feri339

Technically the truth. But they might not get the same productivity because the team you'd be joining would be in SF or wherever. If remote working were perfect and the norm then no problem.

But that's not gonna happen. They will most likely not get the same paycheck as their colleagues on the coasts. Mostly because the cost of living is much lower.

Edit: In my experience I have more net money if I work in place with high cost of living and high comp compared to the opposite.

I talked about this in another post. I'm sure there are many different types of tech worker. But right now (I'm in my twenties) when evaluating a job offer the location is super important. Sure buying power and rent price is a factor. But I'd gladly take a hit there and work in place like Berlin, Amsterdam, New York City, SF as opposed to somewhere less cosmopolitan. In terms of culture and life outside of work it's just that I vastly prefer to stay in such an area. That's a personal perspective.

From the companys' POV they have to consider who would move there (for the reason above and a myriad of others). Are there good schools in the area? How is the regulatory environment. How is the reaction to loads of immigration. There tend to be a lot H-1B workers in the tech sector.

It makes a lot of sense from a business perspective to set up shop in a place where a lot of perspective employees already live.

Can't speak for anyone else but I gladly take a hit in my disposable income (it's not that much of a hit) if it means I can live in place where a lot of interesting stuff is happening aside from work (Berlin, NYC, Amsterdam, etc.). I don't need a big flat and I have few expensive hobbies.

Maybe it will be different in my thirties and forties but right now I want to either live in a (cool) city to work on exiting projects or be travelling. It may sound pretentious to some, but it's what I want.

I would imagine quite a few people feel similarly. In that way a campus in New York City makes sense I believe.

I doubt it somehow. At least near to mid-term, if it would get out, the reputation damage with the public and much worse the employees would probably be a lot higher than the gains. Alphabet needs to be the most attractive place to work for. Or at least close to it. They live and die by that.

I wouldn't say deception. It's more a manipulation. I'm sure there are hundreds studies in neuroscience and behavioral economics that tell advertisers exactly which buttons to push. Most ads, especially brand advertisement aren't supposed to effect an immediate reaction. Way down the line they may influence you subconsciously though.

> Do what services should do? Review the content before it's publicly available to ensure it's not breaking laws.

Yes, but how would they do this better than YouTube can? I just feel like it's better to deal with copyright after the fact. A big part of YouTube basically runs on fair use for example. Legislation like article 13 could hurt this doctrine.

> I feel the opposite. For far too long, internet companies have taken liberties of everything being 'opt out' instead of 'opt in'. This is another example of that.

But, it would affect primarily content creators of any kind. Well, the kind that isn't massive and can enter into sweeping deals with rights holders. This might not mean much to a lot of people. But the whole concept or commentary, reaction, memes, etc. and more broadly still, the internet in general relies on people being able to copy and repost and link stuff quickly and without fuss. You would basically change the internet to be even more corporate (i.e. favor big over small creators) than it is today.

And what exactly would a competing service do differently? The only thing protecting the internet as we know it is the fact that platforms are not responsible for what users post. That is changing and it's a terrible trend.

Which is what is happening today. It's just not efficient enough yet. The mistake made by the algo is reported by the uploader. It then takes (too much) time to be handled by a human.

> I regularly pay the copyright office a $50 fee to register the works I create that I believe are most likely to be infringed. I also send around a dozen DMCA takedown notices once or twice a week. If not for the DMCA I would be sending cease and desist letters and filing lawsuits. This is way better.

Yeah that's true. I'm saying DMCA is better than ContentID and its ilk.

Let's take a piracy example. I completely agree that DMCA-Takedowns directed at Google should be checked and (if the claim is valid) processed. It gets very problematic when you proactively filter uploads. Uploads should generally be allowed by default.

> What do you recommend? Fistfights?

No. Adapt. I realize this is easier said than done. But any company today has to constantly innovate. Never assume any given business model is save for anything more than short to mid-term. This is easier for tech companies because they breathe this kind of culture. But in the not-so-distant future every company will become more like that, or not exist anymore.

How would you ever manually review 400 hours of video per minute (likely much more by now). It's just impossible. And who is to say that the human reviewers would make no mistakes. It's not always a clear cut decision I'm guessing.

So either you have an automated and overzealous ContentID system or you limit upload capabilities for smaller creators (which would be the death of the internet).

Obviously the best solution would be to burden the copyright owners with prooving that they own certain content. So just DMCA pretty much. The copyright system is just so broken really. It only favors big content owners and middle men.

This whole shitty EU law comes down to this: Old media/distributers were asleep at the wheel for 20 years. Now they realize they're being replaced. So they fight back the only big slow incumbents know how. Legislation and law suits.

I still believe that Google leadership (maybe different for middle management) really has altruistic aspirations. Or rather, they think it's better they grab the power because they won't abuse it.

People complain about the monopolistic market power of Google. But in reality this is the only way big tech works at this time. You either grab the market or you'll loose out.

Anyway. Alphabet has to get cloud and Waymo right because long term they can't keep relying on advertising. In the end it's all about who gets to "real" AI first. Out of all the serious contenders I'd rather it be Alphabet than Amazon or worse, Baidu or Tencent. Because whoever gets that will probably dominate on whole new level. And that believe is really based around the ideals of the founders. Bezos for example seems much more like a typical business person with profit motivation. Page and Brin seem like they're just using the financial success of Alphabet as a means to an end. Because when you're that rich your world view and ideas for the future seem much more relevant than simply getting more money.