Hacker News Reader

Comment by fergie | Hacker News Reader

Are we talking about _customers_ or _users_? They are two different things, often with competing agendas.

Its great that some American Google workers have decided to unionise (in practice, a significant proportion of their EU staff will already be unionised), and they are right to point to ethical issues as the reason for doing so. In the medium term, we are going to see some sort of professional regulation in software engineering, if for no other reason than to ensure that Terminator and Black Mirror don't become a reality.

The situation with customers and users is different. They already have ultimate power over Google since they can simply go elsewhere. The best way that we can keep Google decent is by ensuring that competing services can emerge. Unionising customers/users would actually make them more invested in Google which would be self-defeating.

View on HN

> They already have ultimate power over Google since they can simply go elsewhere

So can the employees, in theory. Unions exist because in reality it isn't that simple - arguably it's very similar when using it. Though I wonder how that could be dealt with through a union instead of plain old regulation.

Googlers can go basically anywhere they please that doesn't willfully discriminate against former Google exmployees. The reason the only unions you're seeing out of Google are political activist unions is because most workers don't feel significantly exploited between their compensation and expanded career options.

> They already have ultimate power over Google since they can simply go elsewhere

I always think this kind of "free market" thinking is spoken by people with an incredibly narrow world view.

You, personally, might be aware of all the evils and ills to which these companies subject their users, but the average consumer is blissfully ignorant or simply doesn't care.

You might be educated or enlightened enough to be aware of the risks these services pose, but again most people aren't. Is the average WhatsApp user (especially in the huge markets such as India where people are generally poorer and less highly educated) really going to care about the implications of privacy policies etc.?

Those users aren't even going to think about switching to a competing service because (e.g.) all their friends and contacts use WhatsApp.

When a company gets as big as Google, Facebook, etc. then competition starts to not matter and that's why the "free market" idea holds zero weight.

But most of Google's biggest projects (with the exception of Youtube) just don't have the network effects you're describing. There's no reason I can't use Bing when my friends use Google, or Protonmail when my friends use Gmail, or Firefox when my friends use Chrome, or an iPhone when my friends use Android.

or Maps

>> professional regulation in software engineering, if for no other reason than to ensure that Terminator and Black Mirror don't become a reality.

Engineers have professional associations. That never stopped a single engineer from building weapons of mass destruction. Lawyers are subject to perhaps the most intricate body of professional regulations and so lawyers rarely ever do anything that might hurt society at large. Professional organizations exist to benefit their members. They don't exist to prevent social ills. That is the role of government. A bar association for software engineers won't prevent Skynet. Government regulations setting limits on the powers attached to AI might.

> Government regulations setting limits on the powers attached to AI might.

This only works if all governments agree on this rule. AI is an economic competitive advantage, and it’s in every countries best interest that advances in AI are developed in their borders.

I agree with most of your comment, but

> A bar association for software engineers won't prevent Skynet. Government regulations setting limits on the powers attached to AI might.

A government regulation will only ensure that the government get the AI power fist, they need it to combat terrorism or something. And anyway, Skynet was a project of the government ...

I'm OK with government getting AI tech first. In my country I have say in how my government works. If I don't like what they are doing I can elect better people, even run for office myself if necessary. I don't have any control over tech companies or other private actors out to make a buck.

Combat terrorism or protect children.

> Lawyers are subject to perhaps the most intricate body of professional regulations and so lawyers rarely ever do anything that might hurt society at large.

Patent trolls and the copyright mafia are a scourge on society... the amount of progress that they have blocked for decades is astonishingly bad.

And that's not even coming remotely close to the lawyers that aided organized tax theft (aka "tax optimization") or threatened the foundations of democracy itself (Giuliani and the rest of Trump's associates).

Patent and copyrights are embodied in the U.S. constitution, so if you have an issue with that take it up with the Founding Fathers. The specific details of IP protection are determined by Congress, so if you have issues with the details take that up with your local federal legislator.

Tax optimization is generally promoted by accountants not lawyers, though tax is an area that both accountants and lawyers can practice and so some lawyers are certainly involved in tax avoidance advising. Though as tax is also one of the few areas where advisors can go to prison for their advice (and moreover, for advice that was technically within the bounds of the text of the law at the time the advice was given), few lawyers are willing to get involved in tax avoidance that is borderline tax evasion.

Guiliani and the rest are facing disbarment or worse for their roles in threatening the foundations of democracy. Like most punishments, this one must take place after the offending act is committed, since we can't preemtively discipline someone for something they haven't actually done (yet).

One customer/user going elsewhere will have no impact on Google's bottom line, though.

Getting enough people to to stop using Google products for a day - or enough creators to set their videos to private for a day, for instance - would have an impact, but sadly is probably impossible to organize on a large enough scale to be effective.

> They already have ultimate power over Google since they can simply go elsewhere.

This is like saying if you complain about the government you can always "simply" move to a different country.

That's what I was thinking too. Maybe that's true if you're a large company with lots of people competing for your business. But if you're a small company advertising on Google Ads for example, you need them more than they need you.

