4 ms·

Would I be a bad person for saying I'm sad about this because I want to work at Google and I don't like seeing their future threatened? I also don't get the an

Would I be a bad person for saying I'm sad about this because I want to work at Google and I don't like seeing their future threatened? I also don't get the anti-Google movement, there are far worse things like our broken healthcare and criminal justice system. This seems like one of those "screw the coastal elites" type of thing. Unless someone can give a reasonable explanation of why Google specifically should be targeted instead of other companies that are more conservatively aligned.

zackmorris 7y ago
Your sentiment is understandable, and I still use Google every day because it's still the best in its niches. But here are a few things to keep in mind: * Advertising revenue is practically nonexistent today compared to its heyday in the late 90s. This is because a few key players like Google have created a monopoly/oligopoly where they are so large, with so much more personal information on everybody, that they keep much of the profit for themselves and squeeze out any competition. * The internet still provides lucrative careers for many, but this is in spite of (not due to) monopolistic players like Google. In other words, we'd all profit more, and have more room to innovate, if the big players like Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc didn't control nearly every aspect of the internet. * Google is several orders of magnitude bigger than anyone's conception of how big it is. Short of a national monopoly breakup campaign, this will have little to no effect on their profitability or hiring. My personal feeling is that income inequality largely stems from the US no longer enforcing antitrust laws, consumer protection laws, or finance laws like the Glass–Steagall Act. It effects liberals and conservatives alike and leads to global threats like nationalism (a leading contender for World War III) when the vast majority of the population spends so much time working to make rent that it's effectively disenfranchised, no longer has upward mobility/retirement, and doesn't have the means to raise a family.
- yaacov 7y ago
  If there was a monopoly on advertising, wouldn’t we expect advertising revenue to grow, rather than shrink?
  - HillaryBriss 7y ago
    I think he means that outside of Google, advertising revenue has shrunk for the publishers and others in the space, and that Google has consumed and controls the lion's share of the advertising revenue.
twoheadedboy 7y ago
> Would I be a bad person for saying I'm sad about this because I want to work at Google and I don't like seeing their future threatened? That doesn't make you a bad person, but it IS a bad reason.
- sa46 7y ago
  That reason is no worse than the inverse reasoning: gleefully supporting the investigation because it threatens Google's future. Also, I think the reasoning is independent of the specific situation. Working at $PLACE could benefit the poster. So the poster wants to see $PLACE continue to have a bright future. Seems like a standard argument for capitalism and the free-flow of human capital to better jobs. I understand there are externalities that affect this specific situation, hence the investigation, but since it's not clear there's antitrust behavior, it seems premature to classify the reasoning as bad.
  - HillaryBriss 7y ago
    > gleefully supporting the investigation because it threatens Google's future. what about gleefully supporting the investigation because it will create opportunities for competition, create room for other small companies to have at least a fighting chance at success?
james-mcelwain 7y ago
If you don't want to feel sad, maybe you shouldn't get emotionally invested in a company with a near trillion dollar market cap that exists solely to sell targeted ads.
dmead 7y ago
don't you think you're succumbing to marketing a bit?
prepend 7y ago
> Unless someone can give a reasonable explanation of why Google specifically should be targeted instead of other companies that are more conservatively aligned. This is really curious. Do you think anticompetitive investigations and lawsuits should depend on the political orientation of companies?
GenericsMotors 7y ago
They are not being "targeted". If you'd read the article, they're being investigated for using anti-competitive tactics from a position as a monopoly - but you think they should be given a pass because outwardly they project a liberal image? Never ceases to amaze me how you "liberal" americans can support a megacorp in this manner while simultaneously thinking of yourselves as being on the left...
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Most of the liberals I know are deeply concerned about google and the other FAANG companies and the abuses they are getting away with. And you're right behind the curtain none of these companies are liberal. There is a word I use, but if you use it on HN you get threatened.
  - GenericsMotors 7y ago
    > There is a word I use, but if you use it on HN you get threatened. The term I know for this type of attitude is "champagne socialist". Preaching liberal values with a silver spoon firmly wedged in their gob, only caring for those values superficially or only when it applies to others.
avocado4 7y ago
> I also don't get the anti-Google movement It's virtually all political propaganda from hostile nations. Europeans understand that they desperately need to develop a tech sector to compete with China and the US while their population is aging, brains are draining, and productivity is slumping. But since they've killed off their own tech companies seemingly the only option now is to try and ban FAANG - protectionism through propaganda, arbitrary fines, targeted taxes, etc. Then you see some troll or a useful idiot from US post a nonsensical argument like "I BUILT MY PERSONAL BROWSER AND GOGOLE DIDN'T ALLOCATE 100 ENGINEERS TO MAKE THEIR APPS WORK ON IT", and upvote bots from China / Iran / Russia pick up and amplify the post to the top. This is modern warfare and it's effective. Ask a senior engineer at Reddit or any other communication platform and they'll confirm it (in private). If you get a chance you should definitely work at Google out of Mountain View office because you'll gain unparalleled technical knowledge and build an amazing network that can match Stanford or Harvard as far as your future goes.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Europeans are humans, and humans have rights, and the EU will enforce those rights.
username90 7y ago
I used to think like that as well, but then I realized that most of the lawsuits against Google was fair. And the thing is that the anti competitive practices done by the sleazy people over at the business department are bad and leads to lots of lawsuits, but they are also profitable and hurts competition so it is unclear if Google is really losing out on this. Disclaimer: I work at Google but I haven't seen any internal communication related to anti competitive behavior, I just know what I read in the news.
forgottenpass 7y ago
>should be targeted instead of other companies that are more conservatively aligned. They shouldn't be targeted to the exclusion of others based on political alignment, but neither should the not-googles be targeted to the exclusion of google based on google's politics. > Would I be a bad person for saying I'm sad about this because I want to work at Google and I don't like seeing their future threatened? You're not a bad person for rooting for a company or wanting to work there. I'd just say you're incredibly naive for having a such an attachment to brand. And you're setting yourself to have some of your most productive years chewed up by a company (not even necessarily google) that can take advantage of your dedication with no additional compensation beyond trowing some creature comforts at you.

