Hacker News Reader

Comment by pickledoyster | Hacker News Reader

Creating a product for creeps is so on brand for a company founded by a creep.

Shouldn't Google (Glass) get the credit for the idea?

The way Facebook gets singled out for "creepiness" in a world full of bad actors is pretty ridiculous, and actually makes it easier for the others to keep flying under the radar.

Google is also creepy.

And yet, nobody feels that so viscerally that they feel compelled to write these schoolyard-level insults directed at its leadership every time it comes up in a HN thread.

There was a ton of backlash when Glass launched. Search for "glassholes" to find articles on that topic from back then.

I remember that quite well. However, the backlash was very specific; as far as I remember it was never directed at the company as a whole, let alone the person of, say, Eric Schmidt.

Because Meta was and is whatever Zuckerberg wants it to be, due to his control of the majority of voting shares. It’s a direct reflection of his soul

Eric Schmidt didn’t present as a creepy weirdo. He also didn’t make the company a reflection of himself. That kept the glasshole backlash compartmentalized.

Strange things happen when a leader merges the company brand and with his personal brand. It can strengthen the company brand (in the case of a plucky can-do technologist) but the company brand starts to get colored by the personality of the person (in the case of a person who goes off the deep end and starts saying weird and inflammatory stuff).

There's something about Zuckerberg that annoys people - see the Onion back when facebook started https://theonion.com/the-smug-little-shit-behind-the-latest-...

Probably the "dumb fucks" comment.

To be fair, I feel compelled to do just that.

Google glass was widely hated for this with the term “glasshole” floating around the news at the time. But it was also never sold as a consumer product so most people never even saw one.

You’ve just reminded me of something.

One of the div heads where I was working bought a (pair of?) Google Glass to figure out if there was anything useful we could do with them or develop for them.

He was trying them out and a colleague of mine wandered over to him and said something like, “ok Google, image search, pictures of dicks.”

Never has anyone whipped something off their face so fast. However, sadly, despite I believe it should have worked like a charm, for reasons that are now obscure to me no gallery of phalluses was displayed.

The only thing Google Glass was good for is checking e-mail. It would overheat and shutoff if you tried to record more than a few seconds of video or anything with real-time graphics.

Does it get singled out though? TikTok gets no end of flak. YouTube, as many parents will be aware, is full to the brim with creepy content. Kik has been widely reviled as a cesspool for CP sharing. And these are just a few examples.

Facebook gets a lot of (deserved) flak, but it’s hardly singled out.

Alongside Google Glass around the same time (in 2013) was Samsung’s creepy watch with a camera and a creepy ad for that. [1]

[1]: https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/23/samsung-smartwatch-date...

It's only a matter of time before someone gets "OK Glass(ed)" after saying "Hey Meta" out loud in a crowd.

The Internet was the best thing that ever happened to the so called "creeps", should we get rid of it as well?

Really? Email, IRC, old fashioned informational websites, usenet, FTP, ssh etc. are for creeps?

It was taken over and perverted by creeps.

"No true scotsman"[1]

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

Where is the Scotsman in “really, email is for creeps?”

Since it takes a whole lot of effort to defend oneself against an accusation I think people should spend at least a little bit of effort when making one.

If you can't explain why you are invoking No true Scotsman and how it applies, then I don't think you should be accusing the parent of it.

That's fair, it just jumped out so strongly to me that I didn't think to explain.

The implicit "no true scotsman" statement was "The people who 'took over and perverted' all these technologies were the creeps, None of the people who were there before this 'takeover' were considered creeps by anyone no sir, all upstanding Scotsmen each and every one of them. (And if there was a creep, he was obviously part of the 'takeover')."

I can see you might read it that way, but, to clarify, I am arguing that it was not'"the best thing that ever happened to the so called "creeps"' at that point, rather than "there were no creeps". TO put it another way its postive impact was greater relative to the negative.

The early internet was created and inhabited by nerds, which praticed playful creativity on interdependent networks and open protocols. Cooperation and collaboration was at the core.

Then the creeps arrived, drunk on sudden power and the promise of quick cash, and started capturing and consolidating online activity into 'platforms', or walled gardens if you will. These where void of the creative expression of the free and open web and streamlined every interaction into a very narrow and neatly defined world.

These creeps started abusing their power early on to snoop on peoples activity, pictures and conversations — which would be viewed as totally unacceptable behavior in the offline world — and went on to build the worlds most sinister and cynical manipulation machine.

Creeps are antithetical to the spirit of the early internet and the open web and they are actively working agains the ethos of open protocols and playful creativity!

The creeps arrived long before SV, startup culture, walled gardens and "quick cash." Internet (at least web) culture was born in the cesspools of SA and 4chan, rotten.com and the like.

I appreciate the effort to reform "nerds" into quirky elfin innocents but even USENET was full of creeps.

You are right, but I had the creeps that sought power in mind. Internet was for sure inhabited by countless other kinds of creeps of various flavours, but none of them had such a negative impact on human civilization as a whole as the power hungry creeps. They effectively captured and curtailed the promises of the early, distributed web.

Maybe it was destined to develop the way it did, given the permissionless nature of the web, and that the ideal of an open and distributed web would be choked out at some point anyway, as a natural consequence of collective human behaviour.

And maybe, if the web could have had a few more years without the power hungry forces we now know, we would have developed a stronger immunity against such behaviour? We will never know, I guess.

Non the less, I'll forever hold a deep grudge towards the power hungry creeps for the catastrophic effects they unleashed on the world and for ruining the potential of a truly open, diverse and vibrant web. In a generation or two, I do think we will look back at the founders of Big Tech companies as creeps that harmed the world in unthinkable ways, just as we do with brutal powerful people in earlier history.

They shaped the world in countless ways, and the negatives are just now beginning to gain space in the collective consciousness.

Not just Usenet, although it's the most well remembered example. Anywhere people could congregate on the early internet had its share of dark alleys where people would trade porn, warez, and political diatribe. IRC especially but also on the web if you accidentally strayed too far off the beaten path.

The modern Internet is basically less like a city and more like a shopping mall now.

I would love to see this In a Nutshell episode

100%

Source: I'm old and was there.

Whattabouttttt

Maybe?

Yes please

Reply on news.ycombinator.com