Hacker News Reader

Comment by godelski | Hacker News Reader

  > What's fascinating is that Google gets virtually zero recognition for this, and beyond that, Google is one of the most hated corporations for it.

The hate it's about what they did with the power they gained.

You can both love and hate something at the same time. Humans have complexity and nuance, don't dismiss that.

It's also worth noting that complaints are more vocal than complements. If things are working well then it's usually quiet. Nothing to say. But when shit goes wrong people talk because they want it fixed. Don't let this bias fool you into thinking that appreciation isn't happening. Appreciation is generally silent while hatred is vocal. That's not isolated to the internet either

View on HN

It's less a statement about the absolute hatred that Google gets, and more about Google using collected data to target you with ads is the most hated thing about Google (directly or indirectly).

Google pretty much figure out how to take an attribute that every human has (desire) and turn that into indefinite sustainable (and growing!) services for every living human no money required. Role the clock back 25 years and this idea is so powerful and utopian, no wonder Googlers were riding on top of the world. Anyone on Earth of any background and any wealth level will be able to have web search, e-mail, an office suite, maps, youtube, a blog, data storage, all the tools you need for productive online life, for free, for everyone. I cannot think of any business idea more progressive than that.

However, the point is that the above is inseparable from Google's data collection. There is no other solution to achieving the above. None. It's either data collection or pay walls. Walls that naturally run along the huge wealth divides globally, and leave behind those who need it most.

So I suppose at heart the question is: If free services for all humans and mass scale data collection are two sides of the same coin, is this something that we want or something we need to avoid?

(I know people are itching to call false-dichotomy, but lets be real, nothing in 25 years that isn't money-based or ad-based has gained meaningful VC money i.e. VCs dont buy into "donation based" models)

  > I know people are itching to call false-dichotomy, but lets be real, nothing in 25 years that isn't money-based or ad-based has gained meaningful VC money i.e. VCs dont buy into "donation based" models

There's plenty of counter examples, from Linux to ffmpeg. You're not wrong about VCs but the argument shifts to if that's the structure we should be using if it's just going to optimize for greed.

But I think you also glossed over the enshitification element. That greed optimization has shifted to become user hostile. There was a time when we could make great products and make good money at the same time. But we've moved to living in a world with oligarchs. They're pushed to make more money than they could ever possibly use (I don't mean need, I mean they couldn't spend it if they tried) because others get to ride their coat tails.

The economy was never a zero sum game. It's possible for everyone to get rich at the same time. You don't have to shit on the user to make a profit. I'll say that if a company is hostile to its users then that company is evil. Most companies, including Google, don't start that way. But being good doesn't mean you won't become evil tomorrow. And Google? They've abandoned nearly all the principles that they used to be praised for. I don't think the criticism is harsh. People are allowed to change their opinions about a company as that company changes its actions

A one point a very hated thing was how they defrauded advertisers using their services. They have increased the fraud over time, so that hate hasn't gone away.

Let's say you could calculate a good-evil score for every large corporation by netting the good they do against the evil they do.

I don't know if Google would be net-good or net-evil, but I'm pretty sure they would be far less evil than most of the other large corporations on that list.

Certainly less evil than Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Saudi Aramco, Meta, JPMorgan Chase, UnitedHealth, Coca-Cola, Oracle, Palantir, Goldman Sachs, LVMH, McDonalds, etc.

But it's a paradox that on HN, Google gets far more hate than any of these.

Maybe HN is a weird combination of fatalistic and idealistic, where we assume any for-profit corporation with a do-gooder mission is lying about its mission to hide its essential evilness, while secretly hoping that maybe it really is possible to do good and do well at the same time.

For a while it seemed like Google's do-gooder mission was genuine. Unlike their less principled competition, Google refused to take money to influence search rankings. Google withdrew from mainland China rather than continue censoring search results there.

We secretly started to believe. But all the other compromises along the way felt like betrayals.

Google really is less evil, even today, but we hate them more because we dared to believe, and Google let us down.

