9 ms·

So Google's recommended way of reporting a problem is to post on a forum that Google themselves don't officially read (or promise any kind of response)? Do you

So Google's recommended way of reporting a problem is to post on a forum that Google themselves don't officially read (or promise any kind of response)? Do you understand why some people might not think that's a satisfactory solution?

mquander 9y ago
One might think that how satisfactory it is depends on how well it works. The parent is asserting it works pretty well.
- tobltobs 9y ago
  He doesn't assert it works pretty well, he just says it is the best option.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Plus the parent also worked for Google. Hardly the most appropriate source for learning whether the option worked well for the other end.
fastball 9y ago
It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... I'll rag on Google's poor support as much as the next guy, but only when it's warranted. ProtonMail and anyone else that gets delisted / what-have-you is not Google's client and shouldn't expect first-class support for things like this.
- tgragnato 9y ago
  This is not a matter of support, although I understand why it is convenient for Google to consider the issue from this point of view. $$$ The problem is that when a search engine has the overwhelming majority of the online search market, freedom of information has a strict dependence on the QoS of that engine. Since people (at least in Europe) have a legal right to freedom of information, if Google is not providing support in this regard, then it's responsible for not respecting rights of European citizens. edit: Freedom of information is part of the Swiss constitution too. > Every person has the right to receive information freely, to obtain it from generally accessible sources and to disseminate it [16.3]
  - fastball 9y ago
    That's insanity. So because Google is an information company and governments have granted a "right to information [x]" Google has to provide any information a consumer could possibly want, for free, regardless of the cost to them? [x] - which is an absurdity in itself - what information? how? when? where? This "right" is just another overreach by the EU et. al. wanting everything to be a "human right" even if it's nonsense. A right to whose information? If I have a unilateral right to information, does that mean I have a right to your medical records? Where do you draw the line? If it's just a right to my own information, which I think is reasonable, Google search results don't qualify.
    - rusk 9y ago
      Yeah, the law looking out for the best interests of her citizens is insanity. > does that mean I have a right to your medical records No, because under data-protection legislation nobody has the right to data about you, but you. More European insanity. I think GP has incorrectly categorised this as an FOI issue, it's more to do with Antitrust, which is a well worn path in the USA as well.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - tgragnato 9y ago
      Personally, I continue to believe in free market principles. That's why I believe a decrease in the investment in "traffic acquisition costs" may be in the best interest of Google itself. Everyone is responsible for the consequences of his own actions. What did we expect? It would certainly be an improvement and it would give more leverage in avoiding regulatory impositions that in the long term are certainly deleterious (for all). Perhaps I'm naïve, but I see two possibilities: the acceptance of the overreach in regulations/fines/.., or a self-limitation of the monopoly. But I'm certainly not in the position to answer the question.
  - tomcam 9y ago
    Interesting. The freedom of information concept seems in direct opposition to the right to be forgotten countries like Germany require.
- jsiepkes 9y ago
  If a company gets a big enough marketshare it's not that simple. If Google would have de-listed Protonmail just because "they could" that would be a problem (legal wise) in the EU. Since they also specifically target EU countries (google.nl) they also can't simply say they don't have to comply because they are based in the US.
  - fastball 9y ago
    If this is an anti-trust matter in a certain jurisdiction then it's an anti-trust matter in a certain jurisdiction, and governments have ways to address that. If Google has a monopoly on search then break up their monopoly on search in your country. BUT. Saying that Google needs to bend over backwards to accommodate every possible edge case of EU human rights (of which there are far too many that are overly broad) as a response to anti-trust concerns is absurd. In the end, you're just going to end up solidifying Google's monopoly, because Google actually does have the funds to build out such platforms, even if they don't want to. Startup search engines that could help lessen the stranglehold Google has will not have the resources to do the same. If then you governments say "well actually only Google needs to do this", you've found yourself in a position where governments are playing favorites, and that is never a good thing.
    - rusk 9y ago
