8 ms·

Xoogler here. About a week after joining, and having partaken of the food, massages, meditation rooms, fitness centers, shuttle bus, sports facility, arcade, j

Xoogler here. About a week after joining, and having partaken of the food, massages, meditation rooms, fitness centers, shuttle bus, sports facility, arcade, juice bar, tech stops, shwag etc. - I remember thinking to myself "whatever we do here must be ridiculously lucrative". There weren't signs of obvious waste (at least in my org.), and coming from other corporate gigs where you had to pay for coffee it really opened my eyes to what a difference it makes for employee morale / productivity.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Indeed, it's amazing how profitable vacuuming up users' private data without their informed consent and monetizing it can be.
- michaelvoz 10y ago
  You must be a joy at parties. How is any of the data private when you willingly use their tools, sites, servers, etc? You open up google.com and type things in, what privacy do you expect? Or am I missing something you are referring to?
  - psbp 10y ago
    ocdtrekkie is infamous for having endless anti-Google arguments on Google+ for the past 5 years. Trust me, you're not going to have a fruitful discussion.
    - blub 10y ago
      What would the ideal result of such a fruitful discussion be? Accepting that Google is truth and Google is love? This is exactly what we need, exposing antisocial behavior for what it is.
      - psbp 10y ago
        I'm not saying the argument is bad (I probably agree with it more than not), but from memory, it almost seems compulsive rather than an actual attempt to discuss Google's role. Many posters on G+ resorted to blocking him because it became insufferable.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    The problem is that Google's target market is largely people who are unaware of what the risks are, unaware of the extent of what Google does with their data. It's up to us in the tech community to protect people from companies that use dark pattern behavior like Google. yuhong: Responding to your question as an edit to my own comment since two -4 comments is probably enough for one day. Silently implementing opt-out features, and automatically opting everyone into new ways to violate their privacy, granting themselves the right to change their terms of service or privacy policy without notification. Using confusing terminology to make it difficult to discern what is the "more private" option. (Opting out of Google+'s "Featured Photos" feature, for example, requires you to switch ON the option to shut OFF Google stealing your intellectual property.) As existencebox noted, making ads on search look as close to search results as possible to mislead people into clicking on scam and malware laden Google Ads rather than real results...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - yuhong 10y ago
      What dark patterns are you referring to?
      - bzbarsky 10y ago
        Making their ads on a search result page look more and more like their organic search results, for example. Or making Android Location History on by default and then using it for things like http://searchengineland.com/hood-google-adwords-measures-store-visits-222905 http://searchengineland.com/hood-google-adwords-measures-sto... -- yes, they're reporting anonymized data to the advertisers, but of course they're storing your actual location data, with a well-hidden knob to turn it off. Doing things people probably wouldn't like done to them if they knew about them with a well-hidden knob to turn it off is fairly dark-patterny as far as I'm concerned.
    - bitmapbrother 10y ago
      >It's up to us in the tech community to protect people from companies that use dark pattern behavior like Google. Are you a self appointed privacy vigilante or were you elected by the people to protect them? Do you also protect people from Credit Card companies, ISP's, Cable Companies, e-Commerce sites and Cell Phone companies or are you just infatuated with Google?
  - existencebox 10y ago
    What's always frustrated me is that there are perfectly legitimate complaints about how google has gained their market share; but people seem to like weakening the broader argument with more emotional arguments. I'll gladly cite examples: Search ad dark patterns. I remember a time when G was _proud_ of that their ads were entirely distinct from native search results, and never caused native results to fall beneath the fold. Now when I search on even a moderately sized monitor, literally half of the first page results are sponsored or ads (native content being entirely beneath the fold), to boot in a manner increasingly less distinct from the native results. (there used to be a separate ad box, and then a line between ads and native, and now just a tiny little 'ad' or grey 'sponsored' blip) I've seen these encroachments across the board; youtube/G+ integrated logins was another, dark patterns for data-gathering approval on droid ("do you want to share data; yes/cancel"), which I'd best summarize as a slow collapse of any legitimacy to their "don't be evil" mantra from early on. The one concrete point I can think of for "scraping data without approval" is that when various new data policies were established and yes/no controls added to your G profile settings, I believe some of them defaulted on? I've heard mumblings both ways in the HN discussions on this topic so it's a less strong point than my previous, but may be a basis for a more established argument of that aspect of dark patterns in private data acquisition that the parent was trying to pose.
  - dexterdog 10y ago
    So you would have no problems with your cell service provider keeping records of all of your calls and locations and recording conversations in the room even when not on a call? Most people don't know what data google is keeping and monetizing.
    - nostrademons 10y ago
      Don't they do this already? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
  - bzbarsky 10y ago
