3 ms·

Google also started as a search engine to help me find my way to my real destination. Instead it has snuck in and started tracking where I am going, what I am d

Google also started as a search engine to help me find my way to my real destination. Instead it has snuck in and started tracking where I am going, what I am doing there, why I am there and what not. If Google is allowed to change business models radically (and very profitably), why not Verizon. To be clear, I am just pointing out that singling out Verizon/Comcast does not get to the root of the problem. We need blanket laws that cover all companies that mine user data for profit. If there are no laws, well then everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want. Why give this privilege to Google (who also give an unrelated service).

ajmurmann 10y ago
Privacy is only one of many problems that arise from ISPs deciding to provide other services. They can easily mess with anyone whose business model uses the Internet. You are right that privacy is a larger problem and we need to get stronger privacy rights. But we also need to strictly enforced that ISPs are only allowed to sell transport of bits to consumers. No selling of content, no selling of priority access for content products or any other shenanigans.
matt4077 10y ago
I think the difference boils down to (a) trust and (b) power. Maybe also (c) competence. (a) Many have criticised google over the years, especially it's slogan of "Do no evil". But the fact of the matter remains that, by and large, they have always convinced people with superior services, and been very careful not to through their weight around to force people to do business with them. They may actually be terribly evil, but their interests and those of consumers just happened to be aligned, most of the time. One example: they have never tried to block ad-blocking extensions from chrome, although it those are somewhat threatening to their business model. And despite conspiracy theories saying the opposite, it appears to me as if their search rankings are, to this day, not influenced by ad spending. Providers, on the other hand, have a long history of anticompetitive behaviour and have proven that they are extracting the profits of being dominant whenever they can (proven by the much-better offers that suddenly materialised when Google Fibre came to some cities). (b) Power: I'd argue that even for consumers, it's easier to largely avoid using google, than it is to avoid providers. It's almost a truism if you accept that there is tacit collusion in many areas where only two or three providers exist, i. e. they do not seem to be aggressively competing with each other. Almost more importantly, at least in this crowd, may be how afraid people are of the end of net neutrality. We have all seen how cool ideas (sometimes) managed to grow into something extremely useful (or fun, or beautiful). At least I am horrified of a future where this becomes impossible, because the pipe companies want to extract every penny they can, and they do it by requiring everyone, everywhere to pay them. This isn't about the money. It's about retaining the slightly anarchic dynamism of an internet where a good idea, some technical expertise and $4 for a domain registration may be enough to change the world.
- newsat13 10y ago
  You are horrified of a future but I am already horrified with the present where I am at the mercy of Google for my startup. Their search is opaque and my product has to do various hacks to be discovered. Email from any of my servers end in spam thanks to gmail. Chrome has taken major share and these days pages are made pretty much only to work in chrome. (real story: page does not work on firefox and i am told to use chrome).
johncolanduoni 10y ago
Stopping using Google is pretty feasible for most people. There are other free search engines, other free email providers, other smartphone operating systems (also distributions of their own with tracking removed), and Google's third party tracking is trivial to block in their own browser. You could argue that other options for these services are of worse quality, but pushing people to use your services because they are better quality even though there are other options is exactly what we want businesses to be doing. If you have even two choices of ISPs, you are very lucky. For a lot of people it's Verizon or the highway, and for those lucky few with choice it's usually something like Comcast or Verizon, which now that I think about it doesn't sound so lucky after all. I understand arguing that neither of these companies should get to pull this shit. I don't get how you could claim that there isn't a material difference in the level (and type) of coercion being applied.
bkkssnn 10y ago
i think Europe will have what you are looking for : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...

ajmurmann 10y ago

Privacy is only one of many problems that arise from ISPs deciding to provide other services. They can easily mess with anyone whose business model uses the Internet. You are right that privacy is a larger problem and we need to get stronger privacy rights. But we also need to strictly enforced that ISPs are only allowed to sell transport of bits to consumers. No selling of content, no selling of priority access for content products or any other shenanigans.

matt4077 10y ago

I think the difference boils down to (a) trust and (b) power. Maybe also (c) competence. (a) Many have criticised google over the years, especially it's slogan of "Do no evil". But the fact of the matter remains that, by and large, they have always convinced people with superior services, and been very careful not to through their weight around to force people to do business with them. They may actually be terribly evil, but their interests and those of consumers just happened to be aligned, most of the time. One example: they have never tried to block ad-blocking extensions from chrome, although it those are somewhat threatening to their business model. And despite conspiracy theories saying the opposite, it appears to me as if their search rankings are, to this day, not influenced by ad spending. Providers, on the other hand, have a long history of anticompetitive behaviour and have proven that they are extracting the profits of being dominant whenever they can (proven by the much-better offers that suddenly materialised when Google Fibre came to some cities). (b) Power: I'd argue that even for consumers, it's easier to largely avoid using google, than it is to avoid providers. It's almost a truism if you accept that there is tacit collusion in many areas where only two or three providers exist, i. e. they do not seem to be aggressively competing with each other. Almost more importantly, at least in this crowd, may be how afraid people are of the end of net neutrality. We have all seen how cool ideas (sometimes) managed to grow into something extremely useful (or fun, or beautiful). At least I am horrified of a future where this becomes impossible, because the pipe companies want to extract every penny they can, and they do it by requiring everyone, everywhere to pay them. This isn't about the money. It's about retaining the slightly anarchic dynamism of an internet where a good idea, some technical expertise and $4 for a domain registration may be enough to change the world.

newsat13 10y ago
You are horrified of a future but I am already horrified with the present where I am at the mercy of Google for my startup. Their search is opaque and my product has to do various hacks to be discovered. Email from any of my servers end in spam thanks to gmail. Chrome has taken major share and these days pages are made pretty much only to work in chrome. (real story: page does not work on firefox and i am told to use chrome).

johncolanduoni 10y ago

Stopping using Google is pretty feasible for most people. There are other free search engines, other free email providers, other smartphone operating systems (also distributions of their own with tracking removed), and Google's third party tracking is trivial to block in their own browser. You could argue that other options for these services are of worse quality, but pushing people to use your services because they are better quality even though there are other options is exactly what we want businesses to be doing. If you have even two choices of ISPs, you are very lucky. For a lot of people it's Verizon or the highway, and for those lucky few with choice it's usually something like Comcast or Verizon, which now that I think about it doesn't sound so lucky after all. I understand arguing that neither of these companies should get to pull this shit. I don't get how you could claim that there isn't a material difference in the level (and type) of coercion being applied.

bkkssnn 10y ago

i think Europe will have what you are looking for : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...