9 ms·

At this point, I’m convinced google are actively harmful to the internet. Trying to centralise as much of the internet and how people interact with it under th

At this point, I’m convinced google are actively harmful to the internet. Trying to centralise as much of the internet and how people interact with it under their control is dangerous and open to widespread abuse - and this is already happening. See: YouTube demonetisation YouTube content ID abuse Chrome extension changes Gmail is already completely broken on IMAP unless clients throw in google specific workarounds, and now they’re moving on to break the next layer of email too. Joy.

minimaul 8y ago
Further to this... at this point, Google controls: - the largest browser people use to view pages (Chrome) - the largest platform people use to run that browser (Android) - the largest way people discover content online (Google Search) - the largest way people advertise online (Google Ads) - the largest way people share video online (YouTube) - the largest email provider (Gmail) This is way too much power over the internet in one corporate entity. It’s way beyond what MS ever accomplished at their height, and it’s way beyond anything Apple ever accomplished either. The power Google have over the internet at large and the content people consume at this point frankly terrifies me.
- axaxs 8y ago
  Would you argue they should be broken up? Asking honestly, I don't really have a strong opinion. On one hand, I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success. On the other, the barrier to entry has become too high for anyone to make a dent, giving them alone effective control over whether or not your company succeeds.
  - echelon 8y ago
    Yes! A million times yes. Google wields too much control and is forcing the evolution of technology to further their grasp. They reach into every sector of technology, and every play they make deepens their moat. Look at how fast they spin up new products to see if they can claw into a new space. They move mountains if they sense they can grapple something new, and if it doesn't work out they tear it down without considering the users. It isn't about the individual - they want total control. Google is 90's Microsoft's Embrace/Extend/Extinguish executed to perfection. (See my thread from yesterday [1] where I argue these points as they pertain to the app store.) I'm going to talk with my local lawmakers. I don't know what leverage I have, but I'll be damned if I sit on the sidelines. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19488245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19488245
  - bytematic 8y ago
    Not really success if they are harming people.
  - minimaul 8y ago
    Most definitely yes. Truly independent governance of separate projects within Google at the very least, but ideally totally separate legal entities that are carefully regulated and monitored to ensure they're not giving each other preferential treatment.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > On one hand, I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success. For better or worse, this is how it has to be for the market economy to function well in a society. A company can be successful up to a point - they cannot be allowed to win. The victory every for-profit entity seeks - permanent domination and monopolization of their market - is something potentially disastrous to society at large.
    - deltron3030 8y ago
      >The victory every for-profit entity seeks - permanent domination and monopolization of their market - is something potentially disastrous to society at large. OTOH it's like a standard that you can build upon if it's foundational communication infrastructure (channels, touch points). This means that stability on lower levels facilitates competition on higher levels. As long as nobody is excluded it's not problematic. It shouldn't be allowed to scrap services users depend on though, this would be a good organic regulator.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Standards like these may be proposed by a single entity, but they're not controlled by it. The problem with amp4email isn't that it makes everyone part of Google (though I'm willing to bet it'll ultimately imply all MUAs will end up having to embed Chrome engine). The problem is with Google using its near-monopoly position to push a "standard" that makes e-mail serve its users less, and serve companies seeking to exploit those users more.
      - JohnFen 8y ago
        > As long as nobody is excluded it's not problematic. I disagree. At some point, such a company effectively becomes the same as a government. I think that's hugely problematic.
  - JohnFen 8y ago
    > I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success. I don't hear many people talking about punishing companies for their success. I hear a lot of people talking about punishing people for their abuse, though.
  - kevingadd 8y ago
    The problem with Google is not their success, the problem is that they both have and abuse monopoly power. If they don't want to get targeted they shouldn't abuse it.
  - rjf72 8y ago
    I think there's a far more beneficial alternative that doesn't have the effect of, like you mentioned, punishing companies for success. Instead of trying to break up the biggest players which tends to ultimately just result in them reforming, officially or not, instead create rules specifically designed to make it vastly easier for smaller players to succeed. There are a countless number of ways to do this. The network effect "free" user generated content platforms (YouTube, Facebook, etc) are the low hanging fruit here. The reason they have sustainable monopolies is because they have exclusive use of the user generated content on their platform. This is really easy to fix. Require that companies beyond a certain scale (1 million users perhaps?) that make user generated content freely available default to free use + attribution licenses for that content, unless users specifically opt-out on a per piece basis. And furthermore mandate that companies provide a means of easily accessing said free use content, such as through an API. Also require that users be able to 'remotely publish' content to the site again, through something such as an API. And finally prohibit companies from censoring discussion of competing sites except in obvious cases of abuse such as e.g. automated spam. There - problem solved. Now you can create an e.g. Facebook competitor where people can keep their exact same friends (and even talk to the ones still on Facebook) except gain whatever benefits the new platform has to offer. Similarly for something such as a YouTube competitor where now you'd be able to seed yourself with what would likely be the vast majority of the user generated content from YouTube. You might also want to add a rule that sites cannot clone content from sites smaller than they are. Again the idea is to create unique incentives for users to try new sites. You'd get access to most of the content you already have from big site + whatever unique content the smaller site offers. And, just like that, you now have created massive competition with minimal direct 'punishment' of the existing behemoths.
