Hacker News Reader

Comment by CobrastanJorji | Hacker News Reader

But basically all of those actions would be things that would generate negative headlines. Would any of the following Hacker News stories surprise you?

* Google Shut Down British Teen's YouTube Account, Kid Loses Access to GMail

* Google Giving Out User Information to Companies Without Court Order or Protest

* Google Is Sharing GMail User Information with Game Publishers Out For DMCA Revenge

Every step along the way, there'd be an article and 100 Hacker News comments talking about how evil Google is and talking up how Duck Duck Go really isn't so bad as long as you remember the shortcuts that make it use Google.

Resisting requests from big companies demanding that they give out user information is a good thing. Changing their mind when they had clear evidence that the user was up to no good is a good thing. Not immediately shutting down someone's GMail account because they're doing something that upsets YouTube is a good thing.

View on HN

The thing that's missing in all those headlines is context. Google has context and I like to imagine Hacker News readers would understand the context too (or at least find a top comment talking about the context). So Google refusing to do anything or make life extremely hard when they're the ones with all the data is really frustrating.

It's relatively rare on the internet, even in HN, that all of the nuance would be seen or understood before people jumped to conclusions.

But it was done here, and that deserves credit. Few forums on the internet would solicit this level of discussion

This isn't really a great example of the point, however. This wasn't a story about a large company that cut corners for the sake of speed and efficiency just because there was context could have justified it.

Yeah, I think every single “FAANG does X which is bad” thread on HN is completely devoid of context and nuanced discussion.

This 100x. I feel the Gel-Mann effect so hard on HN sometimes. 99 times out of 100 I think “wow the discussion on HN is so good”. The other 1 it’s about something I’m an expert in and the comments are so wrong it hurts. But I simply ignore that and continue thinking HN comments are great. That’s how the cycle goes.

"Google just deleted my nearly 10-year-old free and open-source Android app"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20826618

"Google can ban your Android app if they think you’ve clicked on your own ads"

https://danfabulich.medium.com/never-run-google-ads-if-you-h...

And here's a Facebook one because it's almost too good

"Facebook banned me for life because I help people use it less"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28788821

Now I don't know the details of those stories but I can tell you the comments are what you'd think. There's never context when someone feels wronged and wants to show the world.

Google like many companies doesn't comment in detail on these types of situations so what we would get is the kind of headlines the parent made up.

> Google like many companies doesn't comment in detail on these types of situations.

I think the best statement from Google would say:

"We have more information which gives additional context to our actions here. We have asked for permission from the account holder to publish this information, but so far that permission hasn't been granted".

Why don't they make statements like that?

because they wouldn't put in the effort? Google is notorious for bad customer service.

Of course context matters:

Otherwise we’d be astonished at “Bungie sues long time gamer for 7.6m”. Obviously we can investigate further, it’s not that complicated a matter. I neither believe negative publicity would have occurred, nor that this is a justification for a cover-up. A trivial headline would be “Google suspends account of DMCA troll.” - I doubt it would even generate any clicks.

It just sounds like Google weren’t looking into the matter sufficiently (there are humans there afterall.)

I'm baffled how filing a copyright notice can be done without disclosing legal details of the one who is filing to the one who is hit by it.

Sure.

But if Google is deciding that avoiding those potential headlines is of higher priority than protecting its users from getting abused by the unfair system they put in place, we are justified to attach a derogative label to the company.

And it's cumulative, with all the other ones. The labels, I mean.

I just hope people will not forget them in 20 years after they make a giant PR campaign to become the good guys again, like with Microsoft.

> how evil Google is and talking up how Duck Duck Go really isn't so bad as long as you remember the shortcuts that make it use Google

These comments are always the pièce de résistance of HN absolutism.

There's no right to privacy while actively committing a crime.

Google already had a policy of doxxing YT users, only DMCA abusers get protection by default.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com