    And the people who ended up with Chrome installed and set as their default browser because they installed some other application (like Flash) were using Chrome willingly, right? Yes, Google was doing that sort of thing for Chrome distribution for a while. They've stopped since, which is better than nothing, I guess. [Edit: apparently they haven't stopped, according to ocdtrekkie's comment! Or maybe they have started again.] Point is, a lot of people are NOT using Google's products willingly. They may be using them because someone else set them up with the product and they don't know how to change, they may be using it because they're required to for work (Google docs, e.g.).
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      They still do it: https://get.adobe.com/reader/ https://get.adobe.com/reader/ (Checked today, Windows 10, while using Edge. Default checked on this page is to also install Chrome.) It's worth noting that Sundar Pichai's claim to fame at Google, prior to Chrome itself, was getting the Google Toolbar installed on everyone's PCs whether they wanted it or not. The CEO of Google isn't just a fan of software installation dark patterns like this, he's the guy responsible for it at Google.
      - yuhong 10y ago
        Google Toolbar was one of the better browser toolbars AFAIK though.
        bzbarsky 10y ago
        That's a pretty low bar. But in terms of the ethical question, we're now talking about how if I break into your house to steal all your unhealthy potato chips that's better than if I break into your house to steal your money. The fundamental problem is breaking into your house.
        ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        If you're diagnosed with cancer, but it is one of the least fatal forms of cancer... you still have cancer.
- jrcii 10y ago
  Oh no, a critical comment that doesn't conform with the political status quo in the IT industry, silence him!
- notheguyouthink 10y ago
  > informed consent Sidenote, and completely off topic: Is there a non-high-horse way to word this? I understand the meaning, but the same phrase can be used to be completely dismissive as well. It's a potential moral high ground, where if you don't agree you must be uninformed. I'm not saying OP meant it that way, it just brought up the honest question from me.
  - sp332 10y ago
    I think it's medical/clinical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent "Express permission" is also a little jargony but I think it avoids the problem you mentioned?
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      I'm not sure "express permission" indicates that you are aware of the full extent of that permission, merely that you were explicitly asked for it and you agreed to it. To answer the parent, I wasn't trying to say everyone who knows what Google does with their data would not actually consent. There are people who argue that "privacy is over" and that it's entirely okay for Google to know everything about them. Most Googlers fall into that category, along with a large number of extremely liberal tech people. I'd say most people on HN understand at least in large part how Google operates. But I'd argue the majority of society does not understand the extent to which Google collects and uses their information, nor grasps how that may affect their lives in the future.
      - yuhong 10y ago
        "Most Googlers fall into that category"?
    - notheguyouthink 10y ago
      Hmm, not sure - Trekkie made some good points regarding express permission. Perhaps it's just a bit of a loaded word, and if i care to use it without being dismissive, i must be careful.. well, not to be dismissive haha. Appreciate your reply.
- BeingIncubated 10y ago
  Just stop using Google if that is a concern. Personally I use DDG.
  - takeda 10y ago
    I use DDG, as well, but I think you're missing the point. It's virtually impossible to avoid Google. You visit some sites, and they use scripts or fonts hosted by them, or use their services such as captcha, maps, etc. If you use Android, virtually all apps rely on Google Play Services, and interestingly you it will autoupdate even when you explicitly tell it not to. Using google maps to navigate (now even Waze is theirs), people sending links to google docs, google pictures etc.
    - pgeorgi 10y ago
      Regarding fonts, see https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_google_fonts_api_mean_for_the_privacy_of_my_users https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_... While some data is stored, no cookies are sent, plus there's heavy caching involved: "The result is that website visitors send very few requests to Google: We only see 1 CSS request per font family, per day, per browser." All in all, those services (IIRC the JS library CDN is similar) don't seem to be designed to be a tracking data source except for some popularity stats about the data hosted there.
mahyarm 10y ago
A lot of that stuff although is cheaper for the corporation to provide than for the employee to pay for themselves in money and time. The corp has a tax advantage and a bulk purchase advantage. Not having a payment infra probably adds a little bit of efficiency too.
- lmm 10y ago
  Yeah. Which is why I'm always amazed how many companies will nickel-and-dime on that stuff. Those benefits more than pay for themselves, a smart company would commit to them especially when times are bad.
  - hkmurakami 10y ago
    Compared to the salary you're paying your staff, it really does come out to mere pennies.
- gph 10y ago
  Which does seem like sort of a loophole. Don't companies have to add perks over a certain amount to the employees pay so that it gets taxed? Wouldn't feeding an employee every day qualify? It would be sort of weird if we turn back into having sort of 'company towns' where your employer provides a lot of what you need except they pay for it. It's not just Google this would be beneficial for, even if you run a factory you could pay employees a tiny bit less, but provide food/services for them that would make up for it. And because of the taxes/bulk situation it could be economically beneficial for both sides.
  - Naritai 10y ago
    I one spoke with a woman from the Netherlands who was surprised that these perks are not taxable. According to her, in the Netherlands perks like shuttles to work or company-provide food are taxable.
    - pkaye 10y ago
      What if the company had a business meeting and lunch was provided?

