4 ms·

Google is famous for this type of attrition damage tactic. Read this: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/

Google is famous for this type of attrition damage tactic. Read this: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 It goes like this: Google bans or disables something, then they pretend they made a mistake, but still delay fixing it for days or weeks while giving amateurish explanations for these delays. In the end what this tactic achieves, is hampering a software Google disapproves (or competes against). The tired users switches to a different software (made by google?) or stop using the software altogether. The same tactic targets competing developers.

nullc 7y ago
This sort of evil behavior doesn't require intent or actual malice to form. All it requires is that panic efforts to fix things be primarily allocated to problems that hurt google and not primarily allocated to things that hurt google's opponents. Or for infrastructure that has a history of hurting google to get disabled while infrastructure that has a history of hurting others gets ignored in favor of spending more time on new projects or fixing things that hurt google. IMO characterizing it as involving malice ('pretend') actually _understates_ the problem. Google's actions are sometimes explicitly malicious, but they're even more often malicious OR indifferent, as that is a strict superset. If one day they decided to stop being actively evil this problem would not go away. Maybe it could be reduced with the right kind of attitude towards introspecting and seeking out systemic causes of evil consequences even at their own expense. I heard there was once a company with a "don't be evil" mantra, but they abandoned it as they grew. This also explains why the same evil conduct sometimes shows up in cases where no one can figure out any way that google actually benefits. It's a lot easier to cause harm through indifference than greed because greed requires that you have a way to benefit. Most conceivable harmful acts don't have much of a benefit for anyone.
- a-nikolaev 7y ago
  I see your argument, and while it is plausible, it is muddying the waters. The twitter thread I linked above is from a former Firefox vice president, not from some random person on the Internet. People at Mozilla also thought that Google is playing fair game. When they realized there was a malicious intent, it was too late.
- raspie 7y ago
  There is no such thing as a megacorp's indifference to increasing their profits and achieving their strategic goals. You can't plausibly claim indifference when Google's business processes that took many millions of dollars to set up and optimize promote Google's success by harming Google's competitors and taming Google's existential threats in user-hostile ways that range from perhaps subtle to outrageously obvious. They didn't start doing this yesterday. No amount of plausible deniability can cover a gaping void this large. Google's behaviour is entirely consistent with a huge company exercising its monopolistic power in a largely unregulated environment. They do whatever they can get away with.
- roca 7y ago
  As a former Mozilla distinguished engineer --- this is exactly right.
- deogeo 7y ago
  “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  This is why we used to have anti-trust law.
blowski 7y ago
Hopefully in this case, they will switch to Firefox.
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  As a precaution to such tactics like, I have (long time ago) switched for Firefox Portable, which updates properly, and also backup up its folder and keep a backup of all add-ons .xpi files, (winrar for Windows has a nifty naming mechanism that you can add YYYY-MM-DD HH-MM-SS on the backup name), so if there is an update I don't like, or if after an update I am left with half my add-ons being disabled due to incompatibility, I roll back and stay there for a couple more months till either my add-ons work, or I find and alternative. Mozilla is far more honest than Google, but better safe than sorry.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Exactly from here on out if there is a choice you dismiss the google product out of hand.
Just1689 7y ago
I think the community should start putting together a "how to migrate to Brave" doc. I'm curious.. Does Brave have their extensions managed by Google?

nullc 7y ago

This sort of evil behavior doesn't require intent or actual malice to form. All it requires is that panic efforts to fix things be primarily allocated to problems that hurt google and not primarily allocated to things that hurt google's opponents. Or for infrastructure that has a history of hurting google to get disabled while infrastructure that has a history of hurting others gets ignored in favor of spending more time on new projects or fixing things that hurt google. IMO characterizing it as involving malice ('pretend') actually _understates_ the problem. Google's actions are sometimes explicitly malicious, but they're even more often malicious OR indifferent, as that is a strict superset. If one day they decided to stop being actively evil this problem would not go away. Maybe it could be reduced with the right kind of attitude towards introspecting and seeking out systemic causes of evil consequences even at their own expense. I heard there was once a company with a "don't be evil" mantra, but they abandoned it as they grew. This also explains why the same evil conduct sometimes shows up in cases where no one can figure out any way that google actually benefits. It's a lot easier to cause harm through indifference than greed because greed requires that you have a way to benefit. Most conceivable harmful acts don't have much of a benefit for anyone.

a-nikolaev 7y ago
I see your argument, and while it is plausible, it is muddying the waters. The twitter thread I linked above is from a former Firefox vice president, not from some random person on the Internet. People at Mozilla also thought that Google is playing fair game. When they realized there was a malicious intent, it was too late.
raspie 7y ago
There is no such thing as a megacorp's indifference to increasing their profits and achieving their strategic goals. You can't plausibly claim indifference when Google's business processes that took many millions of dollars to set up and optimize promote Google's success by harming Google's competitors and taming Google's existential threats in user-hostile ways that range from perhaps subtle to outrageously obvious. They didn't start doing this yesterday. No amount of plausible deniability can cover a gaping void this large. Google's behaviour is entirely consistent with a huge company exercising its monopolistic power in a largely unregulated environment. They do whatever they can get away with.
roca 7y ago
As a former Mozilla distinguished engineer --- this is exactly right.
deogeo 7y ago
“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”
Gibbon1 7y ago
This is why we used to have anti-trust law.

blowski 7y ago

Hopefully in this case, they will switch to Firefox.

HenryBemis 7y ago
As a precaution to such tactics like, I have (long time ago) switched for Firefox Portable, which updates properly, and also backup up its folder and keep a backup of all add-ons .xpi files, (winrar for Windows has a nifty naming mechanism that you can add YYYY-MM-DD HH-MM-SS on the backup name), so if there is an update I don't like, or if after an update I am left with half my add-ons being disabled due to incompatibility, I roll back and stay there for a couple more months till either my add-ons work, or I find and alternative. Mozilla is far more honest than Google, but better safe than sorry.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Exactly from here on out if there is a choice you dismiss the google product out of hand.

Just1689 7y ago

I think the community should start putting together a "how to migrate to Brave" doc. I'm curious.. Does Brave have their extensions managed by Google?