6 ms·

> Google is abusing its powers. They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take ba

> Google is abusing its powers. They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take back our internet. Edit, i love the downvotes for this. Google is legally required to act in their shareholders best interests. You all should understand fiduciary duty. They are building long term value for a massive (and growing) customer segment at the expense of a relatively small base of idealist tech users. Its morally reprehensible but still the correct decision in today's business climate.

joelthelion 10y ago
> They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Violating anti-trust laws?
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  I'm no google fanboy, but they haven't been convicted of violating any antitrust laws here in the US. Edit: Again with downvotes. Have I made an inaccurate statement?
  - Fnoord 10y ago
    FYI: Although I suppose everyone every once in a while is surprised about the way their posts are moderated on HN and other websites (if they notice, that is) it is annoying when people complain about downvoting. I just automatically downvote that. Sometimes what you state just isn't popular for the crowd who reads it and/or moderates it. Doesn't mean you are right or wrong. Just take a deep breath and give it a rest. EDIT: The guidelines say: "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html hence, nope, I won't change that unless someone who works for HN directs me to.
    - wheelerwj 10y ago
      > I just automatically downvote that. We can both agree that one of us needs to change. The guidelines are fine, the part you should change is automatically downvoting anything. Just jumping on a bandwagon makes for pretty boring reading too.
      - NTripleOne 10y ago
        hint: it's you
  - coldtea 10y ago
    You don't have to be convicted to be violating, because: 1) Not all violators will necessarily be convicted. 2) Even for those eventually convicted, there's always a period when they are violating, but not yet convicted.
    - wheelerwj 10y ago
      Guilt before innocence, got it.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        Being guilty before proven guilty is a thing in the real world. As is being guilty and getting away with it. People do that all the time too. And courthouses and judges don't have some monopoly into assessment of guilt. Just into its official identification and punishment. (If the legal system had the monopoly, or some moral monopoly, of only it determining guilt, then how would we, as a society, judge the effectiveness or not of the legal system itself?)
        wheelerwj 10y ago
        > we, as a society yes, we (the united states where google is head quartered) as a society, have agreed to at least pretend to allow the legal system to define guilt and innocence. But this isn't a philosophical debate. This is a discussion of what can be done to fix the AMP dilemma.
- kittiepryde 10y ago
  What would the process of being convicted of anti-trust laws for a website, when in order to use a competitor, you just have to type 'bing.com' or 'duckduckgo.com' into your address bar?
  - sz4kerto 10y ago
    If using competitor is not viable. Similarly, one could have installed an alternative OS with an alternative browser in 2000, but the jury thought that it's not that simple.
- sfifs 10y ago
  Anti trust prosecutions work only if harm to consumer is proven - harm to other companies doesn't really work for successfully anti trust prosecutions. There's a reason no US attorneys bring anti trust lawsuits against Google and that's because Google would very likely be able to show their choices benefitted consumers (eg. say saved 10 mins and 50MB data a day across 200 million consumers without charge)
  - mort96 10y ago
    I'm an individual, not a company. I make web pages. Lots of other individuals also make web pages. It's not like only companies make websites and consumers only use websites.
    - maverick_iceman 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure the number of individual web devs is vastly lower than the number of consumers.
      - mort96 10y ago
        Maybe, I don't know. My point was that Google fucking with the web doesn't only affect companies. Even if there's vastly more company websites than personal websites, there's a vast number of personal websites too.
nothrabannosir 10y ago
You're right, but that point isn't relevant. What you're giving is an explanation, not an excuse. Nobody is incredulous at Google's motivations (money). We're just not satisfied with it. Before you can solve a problem, you must identify it clearly. That's what we're doing here. Saying "yeah but it's only logical" isn't the point. Look: > It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take back our internet. You mean, like discussing why AMP is bad and why we shouldn't use it?
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  No, everyone on here shouldn't need explanation on why amp is bad. Especially when its a closed system that Google insists serving to your customers from Google's private servers. No technologist or business person would/should ever stand for that. Yet we are forced to. The discussion should really be, how do we dislodge Google from its current entrenched position.
  - dajohnson89 10y ago
    Uh, use a different search engine? Am I missing something?
    - RodericDay 10y ago
      Yeah, a whole host of technical and legal methods that go beyond an incredibly hard collective-action problem.
- sametmax 10y ago
  But we don't need an excuse. However the explanation seems necessary given that: - we saw it happen once; - we said it would happened again; - we said how; - we said why; - and it happened again. And apparently nobody gives a damn. People are still trying to get short term gains by adapting to Google's will and wrecking our industry, efficiently sawing the branch we are all seating on. So yeah, we need to give the explanation. Again. And again. Until people hear it. We are responsible of the situation. Not Google. Before Google there was others like MS, and after they will be others. It's like a disease. You don't blame diseases, it's very useless, you explain, and you act. Yes, your site will not make as much money. But for God sake, it's the same rational for green energy, criminal prevention and the like. You pay NOW because you understand that it's necessary on the long run.