      It kind of sounds like you're making an argument akin to "auto manufacturers should not be obliged to provide seatbelts, because that increases entry costs for smaller auto manufacturers". If anything, I'd propose the counter-argument that startups can more nimbly respond to these edge-cases, whereas the cost of change for a large hulking conglomerate is where the problems lie.
    - freeflight 9y ago
      > Startup search engines that could help lessen the stranglehold Google has will not have the resources. Until Alphabet buys out that startup for a couple of millions. Imho that's a factor barely mentioned on the issue of "Google monopoly". If anything pops up that looks like it could disrupt the Google dominance, long or short-term, it's quickly acquired and welcomed to the flock. On one hand that's good because puts the immense resources of Alphabet behind interesting and sometimes important ideas, on the other hand, it leads to a situation where meaningful competition can't grow to a size where it could actually oppose Google's dominance, at least not independently.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... It should be, though. It's not 1776. A website like Google is more than a company, it's a public service with immense power of manipulation and influence over countless industries. The law shouldn't be written like we live in the stone age.
  - fastball 9y ago
    So what exactly is your solution? What law do you put in place, precisely? Google has to provide consumers with whatever information they want, whenever they want it, free of charge? Because that seems to be what you're gunning for.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >So what exactly is your solution? What law do you put in place, precisely? Forced (inter-)nationalization of Google under the control of the UN. >Google has to provide consumers with whatever information they want, whenever they want it, free of charge? Pretty much yes. Charges should be bared by the Global Federation of Essential Services.
      - fastball 9y ago
        You're going to nationalize Google before nationalizing the internet itself? I think you're missing the forest for the trees.
        rusk 9y ago
        I think he means globalize rather than nationalize ... I guess someone's been reading Picketty ..
        jrs95 9y ago
        I never have, but if this is something he considers a good idea I think I'm going to have to just to understand what idiotic crap to expect in the next few decades
- zakk 9y ago
  > It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... Yes you have. If Google is not representing competitors fairly in search results, that's abuse of dominant position.
  - Barrin92 9y ago
    correct, as seen by the successful anti competitive lawsuits against Google in the European Union.
- ehllo 9y ago
  It is not about the right to appear in Google's search results. It is about abusing market dominance to put competing businesses at disadvantage. There are also other running/solved cases/investigations against Google. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39740 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf... http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_result&policy_area_id=1&case_title=Google http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?fusea...
  - Spivak 9y ago
    No it isn't. If you want to ensure that you're in the search results then you're supposed to buy an ad. Edit: To everyone downvoting, can you explain why you expect to be provided guaranteed service from a business that you have no business relationship with?
  - Shivetya 9y ago
    it only is abusing if they push their products before others, if you fail to rank highly in search results whose fault is that? are we going to use the IE solution, but instead now force it on providers whom you have to voluntarily choose over another to provide selected results? who gets to choose who appears?
    - pavel_lishin 9y ago
      > it only is abusing if they push their products before others, if you fail to rank highly in search results whose fault is that? Well, if that failure to rank highly is due to Google manually removing you, I think it's fairly clear whose fault it is. (It's Google's.)
  - smuemd 9y ago
    Sooner or later Google will probably regulated akin to other "utilities", at least in some jurisdictions.
    - notheguyouthink 9y ago
- patrickg_zill 9y ago
  Google can have search one of two ways IMHO: As visibly and rigorously impartial as possible, with little to no regulation (which means no SJW filtering and no ProtonMail filtering) What they seem to be doing now, which will result in more pressure for regulation. You don't have a right to appear in the results, but, people have a right to expect impartial standards are applied.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- autokad 9y ago
  google can destroy businesses in an instant, and they are too large to not offer proper support, and their damages are too great to not face legal liability to any damages they inflict upon companies at their whim. this is quite baffling. tech companies are making money hand over fist, they have massive margins, a company like google can afford real support and if they dont think so they should pay in court
- mikeash 9y ago
  Does Google care about the quality of its search results? You don't need to bring rights into the discussion to see why "post on this forum and maybe somebody will read it" is a poor solution.