I wonder if a union would make sense for a certain size of customer?

The distinction between users and customers is blurry. You can be a user and, effectively, a customer even if you pay with something else than money (eg. we pay Facebook with our data).

I would argue that they cannot effectively go elsewhere and competing services cannot emerge. The reason for this is that the Google Search index has been built over decades into a unfathomable search index that is beyond compare. If the index were made public, with a usable API, then other companies could provide alternative search experiences, however developing an on-par search index is nearly impossible, even with the strongest venture backing imaginable. Furthermore, since google controls the index to the worlds information they are able to delist topics or pages that users may want to see.

> in practice, a significant proportion of their EU staff will already be unionised

Citation needed. Unions are something that's actively discouraged within US multinationals' EU offices as well, so I wouldn't be so sure the overall picture is rosier in Europe than it is in the US.

This gets tricky because there are Unions[0] and works councils in the EU, and they're different. Works councils[1] are usually per company, while unions are not.

Neither maps precisely onto the conventional American definition of a "Union"[*], nor onto the AWU, which is a members-only union. I'm not sure how many Google employees in europe are Unionized, but I know works councils exist in multiple nations.

[*]: My understanding is that a works council is government mandated, and a small group of employees can set one up, they have some formal negotiating power like a NLRA union, but don't represent all employees, and have a limited set of things they can negotiate about (for example they can deal with work conditions, but I don't think they can negotiate pay or strike). EU trade unions are big national organizations, one per industry that do lobbying and counter corporations. Conventional US NLRB unions have a monopoly on negotiations with the company, but require 50%+ membership. Members only unions have no formal legal power beyond non-retaliation, but can still negotiate with a company (about anything).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_Europe

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council

There's no umbrella answer but overall it is rosier in every aspect. For example, EU has a mandatory thing called "employee representatives" (although created at employees' initiative, it cannot be blocked) and some EU countries mandate also union members into those. Obviously these constructs will create a lot of friction with US management style, but I'd say that's the very reason they were created.

> overall it is rosier in every aspect

It's definitely rosier in most aspects insofar as protection of employee rights is much better at a legislative / public level in Europe, and therefore there's more supports available.

These may however often be your company's HR dept. ticking boxes (HR departments of course by and large existing to protect the company from potential employee complaints first and foremost, rather than to protect employees). In the case of a US-based office where such state-mandated supports are absent, and the employees have put together a body to enable collective bargaining, the supports—while less official and state-supported—may be of more immediate material benefit as they practically address current grievances.

> some EU countries mandate also union members into those

Do you have a reference for this? I'm curious to know which do and which don't (it's certainly not anything that's been brought in at a Directive level).

In Spain is mandated while in Germany, the Netherlands or UK it's just customary, and for the rest it might be anything in between. Here's more about it, see respective "workplace representation" sections: https://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Rela...

I just read that they were mandated in Germany at Amazon's FCs. Is that not true? (Sorry, original article in printed Swedish.)

If yes then not by law but by said company-wide agreement.

>we are going to see some sort of professional regulation in software engineering

That could trivially exist. There is PE licensing in other areas of engineering (and used to be in software) although it's not super-common outside of civil engineering given the purpose is mostly to sign off on stuff that goes to government regulators. Of course, it probably doesn't make much of a difference--the ACM and IEEE already have codes of ethics. And, by the way, that now means you probably can't be a software engineer if you don't have a 4-year degree from an accredited school along with some other requirements.

Customers? I think you mean users. People using Google are not its customers. These people are the source of its raw materials.

Google's custoners are the entities that purchase the products Google produces with that raw materials (i.e., data).

This will help get you up to speed.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-und...

People do pay for Google products, Gmail and Google Maps being some of the most common.

And what percentage of Google's revenue is that?

It is by no means their bread and butter. In fact, it's been argued (by Thiel) that much of Google activity outside its core business is a smokescreen for its monopoly and other exploits in data harvesting/advertising.

Corporations are typically on the hook for those bills; very rare for an individual human person to be directly responsible.

Just to point out services that average consumers do actually pay for: YouTube Premium, apps and media on Google Play (which Google gets their cut of), Google hardware (Nest/Home products, Pixel products, etc.), Google Fi and Fiber, and increased storage in Drive and Google Photos. There's undoubtedly others I am forgetting as well.

Of all the users and all of Google's revenue, what percentage are we talking about? It's not as significant as you're assuming.

I never said it was. It definitely pales in comparison to ad sales and enterprise business. Just pointing out that there are indeed consumers who are paying Google for products and services.

I pay for additional Google Drive storage.

Do you pay full price? For do you think that price is subsidized by Google's ability to harvest your online activity?

I suggest you list to the link above. You're not the customer.

In fact I believe I do. I just checked it again, and they have exactly the same (or higher) prices as major competitors (MEGA, Dropbox, OneDrive, Backblaze).

One product is not a business model. Please take a moment to update your software:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-und...

Boycotts are a classic means of effecting consumer pressure, but their effect is pretty limited.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com