coldtea 10y ago
>They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. There was such a thing as ethical and societal responsibility for businesses. Thinking making profit by any means as long as they are nominally legal is acceptable for a company is just something some people believe. No natural law that says it has to be so -- we could easily (and have had) believe the opposite.
- dajohnson89 10y ago
  >There was such a thing as ethical and societal responsibility for businesses. Since when? Standard oil? Or going back further, the Dutch East India Company?
  - unethical_ban 10y ago
    Corporate social responsibility want a thing on the silk road, but we expect it now.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Since the time companies started being held accountable. Which goes back all the way to ancient Babylon in some form or another. There are countless instances in history of shady businessmen being taken to trial or punished by an angry mob. (And the "Dutch East India Company" was accountable to its society -- and even nationalized at some point. It just exploited OTHER societies and countries).
    - dajohnson89 10y ago
      And "Google" was accountable to its shareholders -- and even made public at some point. It just exploited OTHER parts of society. See?
27182818284 10y ago
Fiduciary duty it isn't a magic spell that shareholders cast and then the company does everything all the time to squeeze profit out of everything. Lots of Google services are still free (as in price)
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  No, they are adware. Or "get monitored and profiled".
a_imho 10y ago
Criticizing Google too strongly e.g. kill google is a surefire way to get downvotes. Which is pretty much the same logic you described. HN is frequented by googlers, even if it is not exactly a duty to downvote comments like yours, it makes some sense. Or maybe I'm just seeing things.
colordrops 10y ago
> required to act in their shareholders best interests This is an extremely vague requirement. Potentially killing their brand name among developers and potentially initiating a slow long decline into irrelevancy certainly counts as not acting in their shareholders' best interests. When google first started, their "don't be evil" mantra was one of the main reasons they succeeded, so not doing unethical shit is in their shareholders' best interests.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  No, making more money is, and shareholders tend to think in short term gains.
  - colordrops 10y ago
    Are only short term gains in shareholders' best interests? Is there a legal definition? I'm asking genuinely.
    - manigandham 10y ago
      No, they are not. This is a common misconception. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...
- nebabyte 10y ago
  > Potentially killing their brand name among developers and potentially initiating a slow long decline into irrelevancy certainly counts as not acting in their shareholders' best interests. When google first started, their "don't be evil" mantra was one of the main reasons they succeeded He's right in that they're a company, but not that the solution to this problem is to "kill Google." Much easier and truer to the problem is to "kill" this expectation people have that the magic of good-natured leadership will create companies that dutifully remain bound to arbitrary constraints as "don't be evil" or "not doing unethical shit". It's just blissful daydreaming. Much better would be to collectively gravitate around community alternatives. You have most of the tools in front of you (open-source, remember?), but you decide that Google's 'already won' and think of yourself as reliant upon them (thus complaining when they don't do things your way).
ksk 10y ago
>Its morally reprehensible but still the correct decision in today's business climate. Using your logic if slavery were to become legal again, businesses should rush to use the free labor because "fiduciary duty". This is why they teach business ethics.
- freehunter 10y ago
  Why do you think companies rush to use H1B visas and offshore to countries that use (what amounts to) slave labor? Yes, companies do this today. Business ethics counts for nothing if it's not mandated. Compare Walmart's revenue to Whole Foods and you'll see why.
  - ksk 10y ago
    I don't quite understand how you're putting a moral judgement on outsourcing which is simply the purchase of a service. Certainly if a specific company is using slave or even child labor that is terrible and they should be boycotted. There have been several cases of business suffering real consequences. I am sure that they have not escaped your attention. Anyway, its wrong to say business ethics account for nothing. Companies can and do self-regulate. e.g. http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-023.pdf http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-023.pdf
    - freehunter 10y ago
      Where did I put a moral judgment on all outsourcing? I put a moral judgement on outsourcing to countries that use slave labor, obviously in the context of using slave labor (which is the subject of the thread I'm replying to). That was entirely clear from my comment, and you deliberately chose to ignore that. I will not apologize or make corrections.
      - ksk 10y ago
        Well, I took your comment charitably and addressed the point about individual companies employing abhorrent practices (whether it be labor or otherwise). Obviously, we're not in favor of that. But your claim seems to be that an entire technological sector spanning multiple countries employs slave labor? Its hard to take you seriously at this point.
geofft 10y ago
> You all should understand fiduciary duty. We do. You should understand it. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor... The interpretation of "fiduciary duty" / "they are a business" that you're implying is an urban legend, easily debunked by the fact that Google has no fiduciary duty to open a gas station in rural North Dakota as soon as they realize from Google Maps data that one would be profitable.
manigandham 10y ago
You should understand fiduciary duty vs corporate director responsibility. Best interest != monetary gain. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...