mquander 9y ago

One might think that how satisfactory it is depends on how well it works. The parent is asserting it works pretty well.

tobltobs 9y ago
He doesn't assert it works pretty well, he just says it is the best option.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Plus the parent also worked for Google. Hardly the most appropriate source for learning whether the option worked well for the other end.

fastball 9y ago

It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... I'll rag on Google's poor support as much as the next guy, but only when it's warranted. ProtonMail and anyone else that gets delisted / what-have-you is not Google's client and shouldn't expect first-class support for things like this.

tgragnato 9y ago
This is not a matter of support, although I understand why it is convenient for Google to consider the issue from this point of view. $$$ The problem is that when a search engine has the overwhelming majority of the online search market, freedom of information has a strict dependence on the QoS of that engine. Since people (at least in Europe) have a legal right to freedom of information, if Google is not providing support in this regard, then it's responsible for not respecting rights of European citizens. edit: Freedom of information is part of the Swiss constitution too. > Every person has the right to receive information freely, to obtain it from generally accessible sources and to disseminate it [16.3]
- fastball 9y ago
  That's insanity. So because Google is an information company and governments have granted a "right to information [x]" Google has to provide any information a consumer could possibly want, for free, regardless of the cost to them? [x] - which is an absurdity in itself - what information? how? when? where? This "right" is just another overreach by the EU et. al. wanting everything to be a "human right" even if it's nonsense. A right to whose information? If I have a unilateral right to information, does that mean I have a right to your medical records? Where do you draw the line? If it's just a right to my own information, which I think is reasonable, Google search results don't qualify.
  - rusk 9y ago
    Yeah, the law looking out for the best interests of her citizens is insanity. > does that mean I have a right to your medical records No, because under data-protection legislation nobody has the right to data about you, but you. More European insanity. I think GP has incorrectly categorised this as an FOI issue, it's more to do with Antitrust, which is a well worn path in the USA as well.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - tgragnato 9y ago
    Personally, I continue to believe in free market principles. That's why I believe a decrease in the investment in "traffic acquisition costs" may be in the best interest of Google itself. Everyone is responsible for the consequences of his own actions. What did we expect? It would certainly be an improvement and it would give more leverage in avoiding regulatory impositions that in the long term are certainly deleterious (for all). Perhaps I'm naïve, but I see two possibilities: the acceptance of the overreach in regulations/fines/.., or a self-limitation of the monopoly. But I'm certainly not in the position to answer the question.
- tomcam 9y ago
  Interesting. The freedom of information concept seems in direct opposition to the right to be forgotten countries like Germany require.
jsiepkes 9y ago
If a company gets a big enough marketshare it's not that simple. If Google would have de-listed Protonmail just because "they could" that would be a problem (legal wise) in the EU. Since they also specifically target EU countries (google.nl) they also can't simply say they don't have to comply because they are based in the US.
- fastball 9y ago
  If this is an anti-trust matter in a certain jurisdiction then it's an anti-trust matter in a certain jurisdiction, and governments have ways to address that. If Google has a monopoly on search then break up their monopoly on search in your country. BUT. Saying that Google needs to bend over backwards to accommodate every possible edge case of EU human rights (of which there are far too many that are overly broad) as a response to anti-trust concerns is absurd. In the end, you're just going to end up solidifying Google's monopoly, because Google actually does have the funds to build out such platforms, even if they don't want to. Startup search engines that could help lessen the stranglehold Google has will not have the resources to do the same. If then you governments say "well actually only Google needs to do this", you've found yourself in a position where governments are playing favorites, and that is never a good thing.
  - rusk 9y ago
