 2, How it works, Try it FREE, Pricing, Basecamp personal.

What more do they need?

There are ways to keep the lights on without showing ads.

Example:

Offer a "premium" search experience. They could let people customize what types of results they'd like to see. When I'm searching for a software engineering question, I'd almost always prefer documentation, then code, then q&a, then blog posts. I'd also love to set which sites I'd prefer to see results from (mdn, Reddit, etc).

The issue is that ads would almost certainly make more money than other options. And, as a for-profit company, Google has a lot of pressure to do what makes them the most money. It would be tough for them to tell their investors, "we know we could make more money by showing ads, but we're not going to do that". Even if they could offer a better experience/product without ads.

Personally, and this is almost certainly a controversial opinion, I think the issue is with the for-profit company model. As soon as you give people equity, you're under a lot of pressure to do what makes the most money rather than what's best for the world. I'm curious what Google would look like if it was a money-making non-profit.

The mods hand pick what is front page. HN is not a social media site, it's a curated news site.

I agree with your sentiment. Google gives away services for free and display ads.

I like this far better than the FAANG company that charges 2x the cost of competitors for medium quality products.

Those are very big and bright lights

Thus very expensive to keep running.

> Ads keep the lights on and they are labeled as such

Not really, at least to how they were previously labeled. Over the years, SERP ads have gotten closer and closer to looking like organic results.

> I'm guessing it's some sort of a rule here to have at least one anti-google link on the front page at all times

Not only this, any submission that's remotely related to Google HN crowd finds a way to start bashing Google. It has gotten so bad that recently I started hiding any submission related to Google.

I hide all amazon or Facebook as well. Doesn’t matter what the topic is, it will automatically turn to juvenile bashing.

1. barely

2. ads are placed and marked in such a way as to draw clicks over search results. that this is allowed is one thing, but it’s clear deception.

what happens in the finance room when you buy a car is also legal but it’s also heinous.

Why would you think there's a rule that there must be anti Google content on HN? If you think an article needs addressing you can just go ahead and leave a comment, you don't need to preface it with "this needs addressing". It's literally what the comment section is for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com