6 ms·

I'm usually very skeptical of Google's plan for anything, but if it's pissing off big ISPs then sign me up.

by untog 7y ago

dodobirdlord 7y ago
Google's plans usually have carefully laid out technical justifications, and are mostly kinda boringly/obviously good, like QUIC/HTTP3. That you're usually skeptical of any plan coming from Google suggests that your skepticism is miscalibrated.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I think you're being a bit over generous, the days of "Do no evil" have come and gone. Still, ISPs are definitely higher up on the evil-o-meter.
  - dodobirdlord 7y ago
    I don't think I'm being generous. Google's large scale plans are mostly about making the internet and technology ecosystem faster, safer, and more widely available. Of course, this is because their revenue scales as a factor of the number of people using the internet, the number of pages each person using the internet browses, and the willingness of people to spend money on the internet. But don't let the motive distract from the plans. Consider the plans on their own merits.
    - fouc 7y ago
      All of Google's large scale plans have strong centralizing effects. The benefits are not worth it.
- dangero 7y ago
  Google makes the majority of its revenue by knowing things about their users and then allowing them to be targeted with ads. Google's plans being usually "obviously good" is a highly subjective opinion.
  - dodobirdlord 7y ago
    And yet, most of Google's plans do not warrant skepticism.
    - scarmig 7y ago
      Google's plans fall into two categories: obviously good is one of those. That doesn't mean that AMP is a great idea.
    - zchrykng 7y ago
      Everything warrants skepticism until proven otherwise. Especially things that are being given out for free. Google might be operating on the up and up, but Google is just a large collection of people and some of them will be ethically lacking. And Google's employees have a large incentive to not see any issues with collecting all the personal information that exists.
      - cloudwalking 7y ago
        Internally, Google employees have quite a large incentive to NOT collect unnecessary data. It's a fundamental tenant. Don't collect any data unless it's for a specific tangible feature that benefits the user.
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        The way you phrased that makes it sound like Google the company treats our data in the same way individual employee does. I think we have to be be pretty naive to believe this is event remotely true.
      - sdfgh2019 7y ago
        Disclaimer: I work at Google. > And Google's employees have a large incentive to not see any issues with collecting all the personal information that exists. I can only speak from personal experience. But I would not agree. Collection of data needs to be covered in a privacy document. You must argue why you're collecting it. There has to be a retention plan, such that data is purged when the user account is deleted, and/or the data expires over time. You can of course get exemptions, IF there is a valid business reason. But all of this needs to be reviewed and approved by privacy people. If you want to get things done. The paperwork is a strong incentive to avoid keeping data you don't need. Note. privacy reviews cover more than I mentioned here. This was just a highlight.
- pnako 7y ago
  Why are those plans "obviously good"? They promote a view of the web that is all about piping a ton of content, sprinkled with ads, to passive consumers; just like TV.
- dogecoinbase 7y ago
  Here's a twitter thread worth reading, from the former VP of the Firefox group: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 It's easy to make proposals that incrementally increase user security while simultaneously increasing one's own ability to consolidate and exploit user data. Technical appeal needs to be evaluated with a simultaneous critical eye to social impact (QUIC is a perfect example -- it outcompetes TCP on an equivalent link, and falls apart over variable-latency or highly unreliable connections, like those that exist in developing nations -- but of course, Google doesn't care about those audiences).
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
    Forget about developing nations, there are plenty of parts of the US where mobile Internet is unreliable or altogether unavailable (I live in Utah, ask me how I know). Google doesn't even care if you're a paying customer -- they sell phones without expandable storage with the explanation that customers should just use the cloud (i.e., Google Drive) instead. Laughable.
    - cloudwalking 7y ago
      Then buy a phone with expandable storage, that does run Google's operating system. That's the beauty of Google -- don't like their hardware? Buy one of the hundred other models.
      - boring_twenties 7y ago
        Damn, why didn't I think of that? It was just an example in support of the point made in the parent: as far as Google is concerned, the only people that matter are ones with unlimited, fast and reliable Internet access at all times without exception. If you thought I was facing some kind of dilemma regarding whether or not to buy a phone that is useless half the time I leave my house, then thank you, but that's not the case.
  - deadmutex 7y ago
    > developing nations -- but of course, Google doesn't care about those audiences Do you have a citation for your claims? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary: https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/ https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/ .
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Google's technical justifications are usually pathetically self-serving. My favorite example: Why have they not yet removed cookies from HTTP? There are obvious improvements to privacy if we switch to server-managed sessions chosen by user-provided identities, and get rid of cookies, but it would frustrate Google's tracking of us, so it can't happen.
  - SquareWheel 7y ago
    > Why have they not yet removed cookies from HTTP? Browser vendors generally try not to break millions of webpages overnight.
    - lidHanteyk 7y ago
      I'm not talking about HTTP/1.1, but HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, both of which were pushed by Google. Google had two chances to remove cookies, and blew it.
- untog 7y ago
  I think you're cherry picking. I'd say AMP and the consequent AMP for email are recent examples to the contrary. Nothing wrong with skepticism, especially directed at a company the size of Google.