  - auslander 8y ago
    Skynet. Resistance is futile.
- greymeister 8y ago
  Embrace, extend, and extinguish.
  - chii 8y ago
    then exploit!
- karussell 8y ago
  - the way people navigate (Google Maps) - the way people get news (Google News) - the way people learn about their website (Google Analytics) - the way people fight spam (reCaptcha)
  - minimaul 8y ago
    All excellent additions. Others: - a major way of embedding web fonts (Google Fonts) - a hugely successful cloud document suite (Google Docs) - a safe browsing service, making them effective gatekeepers of what can load in Chrome (Google Safe Browsing) - an ever growing system for schools to manage assignments (Google Classroom) - this one particularly concerns me because paired with Chromebooks, it brings kids into an entirely closed Google ecosystem very young
    - karussell 8y ago
      Never heard of Safe Browsing and Classroom (probably because I'm not using Chrome) but Docs and Fonts are definitely true! > this one particularly concerns me because paired with Chromebooks, it brings kids into an entirely closed Google ecosystem very young I'm not too concerned as many other big corporations (Apple, Microsoft) are fighting this ;)
      - propogandist 8y ago
        even if you're using firefox, it uses Google safebrowsing to check URLs you're visiting -- even sending your URL data to Google. The other corporations are only fighting small battles, but you can't compete with free, which is how Google gains its foothold.
        jefftk 8y ago
        > even sending your URL data to Google "Each site you visit is checked against the Safe Browsing list on your system. If there's a match, your browser sends Google a hashed, partial copy of the site’s URL so that Google can send more information to your browser. Google cannot determine the real URL from this information." -- https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/privacy/#safe-browsing-practices https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/privacy/#safe-browsing... There's no way Firefox would be ok with sending all their user's visited URLs to Google. (Disclosure: I work at Google)
- thor574 8y ago
  If there was a shortage of competition, I would start getting worried. They are just one actor among thousands. With power comes responsibility. Google has earned our trust with every new product they develop. If they misstep, they will hear it. In fact, they have to keep listen to keep being at top.
  - JohnFen 8y ago
    > Google has earned our trust with every new product they develop. This made me laugh out loud. Thank you.
nextos 8y ago
And the whole XMPP Gtalk fiasco...
nicklaf 8y ago
They've also completely borked up Usenet (Google Groups), including the choice to simply put big padlock on whatever zombie Usenet groups are being used for spam, making it impossible to, e.g., read the messages posted to alt.rock-n-roll around the time of Freddy Mercury's death. [1] See also [2]. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/alt.rock-n-roll/queen$20aids%7Csort:relevance https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/alt.r... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10083938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10083938
greymeister 8y ago
E-mail remains one of the last decentralized communication mediums. If Google can make it a walled garden, they will.
- core-questions 8y ago
  There's no reason we have to interact with gmail at all. The time has come for a lightweight, client-side layer on top of email+pgp providing a new social network.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    The fact that so many people who otherwise care about things like privacy, freedom, and competition all flocked to gmail anyway always seemed completely bananas to me. It's like a case study in how principle (or even long term self-interest) always loses to convenience.
    - AlexandrB 8y ago
      I'm guilty as charged. I even sought out a Gmail Beta* invite back in the day. At the time I was naive and believed Google's "don't be evil" marketing. *I later also sought out a Google+ Beta invite. That one is harder to justify with just naïveté.
      - jschwartzi 8y ago
        Many of us did this back in the day, and now we're stuck with our gmail addresses.
        minimaul 8y ago
        No, you're not. It might be a pain to move, but it is certainly possible, and it's certainly worth the effort.
        username223 8y ago
        Just be grateful you aren't stuck with a Yahoo address ;-). Owning your own domain name(s) is worth a few bucks a month.
googleanalytics 8y ago
ReCAPTCHA is especially brutal if you aren't logged in to Google and are using Firefox. They make you do challenge after challenge after challenge and s-l-o-w-l-y fade in pictures as extra punishment. I've stopped using some sites because of it.
- arendtio 8y ago
  So you think the browser choice is relevant? Sounds like discrimination of users who use a competitors product... (probably illegal). I mean, I have noticed those harder captures too since I switched to Firefox, but I didn't realize it was due to the different browser. I thought it was just a newer version.
  - hutattedonmyarm 8y ago
    I assume that recaptcha classifies you as human faster if you use Chrome and are logged into your google account with it
- gtremper 8y ago
  I've had this happen to me in Chrome when logged out over VPN
- camone 8y ago
  This is not necessarily Firefox, but because reCAPTCHA is designed to be more frictionless if Google can identify the user. If you have their tracking cookies, if you don't use a VPN, and if you block ads (which would have more tracking cookies), Google's certainty of who you are is higher, increasing the chance that you are a human. Firefox's default settings, especially with the new Content Blocking features, are enough for reCAPTCHA to be less sure you're a human, and try to make you prove it more often. So Google manages to sell a product (reCAPTCHA), show good intentions (bot-prevention), increase usage of Chrome (because it's a smoother experience through reCAPTCHA), and get more information on everyone. Win x4
  - eridius 8y ago
colllectorof 8y ago
Those aren't even the worst things they've done. Here are some questions everyone should ask about new standards: 1. Do they reduce complexity of the (already insanely complicated) web/internet infrastructure? 2. Do they reduce barriers of entry for new companies? If you look at thing Google consistently pushes forward, the answers are almost always in the negative.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  Under this standard, we should not approve inconvenient things like SSL.
sgregnt 8y ago
How does this picture change if you include China and Russia?
Liskni_si 8y ago
Can you please elaborate on those IMAP workarounds? I've been using mutt with gmail IMAP for years and while the experience is hardly perfect, I wasn't forced to attempt to fix it. But if there's a way to make it better, I'm all ears! Thanks!

