3 ms·
> It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for Google FIFY. I have no idea why the belief that "what's good for Google is good f
by _jal 10y ago
> It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for Google
FIFY.
I have no idea why the belief that "what's good for Google is good for the internet" persists - those days are long past. Google is best understood as a huge surveillance operation with bait services attached.
The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. The ad blocker-makers are tiny, fragmented and unfortunately muddled with some crappy products that sell whitelist entries; this is a good time for Google to try to knife them, before a market leader emerges.
- mseebach 10y agoI didn't say "what's good for Google is good for the internet", I said, in effect, "what's good for the internet is good for Google". And please do refrain from fixing my posts for me, I am perfectly capable of expressing my opinions without your assistance.
- cat199 10y ago> what's good for the internet is good for Google This presumes complete congruence between these two sets, which is precisely what is being criticized above. How exactly is: " The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. " If true, good for 'the internet' in general, rather than being good for Google primarily with some related good and harm for 'the internet' ?
- greenshackle2 10y agoOr that 'what is good for the internet' is a subset of 'what is good for Google'. Language is murky but that's a more reasonable interpretation.
- sdflkd 10y agoIt's the only interpretation after the initial clarification.