I'm usually very skeptical of Google's plan for anything, but if it's pissing off big ISPs then sign me up.

by untog 7y ago

I'm usually very skeptical of Google's plan for anything, but if it's pissing off big ISPs then sign me up.

Google's plans usually have carefully laid out technical justifications, and are mostly kinda boringly/obviously good, like QUIC/HTTP3. That you're usually skeptical of any plan coming from Google suggests that your skepticism is miscalibrated.

munk-a 7y ago
I think you're being a bit over generous, the days of "Do no evil" have come and gone. Still, ISPs are definitely higher up on the evil-o-meter.
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  I don't think I'm being generous. Google's large scale plans are mostly about making the internet and technology ecosystem faster, safer, and more widely available. Of course, this is because their revenue scales as a factor of the number of people using the internet, the number of pages each person using the internet browses, and the willingness of people to spend money on the internet. But don't let the motive distract from the plans. Consider the plans on their own merits.
  - fouc 7y ago
    All of Google's large scale plans have strong centralizing effects. The benefits are not worth it.
dangero 7y ago
Google makes the majority of its revenue by knowing things about their users and then allowing them to be targeted with ads. Google's plans being usually "obviously good" is a highly subjective opinion.
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  And yet, most of Google's plans do not warrant skepticism.
  - scarmig 7y ago
    Google's plans fall into two categories: obviously good is one of those. That doesn't mean that AMP is a great idea.
  - zchrykng 7y ago
    Everything warrants skepticism until proven otherwise. Especially things that are being given out for free. Google might be operating on the up and up, but Google is just a large collection of people and some of them will be ethically lacking. And Google's employees have a large incentive to not see any issues with collecting all the personal information that exists.
    - cloudwalking 7y ago
      Internally, Google employees have quite a large incentive to NOT collect unnecessary data. It's a fundamental tenant. Don't collect any data unless it's for a specific tangible feature that benefits the user.
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        The way you phrased that makes it sound like Google the company treats our data in the same way individual employee does. I think we have to be be pretty naive to believe this is event remotely true.
    - sdfgh2019 7y ago
      Disclaimer: I work at Google. > And Google's employees have a large incentive to not see any issues with collecting all the personal information that exists. I can only speak from personal experience. But I would not agree. Collection of data needs to be covered in a privacy document. You must argue why you're collecting it. There has to be a retention plan, such that data is purged when the user account is deleted, and/or the data expires over time. You can of course get exemptions, IF there is a valid business reason. But all of this needs to be reviewed and approved by privacy people. If you want to get things done. The paperwork is a strong incentive to avoid keeping data you don't need. Note. privacy reviews cover more than I mentioned here. This was just a highlight.
pnako 7y ago
Why are those plans "obviously good"? They promote a view of the web that is all about piping a ton of content, sprinkled with ads, to passive consumers; just like TV.
dogecoinbase 7y ago
Here's a twitter thread worth reading, from the former VP of the Firefox group: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 It's easy to make proposals that incrementally increase user security while simultaneously increasing one's own ability to consolidate and exploit user data. Technical appeal needs to be evaluated with a simultaneous critical eye to social impact (QUIC is a perfect example -- it outcompetes TCP on an equivalent link, and falls apart over variable-latency or highly unreliable connections, like those that exist in developing nations -- but of course, Google doesn't care about those audiences).
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  Forget about developing nations, there are plenty of parts of the US where mobile Internet is unreliable or altogether unavailable (I live in Utah, ask me how I know). Google doesn't even care if you're a paying customer -- they sell phones without expandable storage with the explanation that customers should just use the cloud (i.e., Google Drive) instead. Laughable.
  - cloudwalking 7y ago
    Then buy a phone with expandable storage, that does run Google's operating system. That's the beauty of Google -- don't like their hardware? Buy one of the hundred other models.
    - boring_twenties 7y ago
      Damn, why didn't I think of that? It was just an example in support of the point made in the parent: as far as Google is concerned, the only people that matter are ones with unlimited, fast and reliable Internet access at all times without exception. If you thought I was facing some kind of dilemma regarding whether or not to buy a phone that is useless half the time I leave my house, then thank you, but that's not the case.
- deadmutex 7y ago
  > developing nations -- but of course, Google doesn't care about those audiences Do you have a citation for your claims? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary: https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/ https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/ .
lidHanteyk 7y ago
Google's technical justifications are usually pathetically self-serving. My favorite example: Why have they not yet removed cookies from HTTP? There are obvious improvements to privacy if we switch to server-managed sessions chosen by user-provided identities, and get rid of cookies, but it would frustrate Google's tracking of us, so it can't happen.
- SquareWheel 7y ago
  > Why have they not yet removed cookies from HTTP? Browser vendors generally try not to break millions of webpages overnight.
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    I'm not talking about HTTP/1.1, but HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, both of which were pushed by Google. Google had two chances to remove cookies, and blew it.
untog 7y ago
I think you're cherry picking. I'd say AMP and the consequent AMP for email are recent examples to the contrary. Nothing wrong with skepticism, especially directed at a company the size of Google.