> Certainly less evil than Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Saudi Aramco, Meta, JPMorgan Chase, UnitedHealth, Coca-Cola, Oracle, Palantir, Goldman Sachs, LVMH, McDonalds, etc.

Certainly… according to who? I think some of these companies are, certainly, less evil than Google

> McDonalds

McDonalds should start allowing full 50% off order discounts in exchange for customers opting-in to receiving custom-printed wrappers with hyperpersonalized advertising printed on-demand just for them.

Could they afford to do it? IDK, advertising is effective and seems like a big business.

I think with their McDonalds App discounts for more normal pricing (last I checked), they're half way there?

My Facebook account with no connections was created exclusively to log in for the 20% discount. Facebook is probably getting more out of this arrangement than McDonalds.

I do like that McDonalds employees call me Valued Customer instead of the Facebook Name, after enabling one of the app privacy settings.

For example, Oracle does evil to its customers and partners and competitors. But Google does evil to every human who uses their products. In my book that’s much worse.

  > to every human who uses the internet

FTFY

Google has a lot of control over the internet. They also track and profile people even if they never created a Google account.

It's one thing to do that to people who are users, it's another thing to secretly turn people into users

Google can do and has done a lot more harm than McDonalds or Coca-Cola.

They destroyed the open web (over and over - AMP, Manifest v2, etc. etc.), helped turned mobile computing into a rental / second-class citizen model, are ushering in identity tracking and attestation.

They pilfer the commons, unfairly monopolize, expand vertically and horizontally without bounds, make it impossible to compete, tax distribution every single way since they're the only set of rails, profit off of other people's copyrights and trademarks.

They even tried to hoard AI innovation, and it took employees leaving to set it free.

> But it's a paradox that on HN, Google gets far more hate than any of these.

There is no paradox. This is Hacker News. It's a site of by and for people in the tech industry. Of course Google's activities (good and bad) get far more attention than those of Chase, or Coca-Cola.

I certainly wouldn't agree that Google "gets far more hate" on HN than Microsoft, Meta, Oracle, or Palantir.

I think the premise is wrong: I don't think Google is more hated than all of the organisations you list.

Within the tech world, I believe people generally dislike meta, Palantir, Oracle, and Microsoft more than Google.

Out in the real world, in the US at least I'd bet money that UnitedHealth must be more hated. And anyone with at least a modicum of rationality would probably dislike Big Oil and Big Junk Food more too?

---

That said, I think this is an excellent cautionary lesson:

> We secretly started to believe... ...we hate them more because we dared to believe, and Google let us down.

Ticketmaster. Just throwing that out there. Stubhub.

> The hate it's about what they did with the power they gained.

Which is???

Serve ads without selling data?

I'm not sure if y'all are aware, but CC companies sell your data. Your telecom provider sells your data. Banks sell your data.

Google figured out a system to sell access while keeping your privacy. And somehow they're more hated than people who just straight up give your data away.

If most people hate Google all this proves is that most people are retarded.

I share your sentiments re google exactly. But the credit card and banks point is also understated.

Google innovates. CCs are basically a monopoly/duopoly, a private tax on an economy where increasingly everyone uses credit for everything. They make money on these transaction costs and banks issuing them make money charging insane interest when your neighbors fall behind, trapping them in a debt cycle. And yes, your purchases get aggregated into data sales.

Have credit cards innovated? Has your bank innovated? At least with Google their services are largely good and they actually innovate at shocking scale. Especially if you are paying for their products it is hard to argue Drive or YouTube haven't gotten better. You're complaining about ads but you want YouTube to be free? Who is going to pay for it?

Meanwhile has your credit card gotten better? Why is the CEO of MasterCard making millions of dollars? If you had to pick the thing in your pocket that is preying on you and you pick your phone, you're not thinking clearly. The answer is your credit card.

> Google figured out a system to sell access while keeping your privacy.

This would be the new Google’s definition of privacy, ie. only you and Google have access to your private data.