minimaul 8y ago

Further to this... at this point, Google controls: - the largest browser people use to view pages (Chrome) - the largest platform people use to run that browser (Android) - the largest way people discover content online (Google Search) - the largest way people advertise online (Google Ads) - the largest way people share video online (YouTube) - the largest email provider (Gmail) This is way too much power over the internet in one corporate entity. It’s way beyond what MS ever accomplished at their height, and it’s way beyond anything Apple ever accomplished either. The power Google have over the internet at large and the content people consume at this point frankly terrifies me.

axaxs 8y ago
Would you argue they should be broken up? Asking honestly, I don't really have a strong opinion. On one hand, I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success. On the other, the barrier to entry has become too high for anyone to make a dent, giving them alone effective control over whether or not your company succeeds.
- echelon 8y ago
  Yes! A million times yes. Google wields too much control and is forcing the evolution of technology to further their grasp. They reach into every sector of technology, and every play they make deepens their moat. Look at how fast they spin up new products to see if they can claw into a new space. They move mountains if they sense they can grapple something new, and if it doesn't work out they tear it down without considering the users. It isn't about the individual - they want total control. Google is 90's Microsoft's Embrace/Extend/Extinguish executed to perfection. (See my thread from yesterday [1] where I argue these points as they pertain to the app store.) I'm going to talk with my local lawmakers. I don't know what leverage I have, but I'll be damned if I sit on the sidelines. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19488245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19488245
- bytematic 8y ago
  Not really success if they are harming people.
- minimaul 8y ago
  Most definitely yes. Truly independent governance of separate projects within Google at the very least, but ideally totally separate legal entities that are carefully regulated and monitored to ensure they're not giving each other preferential treatment.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > On one hand, I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success. For better or worse, this is how it has to be for the market economy to function well in a society. A company can be successful up to a point - they cannot be allowed to win. The victory every for-profit entity seeks - permanent domination and monopolization of their market - is something potentially disastrous to society at large.
  - deltron3030 8y ago
    >The victory every for-profit entity seeks - permanent domination and monopolization of their market - is something potentially disastrous to society at large. OTOH it's like a standard that you can build upon if it's foundational communication infrastructure (channels, touch points). This means that stability on lower levels facilitates competition on higher levels. As long as nobody is excluded it's not problematic. It shouldn't be allowed to scrap services users depend on though, this would be a good organic regulator.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Standards like these may be proposed by a single entity, but they're not controlled by it. The problem with amp4email isn't that it makes everyone part of Google (though I'm willing to bet it'll ultimately imply all MUAs will end up having to embed Chrome engine). The problem is with Google using its near-monopoly position to push a "standard" that makes e-mail serve its users less, and serve companies seeking to exploit those users more.
    - JohnFen 8y ago
      > As long as nobody is excluded it's not problematic. I disagree. At some point, such a company effectively becomes the same as a government. I think that's hugely problematic.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  > I don't like the idea of punishing companies for their success. I don't hear many people talking about punishing companies for their success. I hear a lot of people talking about punishing people for their abuse, though.
- kevingadd 8y ago
  The problem with Google is not their success, the problem is that they both have and abuse monopoly power. If they don't want to get targeted they shouldn't abuse it.
- rjf72 8y ago