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Indeed, it's amazing how profitable vacuuming up users' private data without their informed consent and monetizing it can be.

michaelvoz 10y ago
You must be a joy at parties. How is any of the data private when you willingly use their tools, sites, servers, etc? You open up google.com and type things in, what privacy do you expect? Or am I missing something you are referring to?
- psbp 10y ago
  ocdtrekkie is infamous for having endless anti-Google arguments on Google+ for the past 5 years. Trust me, you're not going to have a fruitful discussion.
  - blub 10y ago
    What would the ideal result of such a fruitful discussion be? Accepting that Google is truth and Google is love? This is exactly what we need, exposing antisocial behavior for what it is.
    - psbp 10y ago
      I'm not saying the argument is bad (I probably agree with it more than not), but from memory, it almost seems compulsive rather than an actual attempt to discuss Google's role. Many posters on G+ resorted to blocking him because it became insufferable.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  The problem is that Google's target market is largely people who are unaware of what the risks are, unaware of the extent of what Google does with their data. It's up to us in the tech community to protect people from companies that use dark pattern behavior like Google. yuhong: Responding to your question as an edit to my own comment since two -4 comments is probably enough for one day. Silently implementing opt-out features, and automatically opting everyone into new ways to violate their privacy, granting themselves the right to change their terms of service or privacy policy without notification. Using confusing terminology to make it difficult to discern what is the "more private" option. (Opting out of Google+'s "Featured Photos" feature, for example, requires you to switch ON the option to shut OFF Google stealing your intellectual property.) As existencebox noted, making ads on search look as close to search results as possible to mislead people into clicking on scam and malware laden Google Ads rather than real results...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - yuhong 10y ago
    What dark patterns are you referring to?
    - bzbarsky 10y ago
      Making their ads on a search result page look more and more like their organic search results, for example. Or making Android Location History on by default and then using it for things like http://searchengineland.com/hood-google-adwords-measures-store-visits-222905 http://searchengineland.com/hood-google-adwords-measures-sto... -- yes, they're reporting anonymized data to the advertisers, but of course they're storing your actual location data, with a well-hidden knob to turn it off. Doing things people probably wouldn't like done to them if they knew about them with a well-hidden knob to turn it off is fairly dark-patterny as far as I'm concerned.
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    >It's up to us in the tech community to protect people from companies that use dark pattern behavior like Google. Are you a self appointed privacy vigilante or were you elected by the people to protect them? Do you also protect people from Credit Card companies, ISP's, Cable Companies, e-Commerce sites and Cell Phone companies or are you just infatuated with Google?
- existencebox 10y ago
  What's always frustrated me is that there are perfectly legitimate complaints about how google has gained their market share; but people seem to like weakening the broader argument with more emotional arguments. I'll gladly cite examples: Search ad dark patterns. I remember a time when G was _proud_ of that their ads were entirely distinct from native search results, and never caused native results to fall beneath the fold. Now when I search on even a moderately sized monitor, literally half of the first page results are sponsored or ads (native content being entirely beneath the fold), to boot in a manner increasingly less distinct from the native results. (there used to be a separate ad box, and then a line between ads and native, and now just a tiny little 'ad' or grey 'sponsored' blip) I've seen these encroachments across the board; youtube/G+ integrated logins was another, dark patterns for data-gathering approval on droid ("do you want to share data; yes/cancel"), which I'd best summarize as a slow collapse of any legitimacy to their "don't be evil" mantra from early on. The one concrete point I can think of for "scraping data without approval" is that when various new data policies were established and yes/no controls added to your G profile settings, I believe some of them defaulted on? I've heard mumblings both ways in the HN discussions on this topic so it's a less strong point than my previous, but may be a basis for a more established argument of that aspect of dark patterns in private data acquisition that the parent was trying to pose.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  So you would have no problems with your cell service provider keeping records of all of your calls and locations and recording conversations in the room even when not on a call? Most people don't know what data google is keeping and monetizing.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    Don't they do this already? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
- bzbarsky 10y ago
  And the people who ended up with Chrome installed and set as their default browser because they installed some other application (like Flash) were using Chrome willingly, right? Yes, Google was doing that sort of thing for Chrome distribution for a while. They've stopped since, which is better than nothing, I guess. [Edit: apparently they haven't stopped, according to ocdtrekkie's comment! Or maybe they have started again.] Point is, a lot of people are NOT using Google's products willingly. They may be using them because someone else set them up with the product and they don't know how to change, they may be using it because they're required to for work (Google docs, e.g.).