zackmorris 7y ago

Your sentiment is understandable, and I still use Google every day because it's still the best in its niches. But here are a few things to keep in mind: * Advertising revenue is practically nonexistent today compared to its heyday in the late 90s. This is because a few key players like Google have created a monopoly/oligopoly where they are so large, with so much more personal information on everybody, that they keep much of the profit for themselves and squeeze out any competition. * The internet still provides lucrative careers for many, but this is in spite of (not due to) monopolistic players like Google. In other words, we'd all profit more, and have more room to innovate, if the big players like Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc didn't control nearly every aspect of the internet. * Google is several orders of magnitude bigger than anyone's conception of how big it is. Short of a national monopoly breakup campaign, this will have little to no effect on their profitability or hiring. My personal feeling is that income inequality largely stems from the US no longer enforcing antitrust laws, consumer protection laws, or finance laws like the Glass–Steagall Act. It effects liberals and conservatives alike and leads to global threats like nationalism (a leading contender for World War III) when the vast majority of the population spends so much time working to make rent that it's effectively disenfranchised, no longer has upward mobility/retirement, and doesn't have the means to raise a family.

yaacov 7y ago
If there was a monopoly on advertising, wouldn’t we expect advertising revenue to grow, rather than shrink?
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  I think he means that outside of Google, advertising revenue has shrunk for the publishers and others in the space, and that Google has consumed and controls the lion's share of the advertising revenue.

twoheadedboy 7y ago

> Would I be a bad person for saying I'm sad about this because I want to work at Google and I don't like seeing their future threatened? That doesn't make you a bad person, but it IS a bad reason.