  I think there's a far more beneficial alternative that doesn't have the effect of, like you mentioned, punishing companies for success. Instead of trying to break up the biggest players which tends to ultimately just result in them reforming, officially or not, instead create rules specifically designed to make it vastly easier for smaller players to succeed. There are a countless number of ways to do this. The network effect "free" user generated content platforms (YouTube, Facebook, etc) are the low hanging fruit here. The reason they have sustainable monopolies is because they have exclusive use of the user generated content on their platform. This is really easy to fix. Require that companies beyond a certain scale (1 million users perhaps?) that make user generated content freely available default to free use + attribution licenses for that content, unless users specifically opt-out on a per piece basis. And furthermore mandate that companies provide a means of easily accessing said free use content, such as through an API. Also require that users be able to 'remotely publish' content to the site again, through something such as an API. And finally prohibit companies from censoring discussion of competing sites except in obvious cases of abuse such as e.g. automated spam. There - problem solved. Now you can create an e.g. Facebook competitor where people can keep their exact same friends (and even talk to the ones still on Facebook) except gain whatever benefits the new platform has to offer. Similarly for something such as a YouTube competitor where now you'd be able to seed yourself with what would likely be the vast majority of the user generated content from YouTube. You might also want to add a rule that sites cannot clone content from sites smaller than they are. Again the idea is to create unique incentives for users to try new sites. You'd get access to most of the content you already have from big site + whatever unique content the smaller site offers. And, just like that, you now have created massive competition with minimal direct 'punishment' of the existing behemoths.
- auslander 8y ago
  Skynet. Resistance is futile.
greymeister 8y ago
Embrace, extend, and extinguish.
- chii 8y ago
  then exploit!
karussell 8y ago
- the way people navigate (Google Maps) - the way people get news (Google News) - the way people learn about their website (Google Analytics) - the way people fight spam (reCaptcha)
- minimaul 8y ago
  All excellent additions. Others: - a major way of embedding web fonts (Google Fonts) - a hugely successful cloud document suite (Google Docs) - a safe browsing service, making them effective gatekeepers of what can load in Chrome (Google Safe Browsing) - an ever growing system for schools to manage assignments (Google Classroom) - this one particularly concerns me because paired with Chromebooks, it brings kids into an entirely closed Google ecosystem very young
  - karussell 8y ago
    Never heard of Safe Browsing and Classroom (probably because I'm not using Chrome) but Docs and Fonts are definitely true! > this one particularly concerns me because paired with Chromebooks, it brings kids into an entirely closed Google ecosystem very young I'm not too concerned as many other big corporations (Apple, Microsoft) are fighting this ;)
    - propogandist 8y ago
      even if you're using firefox, it uses Google safebrowsing to check URLs you're visiting -- even sending your URL data to Google. The other corporations are only fighting small battles, but you can't compete with free, which is how Google gains its foothold.
      - jefftk 8y ago
        > even sending your URL data to Google "Each site you visit is checked against the Safe Browsing list on your system. If there's a match, your browser sends Google a hashed, partial copy of the site’s URL so that Google can send more information to your browser. Google cannot determine the real URL from this information." -- https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/privacy/#safe-browsing-practices https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/privacy/#safe-browsing... There's no way Firefox would be ok with sending all their user's visited URLs to Google. (Disclosure: I work at Google)
thor574 8y ago
If there was a shortage of competition, I would start getting worried. They are just one actor among thousands. With power comes responsibility. Google has earned our trust with every new product they develop. If they misstep, they will hear it. In fact, they have to keep listen to keep being at top.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  > Google has earned our trust with every new product they develop. This made me laugh out loud. Thank you.

