5 ms·

I truly admire you for taking a stance and fighting for what you believe in. Figuring out what you can and can't stand for morally is a difficult task. I hope o

I truly admire you for taking a stance and fighting for what you believe in. Figuring out what you can and can't stand for morally is a difficult task. I hope others can feel inspired by you to examine whether they can, in good conscience, continue to support Google. I am not advocating defeatism. I am simply trying to be realistic. It is a fact that within the tech community Google has always been given more leniency than their competitors, even when they're all guilty of the same crimes. The tech community assumes the best when it comes to Google and gives them the benefit of the doubt, even when they don't deserve it. Google's executives recognize this and have exploited this goodwill to further maximize their profit margins again and again, knowing that they can always quell any community outrage with empty promises to change and carefully crafted PR statements. Before it was Oracle, but now it's Facebook, Amazon, and Uber--As long as these companies exist, Google just needs to be the "lesser evil" and they'll always be excused. Real, meaningful change would require a paradigm shift in the tech community that simply isn't going to happen while they're still overwhelmingly viewed as the most desirable company to work at and people still believe the "don't be evil" nonsense. The Google Kool-Aid is real and the tech community is drowning in it.

math_and_stuff 8y ago
I completely agree that a paradigm shift is required. Thankfully, it seems we are in the middle of one. There is sustained momentum, from tech workers, the press, congress, human rights orgs, etc. to work together to hold them accountable. And we are already making huge impacts. And, if press over the last six months (especially the NYT Rubin expose) is any indicator, Google's management is no longer viewed as benevolent.
- ajxs 8y ago
  I would contend that the naïveté that would allow someone to have ever seen Google's management as benevolent is that same naïveté that will ultimately allow these practices to continue with impunity.
- thisisweirdok 8y ago
  It's not big enough or fast to stop Google in China.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Not with that attitude, no.
    - thisisweirdok 8y ago
      Naivety coupled with a positive attitude isn't going to change it either. I'm saying if this is important to you, don't be complicit... because the current response to this isn't enough to stop it.
Wowfunhappy 8y ago
> It is a fact that within the tech community Google has always been given more leniency than their competitors, even when they're all guilty of the same crimes. I would posit that Google is given slightly more leniency because their infractions always tend to be slightly less bad. • Google tracks everything, but is ever-so-slightly more transparent than Facebook or Amazon, and the opt out process is ever-so-slightly easier. • Google had their own version of the Facebook's opt-in but highly-invasive research app, but only for people who were over 18 (at least as of the past couple years). • Android is kind of open source depending on your definition. • Google left China the first time, whereas Microsoft, Apple, and others continue to operate in the country in compliance with Chinese censorship laws. I am (very obviously, I hope) not saying Google is an angelic savior, nor that we should accept their actions. However, I do think people's slightly-better opinion of Google is more-or-less commensurate with the company's slightly-better track record.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 8y ago
  > Google had their own version of the Facebook's opt-in but highly-invasive research app, but only for people who were over 18 (at least as of the past couple years). This equivocation is a little ridiculous imho. Google's app was literally a tracking app by its very claim, there was no sense of deception or bait-and-switch.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    Same with Facebook's app. I legitimately think the outrage over this was overblown (and I said as much at the time [1]), but I can see the other side of it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055
    - j16sdiz 8y ago
      Not at their first try with onavo.
    - piva00 8y ago
      Onavo didn't disclose that and then FB Research went targeting teenagers. Doesn't that feel like it deserved more backlash?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sundar4344 8y ago
You are pointing out important things but also Being unrealistic is how change happens.

math_and_stuff 8y ago

I completely agree that a paradigm shift is required. Thankfully, it seems we are in the middle of one. There is sustained momentum, from tech workers, the press, congress, human rights orgs, etc. to work together to hold them accountable. And we are already making huge impacts. And, if press over the last six months (especially the NYT Rubin expose) is any indicator, Google's management is no longer viewed as benevolent.

ajxs 8y ago
I would contend that the naïveté that would allow someone to have ever seen Google's management as benevolent is that same naïveté that will ultimately allow these practices to continue with impunity.
thisisweirdok 8y ago
It's not big enough or fast to stop Google in China.
- ionised 8y ago
  Not with that attitude, no.
  - thisisweirdok 8y ago
    Naivety coupled with a positive attitude isn't going to change it either. I'm saying if this is important to you, don't be complicit... because the current response to this isn't enough to stop it.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

> It is a fact that within the tech community Google has always been given more leniency than their competitors, even when they're all guilty of the same crimes. I would posit that Google is given slightly more leniency because their infractions always tend to be slightly less bad. • Google tracks everything, but is ever-so-slightly more transparent than Facebook or Amazon, and the opt out process is ever-so-slightly easier. • Google had their own version of the Facebook's opt-in but highly-invasive research app, but only for people who were over 18 (at least as of the past couple years). • Android is kind of open source depending on your definition. • Google left China the first time, whereas Microsoft, Apple, and others continue to operate in the country in compliance with Chinese censorship laws. I am (very obviously, I hope) not saying Google is an angelic savior, nor that we should accept their actions. However, I do think people's slightly-better opinion of Google is more-or-less commensurate with the company's slightly-better track record.

kinkrtyavimoodh 8y ago
> Google had their own version of the Facebook's opt-in but highly-invasive research app, but only for people who were over 18 (at least as of the past couple years). This equivocation is a little ridiculous imho. Google's app was literally a tracking app by its very claim, there was no sense of deception or bait-and-switch.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  Same with Facebook's app. I legitimately think the outrage over this was overblown (and I said as much at the time [1]), but I can see the other side of it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19031055
  - j16sdiz 8y ago
    Not at their first try with onavo.
  - piva00 8y ago
    Onavo didn't disclose that and then FB Research went targeting teenagers. Doesn't that feel like it deserved more backlash?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sundar4344 8y ago

You are pointing out important things but also Being unrealistic is how change happens.