sa46 7y ago
That reason is no worse than the inverse reasoning: gleefully supporting the investigation because it threatens Google's future. Also, I think the reasoning is independent of the specific situation. Working at $PLACE could benefit the poster. So the poster wants to see $PLACE continue to have a bright future. Seems like a standard argument for capitalism and the free-flow of human capital to better jobs. I understand there are externalities that affect this specific situation, hence the investigation, but since it's not clear there's antitrust behavior, it seems premature to classify the reasoning as bad.
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  > gleefully supporting the investigation because it threatens Google's future. what about gleefully supporting the investigation because it will create opportunities for competition, create room for other small companies to have at least a fighting chance at success?

james-mcelwain 7y ago

If you don't want to feel sad, maybe you shouldn't get emotionally invested in a company with a near trillion dollar market cap that exists solely to sell targeted ads.

dmead 7y ago

don't you think you're succumbing to marketing a bit?

prepend 7y ago

> Unless someone can give a reasonable explanation of why Google specifically should be targeted instead of other companies that are more conservatively aligned. This is really curious. Do you think anticompetitive investigations and lawsuits should depend on the political orientation of companies?

GenericsMotors 7y ago

They are not being "targeted". If you'd read the article, they're being investigated for using anti-competitive tactics from a position as a monopoly - but you think they should be given a pass because outwardly they project a liberal image? Never ceases to amaze me how you "liberal" americans can support a megacorp in this manner while simultaneously thinking of yourselves as being on the left...

Gibbon1 7y ago
Most of the liberals I know are deeply concerned about google and the other FAANG companies and the abuses they are getting away with. And you're right behind the curtain none of these companies are liberal. There is a word I use, but if you use it on HN you get threatened.
- GenericsMotors 7y ago
  > There is a word I use, but if you use it on HN you get threatened. The term I know for this type of attitude is "champagne socialist". Preaching liberal values with a silver spoon firmly wedged in their gob, only caring for those values superficially or only when it applies to others.

avocado4 7y ago

> I also don't get the anti-Google movement It's virtually all political propaganda from hostile nations. Europeans understand that they desperately need to develop a tech sector to compete with China and the US while their population is aging, brains are draining, and productivity is slumping. But since they've killed off their own tech companies seemingly the only option now is to try and ban FAANG - protectionism through propaganda, arbitrary fines, targeted taxes, etc. Then you see some troll or a useful idiot from US post a nonsensical argument like "I BUILT MY PERSONAL BROWSER AND GOGOLE DIDN'T ALLOCATE 100 ENGINEERS TO MAKE THEIR APPS WORK ON IT", and upvote bots from China / Iran / Russia pick up and amplify the post to the top. This is modern warfare and it's effective. Ask a senior engineer at Reddit or any other communication platform and they'll confirm it (in private). If you get a chance you should definitely work at Google out of Mountain View office because you'll gain unparalleled technical knowledge and build an amazing network that can match Stanford or Harvard as far as your future goes.

DanBC 7y ago
Europeans are humans, and humans have rights, and the EU will enforce those rights.

username90 7y ago

I used to think like that as well, but then I realized that most of the lawsuits against Google was fair. And the thing is that the anti competitive practices done by the sleazy people over at the business department are bad and leads to lots of lawsuits, but they are also profitable and hurts competition so it is unclear if Google is really losing out on this. Disclaimer: I work at Google but I haven't seen any internal communication related to anti competitive behavior, I just know what I read in the news.

forgottenpass 7y ago

>should be targeted instead of other companies that are more conservatively aligned. They shouldn't be targeted to the exclusion of others based on political alignment, but neither should the not-googles be targeted to the exclusion of google based on google's politics. > Would I be a bad person for saying I'm sad about this because I want to work at Google and I don't like seeing their future threatened? You're not a bad person for rooting for a company or wanting to work there. I'd just say you're incredibly naive for having a such an attachment to brand. And you're setting yourself to have some of your most productive years chewed up by a company (not even necessarily google) that can take advantage of your dedication with no additional compensation beyond trowing some creature comforts at you.