The new Google does not, of course, have a word (nor hence the concept) of data to which Google does not have rightful access.

  > Serve ads without selling data?

They sell data. Why do you think they don't?

  > CC companies sell your data. Your telecom provider sells your data. Banks sell your data.

You're over simplifying. WHAT data being sold is a critical variable. Same with HOW MUCH. Not all data is created equally. Last I checked, my bank doesn't have real time access to my location. My bank doesn't know everyone I communicate with. Not even my telecom operator knows that! None of your examples know every person that is within ~100 ft of me at any given time.

Look, I don't like that the banks and telecoms have as much data as they do, but let's be serious here, Google has some very serious data on people. Don't be so glib.

  > Which is???

And don't get me started on all the other things. What they've done to the open web. Email. Smartphones. And much more. I don't know how you can think Google is just an ad company when I'm pretty sure you use so much more from them.

But what is the alternative, and why is it better?

An Apple-esque internet that gets you a full google-like suite of services, along with news and other general entertainment, all ad/tracking free, but for a cool $300/mo? User friendly, pro-consumer, but only for those who can afford it?

I genuinely struggle to say that a user friendly internet that cuts out 80% of the current global internet user base because they are too poor is a better system.

  > But what is the alternative, and why is it better?

Is this a legitimate question? There's hundreds of projects working on alternatives[0]. There's also... you know... the internet before Google took over. So I'm not quite sure what you're actually asking here. Is this some kinda "gotcha"?

  > An Apple-esque internet

Let me stop you right there. No one wants that either. We want to *go back to* a free and open internet. I don't mean free like you don't pay your ISP[1], but as in you pay your ISP for access to their pipelines and then that's it. That's the contract. No snooping. None of that. They laid the fiber and they're paid for that service.

  > all ad/tracking free, but for a cool $300/mo? User friendly, pro-consumer, but only for those who can afford it?

Oh man, the overton window has shifted real far here. I'm not wholeheartedly against ads existing, but I am against Surveillance Capitalism. We can't even begin to have a meaningful conversation if we conflate these things. If "having ads" is equivalent to Surveillance Capitalism, then there's no conversation to be had. Your account is young, so I'm guessing you haven't been around these parts long either. It hasn't always been this way.

  > I genuinely struggle to say that a user friendly internet that cuts out 80% of the current global internet user base because they are too poor is a better system.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a lie big tech sells to make you accept what they do. It's no different than the personal carbon footprint campaign[2].

  [0] Network effect has multiple meanings here and it often does hinder their goals. 
  [1] Well it's not like we can truly setup global mesh networks, but hey, maybe one day.
  [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook

I've been on the internet since the mid 90's, and thankfully grown up since then. People don't want to work for free, and the people who are paid to work produce far better products for far wider audiences. This is just flatly true

So having established that, repeatedly, over 30 years, it's clear that a functioning internet needs money (what a surprise) to run optimally.

You hand wave away my first point and didn't provide any examples. So please, give me a service or product with mass-market penetration (read: you can frequently find people on the street using it) that isn't ad-funded or direct payment funded. It's hard to come up with one, much less five, much less the tens of thousands that would need to exist.

> They sell data

Show me where I can buy it then?

Because I know where to buy CC data, for example...

> Not even my telecom operator knows that!

Lol: https://thingspace.verizon.com/services/hyper-precise-locati...

> Not even my telecom operator knows that!

They sure do and certainly know who is within 100ft of you at any given time.

Your telecom company can triangulate you through their towers, but they don't have access to your phone's WiFi antenna, bluetooth, NFC, nor GPS. Google and Apple have all of that. Snoop on what they're sniffing and I doubt you'll agree that the telecom companies comes anywhere near to what Google and Apple have.

If it wasn't for Google (and ads), my bank might not have even considered selling my data.. They only sold the credit bureaus in the past, AFAIK. Now it's considered a "must have"..

Lol, traders and hedge funds are 100x more interested in the data banks have than advertisers.

¿Por qué no los dos?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com