joelthelion 10y ago

> They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Violating anti-trust laws?

wheelerwj 10y ago
I'm no google fanboy, but they haven't been convicted of violating any antitrust laws here in the US. Edit: Again with downvotes. Have I made an inaccurate statement?
- Fnoord 10y ago
  FYI: Although I suppose everyone every once in a while is surprised about the way their posts are moderated on HN and other websites (if they notice, that is) it is annoying when people complain about downvoting. I just automatically downvote that. Sometimes what you state just isn't popular for the crowd who reads it and/or moderates it. Doesn't mean you are right or wrong. Just take a deep breath and give it a rest. EDIT: The guidelines say: "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html hence, nope, I won't change that unless someone who works for HN directs me to.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    > I just automatically downvote that. We can both agree that one of us needs to change. The guidelines are fine, the part you should change is automatically downvoting anything. Just jumping on a bandwagon makes for pretty boring reading too.
    - NTripleOne 10y ago
      hint: it's you
- coldtea 10y ago
  You don't have to be convicted to be violating, because: 1) Not all violators will necessarily be convicted. 2) Even for those eventually convicted, there's always a period when they are violating, but not yet convicted.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    Guilt before innocence, got it.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      Being guilty before proven guilty is a thing in the real world. As is being guilty and getting away with it. People do that all the time too. And courthouses and judges don't have some monopoly into assessment of guilt. Just into its official identification and punishment. (If the legal system had the monopoly, or some moral monopoly, of only it determining guilt, then how would we, as a society, judge the effectiveness or not of the legal system itself?)
      - wheelerwj 10y ago
        > we, as a society yes, we (the united states where google is head quartered) as a society, have agreed to at least pretend to allow the legal system to define guilt and innocence. But this isn't a philosophical debate. This is a discussion of what can be done to fix the AMP dilemma.
kittiepryde 10y ago
What would the process of being convicted of anti-trust laws for a website, when in order to use a competitor, you just have to type 'bing.com' or 'duckduckgo.com' into your address bar?
- sz4kerto 10y ago
  If using competitor is not viable. Similarly, one could have installed an alternative OS with an alternative browser in 2000, but the jury thought that it's not that simple.
sfifs 10y ago
Anti trust prosecutions work only if harm to consumer is proven - harm to other companies doesn't really work for successfully anti trust prosecutions. There's a reason no US attorneys bring anti trust lawsuits against Google and that's because Google would very likely be able to show their choices benefitted consumers (eg. say saved 10 mins and 50MB data a day across 200 million consumers without charge)
- mort96 10y ago
  I'm an individual, not a company. I make web pages. Lots of other individuals also make web pages. It's not like only companies make websites and consumers only use websites.
  - maverick_iceman 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure the number of individual web devs is vastly lower than the number of consumers.
    - mort96 10y ago
      Maybe, I don't know. My point was that Google fucking with the web doesn't only affect companies. Even if there's vastly more company websites than personal websites, there's a vast number of personal websites too.

nothrabannosir 10y ago

You're right, but that point isn't relevant. What you're giving is an explanation, not an excuse. Nobody is incredulous at Google's motivations (money). We're just not satisfied with it. Before you can solve a problem, you must identify it clearly. That's what we're doing here. Saying "yeah but it's only logical" isn't the point. Look: > It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take back our internet. You mean, like discussing why AMP is bad and why we shouldn't use it?

wheelerwj 10y ago
No, everyone on here shouldn't need explanation on why amp is bad. Especially when its a closed system that Google insists serving to your customers from Google's private servers. No technologist or business person would/should ever stand for that. Yet we are forced to. The discussion should really be, how do we dislodge Google from its current entrenched position.
- dajohnson89 10y ago
  Uh, use a different search engine? Am I missing something?
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    Yeah, a whole host of technical and legal methods that go beyond an incredibly hard collective-action problem.
sametmax 10y ago
But we don't need an excuse. However the explanation seems necessary given that: - we saw it happen once; - we said it would happened again; - we said how; - we said why; - and it happened again. And apparently nobody gives a damn. People are still trying to get short term gains by adapting to Google's will and wrecking our industry, efficiently sawing the branch we are all seating on. So yeah, we need to give the explanation. Again. And again. Until people hear it. We are responsible of the situation. Not Google. Before Google there was others like MS, and after they will be others. It's like a disease. You don't blame diseases, it's very useless, you explain, and you act. Yes, your site will not make as much money. But for God sake, it's the same rational for green energy, criminal prevention and the like. You pay NOW because you understand that it's necessary on the long run.