nextos 8y ago

And the whole XMPP Gtalk fiasco...

nicklaf 8y ago

They've also completely borked up Usenet (Google Groups), including the choice to simply put big padlock on whatever zombie Usenet groups are being used for spam, making it impossible to, e.g., read the messages posted to alt.rock-n-roll around the time of Freddy Mercury's death. [1] See also [2]. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/alt.rock-n-roll/queen$20aids%7Csort:relevance https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/alt.r... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10083938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10083938

greymeister 8y ago

E-mail remains one of the last decentralized communication mediums. If Google can make it a walled garden, they will.

core-questions 8y ago
There's no reason we have to interact with gmail at all. The time has come for a lightweight, client-side layer on top of email+pgp providing a new social network.
- notacoward 8y ago
  The fact that so many people who otherwise care about things like privacy, freedom, and competition all flocked to gmail anyway always seemed completely bananas to me. It's like a case study in how principle (or even long term self-interest) always loses to convenience.
  - AlexandrB 8y ago
    I'm guilty as charged. I even sought out a Gmail Beta* invite back in the day. At the time I was naive and believed Google's "don't be evil" marketing. *I later also sought out a Google+ Beta invite. That one is harder to justify with just naïveté.
    - jschwartzi 8y ago
      Many of us did this back in the day, and now we're stuck with our gmail addresses.
      - minimaul 8y ago
        No, you're not. It might be a pain to move, but it is certainly possible, and it's certainly worth the effort.
      - username223 8y ago
        Just be grateful you aren't stuck with a Yahoo address ;-). Owning your own domain name(s) is worth a few bucks a month.

googleanalytics 8y ago

ReCAPTCHA is especially brutal if you aren't logged in to Google and are using Firefox. They make you do challenge after challenge after challenge and s-l-o-w-l-y fade in pictures as extra punishment. I've stopped using some sites because of it.

arendtio 8y ago
So you think the browser choice is relevant? Sounds like discrimination of users who use a competitors product... (probably illegal). I mean, I have noticed those harder captures too since I switched to Firefox, but I didn't realize it was due to the different browser. I thought it was just a newer version.
- hutattedonmyarm 8y ago
  I assume that recaptcha classifies you as human faster if you use Chrome and are logged into your google account with it
gtremper 8y ago
I've had this happen to me in Chrome when logged out over VPN
camone 8y ago
This is not necessarily Firefox, but because reCAPTCHA is designed to be more frictionless if Google can identify the user. If you have their tracking cookies, if you don't use a VPN, and if you block ads (which would have more tracking cookies), Google's certainty of who you are is higher, increasing the chance that you are a human. Firefox's default settings, especially with the new Content Blocking features, are enough for reCAPTCHA to be less sure you're a human, and try to make you prove it more often. So Google manages to sell a product (reCAPTCHA), show good intentions (bot-prevention), increase usage of Chrome (because it's a smoother experience through reCAPTCHA), and get more information on everyone. Win x4
- eridius 8y ago

colllectorof 8y ago

Those aren't even the worst things they've done. Here are some questions everyone should ask about new standards: 1. Do they reduce complexity of the (already insanely complicated) web/internet infrastructure? 2. Do they reduce barriers of entry for new companies? If you look at thing Google consistently pushes forward, the answers are almost always in the negative.

joshuamorton 8y ago
Under this standard, we should not approve inconvenient things like SSL.

sgregnt 8y ago

How does this picture change if you include China and Russia?

Liskni_si 8y ago

Can you please elaborate on those IMAP workarounds? I've been using mutt with gmail IMAP for years and while the experience is hardly perfect, I wasn't forced to attempt to fix it. But if there's a way to make it better, I'm all ears! Thanks!