    It kind of sounds like you're making an argument akin to "auto manufacturers should not be obliged to provide seatbelts, because that increases entry costs for smaller auto manufacturers". If anything, I'd propose the counter-argument that startups can more nimbly respond to these edge-cases, whereas the cost of change for a large hulking conglomerate is where the problems lie.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    > Startup search engines that could help lessen the stranglehold Google has will not have the resources. Until Alphabet buys out that startup for a couple of millions. Imho that's a factor barely mentioned on the issue of "Google monopoly". If anything pops up that looks like it could disrupt the Google dominance, long or short-term, it's quickly acquired and welcomed to the flock. On one hand that's good because puts the immense resources of Alphabet behind interesting and sometimes important ideas, on the other hand, it leads to a situation where meaningful competition can't grow to a size where it could actually oppose Google's dominance, at least not independently.
coldtea 9y ago
>It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... It should be, though. It's not 1776. A website like Google is more than a company, it's a public service with immense power of manipulation and influence over countless industries. The law shouldn't be written like we live in the stone age.
- fastball 9y ago
  So what exactly is your solution? What law do you put in place, precisely? Google has to provide consumers with whatever information they want, whenever they want it, free of charge? Because that seems to be what you're gunning for.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >So what exactly is your solution? What law do you put in place, precisely? Forced (inter-)nationalization of Google under the control of the UN. >Google has to provide consumers with whatever information they want, whenever they want it, free of charge? Pretty much yes. Charges should be bared by the Global Federation of Essential Services.
    - fastball 9y ago
      You're going to nationalize Google before nationalizing the internet itself? I think you're missing the forest for the trees.
      - rusk 9y ago
        I think he means globalize rather than nationalize ... I guess someone's been reading Picketty ..
        jrs95 9y ago
        I never have, but if this is something he considers a good idea I think I'm going to have to just to understand what idiotic crap to expect in the next few decades
zakk 9y ago
> It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... Yes you have. If Google is not representing competitors fairly in search results, that's abuse of dominant position.
- Barrin92 9y ago
  correct, as seen by the successful anti competitive lawsuits against Google in the European Union.
ehllo 9y ago
It is not about the right to appear in Google's search results. It is about abusing market dominance to put competing businesses at disadvantage. There are also other running/solved cases/investigations against Google. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39740 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf... http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_result&policy_area_id=1&case_title=Google http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?fusea...
- Spivak 9y ago
  No it isn't. If you want to ensure that you're in the search results then you're supposed to buy an ad. Edit: To everyone downvoting, can you explain why you expect to be provided guaranteed service from a business that you have no business relationship with?
- Shivetya 9y ago
  it only is abusing if they push their products before others, if you fail to rank highly in search results whose fault is that? are we going to use the IE solution, but instead now force it on providers whom you have to voluntarily choose over another to provide selected results? who gets to choose who appears?
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    > it only is abusing if they push their products before others, if you fail to rank highly in search results whose fault is that? Well, if that failure to rank highly is due to Google manually removing you, I think it's fairly clear whose fault it is. (It's Google's.)
- smuemd 9y ago
  Sooner or later Google will probably regulated akin to other "utilities", at least in some jurisdictions.
  - notheguyouthink 9y ago
patrickg_zill 9y ago
Google can have search one of two ways IMHO: As visibly and rigorously impartial as possible, with little to no regulation (which means no SJW filtering and no ProtonMail filtering) What they seem to be doing now, which will result in more pressure for regulation. You don't have a right to appear in the results, but, people have a right to expect impartial standards are applied.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
autokad 9y ago
google can destroy businesses in an instant, and they are too large to not offer proper support, and their damages are too great to not face legal liability to any damages they inflict upon companies at their whim. this is quite baffling. tech companies are making money hand over fist, they have massive margins, a company like google can afford real support and if they dont think so they should pay in court
mikeash 9y ago
Does Google care about the quality of its search results? You don't need to bring rights into the discussion to see why "post on this forum and maybe somebody will read it" is a poor solution.