coldtea 10y ago

>They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. There was such a thing as ethical and societal responsibility for businesses. Thinking making profit by any means as long as they are nominally legal is acceptable for a company is just something some people believe. No natural law that says it has to be so -- we could easily (and have had) believe the opposite.

dajohnson89 10y ago
>There was such a thing as ethical and societal responsibility for businesses. Since when? Standard oil? Or going back further, the Dutch East India Company?
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  Corporate social responsibility want a thing on the silk road, but we expect it now.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Since the time companies started being held accountable. Which goes back all the way to ancient Babylon in some form or another. There are countless instances in history of shady businessmen being taken to trial or punished by an angry mob. (And the "Dutch East India Company" was accountable to its society -- and even nationalized at some point. It just exploited OTHER societies and countries).
  - dajohnson89 10y ago
    And "Google" was accountable to its shareholders -- and even made public at some point. It just exploited OTHER parts of society. See?

27182818284 10y ago

Fiduciary duty it isn't a magic spell that shareholders cast and then the company does everything all the time to squeeze profit out of everything. Lots of Google services are still free (as in price)

AstralStorm 10y ago
No, they are adware. Or "get monitored and profiled".

a_imho 10y ago

Criticizing Google too strongly e.g. kill google is a surefire way to get downvotes. Which is pretty much the same logic you described. HN is frequented by googlers, even if it is not exactly a duty to downvote comments like yours, it makes some sense. Or maybe I'm just seeing things.

colordrops 10y ago

> required to act in their shareholders best interests This is an extremely vague requirement. Potentially killing their brand name among developers and potentially initiating a slow long decline into irrelevancy certainly counts as not acting in their shareholders' best interests. When google first started, their "don't be evil" mantra was one of the main reasons they succeeded, so not doing unethical shit is in their shareholders' best interests.

AstralStorm 10y ago
No, making more money is, and shareholders tend to think in short term gains.
- colordrops 10y ago
  Are only short term gains in shareholders' best interests? Is there a legal definition? I'm asking genuinely.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    No, they are not. This is a common misconception. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...
nebabyte 10y ago
> Potentially killing their brand name among developers and potentially initiating a slow long decline into irrelevancy certainly counts as not acting in their shareholders' best interests. When google first started, their "don't be evil" mantra was one of the main reasons they succeeded He's right in that they're a company, but not that the solution to this problem is to "kill Google." Much easier and truer to the problem is to "kill" this expectation people have that the magic of good-natured leadership will create companies that dutifully remain bound to arbitrary constraints as "don't be evil" or "not doing unethical shit". It's just blissful daydreaming. Much better would be to collectively gravitate around community alternatives. You have most of the tools in front of you (open-source, remember?), but you decide that Google's 'already won' and think of yourself as reliant upon them (thus complaining when they don't do things your way).

ksk 10y ago

>Its morally reprehensible but still the correct decision in today's business climate. Using your logic if slavery were to become legal again, businesses should rush to use the free labor because "fiduciary duty". This is why they teach business ethics.

freehunter 10y ago
Why do you think companies rush to use H1B visas and offshore to countries that use (what amounts to) slave labor? Yes, companies do this today. Business ethics counts for nothing if it's not mandated. Compare Walmart's revenue to Whole Foods and you'll see why.
- ksk 10y ago
  I don't quite understand how you're putting a moral judgement on outsourcing which is simply the purchase of a service. Certainly if a specific company is using slave or even child labor that is terrible and they should be boycotted. There have been several cases of business suffering real consequences. I am sure that they have not escaped your attention. Anyway, its wrong to say business ethics account for nothing. Companies can and do self-regulate. e.g. http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-023.pdf http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-023.pdf
  - freehunter 10y ago
    Where did I put a moral judgment on all outsourcing? I put a moral judgement on outsourcing to countries that use slave labor, obviously in the context of using slave labor (which is the subject of the thread I'm replying to). That was entirely clear from my comment, and you deliberately chose to ignore that. I will not apologize or make corrections.
    - ksk 10y ago
      Well, I took your comment charitably and addressed the point about individual companies employing abhorrent practices (whether it be labor or otherwise). Obviously, we're not in favor of that. But your claim seems to be that an entire technological sector spanning multiple countries employs slave labor? Its hard to take you seriously at this point.

geofft 10y ago

> You all should understand fiduciary duty. We do. You should understand it. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor... The interpretation of "fiduciary duty" / "they are a business" that you're implying is an urban legend, easily debunked by the fact that Google has no fiduciary duty to open a gas station in rural North Dakota as soon as they realize from Google Maps data that one would be profitable.

manigandham 10y ago

You should understand fiduciary duty vs corporate director responsibility. Best interest != monetary gain. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...