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    They still do it: https://get.adobe.com/reader/ https://get.adobe.com/reader/ (Checked today, Windows 10, while using Edge. Default checked on this page is to also install Chrome.) It's worth noting that Sundar Pichai's claim to fame at Google, prior to Chrome itself, was getting the Google Toolbar installed on everyone's PCs whether they wanted it or not. The CEO of Google isn't just a fan of software installation dark patterns like this, he's the guy responsible for it at Google.
    - yuhong 10y ago
      Google Toolbar was one of the better browser toolbars AFAIK though.
      - bzbarsky 10y ago
        That's a pretty low bar. But in terms of the ethical question, we're now talking about how if I break into your house to steal all your unhealthy potato chips that's better than if I break into your house to steal your money. The fundamental problem is breaking into your house.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        If you're diagnosed with cancer, but it is one of the least fatal forms of cancer... you still have cancer.
jrcii 10y ago
Oh no, a critical comment that doesn't conform with the political status quo in the IT industry, silence him!
notheguyouthink 10y ago
> informed consent Sidenote, and completely off topic: Is there a non-high-horse way to word this? I understand the meaning, but the same phrase can be used to be completely dismissive as well. It's a potential moral high ground, where if you don't agree you must be uninformed. I'm not saying OP meant it that way, it just brought up the honest question from me.
- sp332 10y ago
  I think it's medical/clinical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent "Express permission" is also a little jargony but I think it avoids the problem you mentioned?
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    I'm not sure "express permission" indicates that you are aware of the full extent of that permission, merely that you were explicitly asked for it and you agreed to it. To answer the parent, I wasn't trying to say everyone who knows what Google does with their data would not actually consent. There are people who argue that "privacy is over" and that it's entirely okay for Google to know everything about them. Most Googlers fall into that category, along with a large number of extremely liberal tech people. I'd say most people on HN understand at least in large part how Google operates. But I'd argue the majority of society does not understand the extent to which Google collects and uses their information, nor grasps how that may affect their lives in the future.
    - yuhong 10y ago
      "Most Googlers fall into that category"?
  - notheguyouthink 10y ago
    Hmm, not sure - Trekkie made some good points regarding express permission. Perhaps it's just a bit of a loaded word, and if i care to use it without being dismissive, i must be careful.. well, not to be dismissive haha. Appreciate your reply.
BeingIncubated 10y ago
Just stop using Google if that is a concern. Personally I use DDG.
- takeda 10y ago
  I use DDG, as well, but I think you're missing the point. It's virtually impossible to avoid Google. You visit some sites, and they use scripts or fonts hosted by them, or use their services such as captcha, maps, etc. If you use Android, virtually all apps rely on Google Play Services, and interestingly you it will autoupdate even when you explicitly tell it not to. Using google maps to navigate (now even Waze is theirs), people sending links to google docs, google pictures etc.
  - pgeorgi 10y ago
    Regarding fonts, see https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_google_fonts_api_mean_for_the_privacy_of_my_users https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_... While some data is stored, no cookies are sent, plus there's heavy caching involved: "The result is that website visitors send very few requests to Google: We only see 1 CSS request per font family, per day, per browser." All in all, those services (IIRC the JS library CDN is similar) don't seem to be designed to be a tracking data source except for some popularity stats about the data hosted there.

mahyarm 10y ago

A lot of that stuff although is cheaper for the corporation to provide than for the employee to pay for themselves in money and time. The corp has a tax advantage and a bulk purchase advantage. Not having a payment infra probably adds a little bit of efficiency too.

lmm 10y ago
Yeah. Which is why I'm always amazed how many companies will nickel-and-dime on that stuff. Those benefits more than pay for themselves, a smart company would commit to them especially when times are bad.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  Compared to the salary you're paying your staff, it really does come out to mere pennies.
gph 10y ago
Which does seem like sort of a loophole. Don't companies have to add perks over a certain amount to the employees pay so that it gets taxed? Wouldn't feeding an employee every day qualify? It would be sort of weird if we turn back into having sort of 'company towns' where your employer provides a lot of what you need except they pay for it. It's not just Google this would be beneficial for, even if you run a factory you could pay employees a tiny bit less, but provide food/services for them that would make up for it. And because of the taxes/bulk situation it could be economically beneficial for both sides.
- Naritai 10y ago
  I one spoke with a woman from the Netherlands who was surprised that these perks are not taxable. According to her, in the Netherlands perks like shuttles to work or company-provide food are taxable.
  - pkaye 10y ago
    What if the company had a business meeting and lunch was provided?