3 ms·

The multitude of comments here scream the same thing: 1. No one trusts Google to be an impartial judge of speed. 2. Increasingly, Google is inserting itself a

The multitude of comments here scream the same thing: 1. No one trusts Google to be an impartial judge of speed. 2. Increasingly, Google is inserting itself as a non-neutral third party between the end user and creator/developer. Power lies asymmetrically with Google, and threatens both creators & users. If anyone from Google is reading, this incremental but definite appearance of a power grab by Google will only draw more regulation

cs02rm0 7y ago
I mostly agree, but more regulation means higher barriers to entry which would suit them. It's win-win. We should really just stop using Google so much. You go first, I can't be bothered to switch!
- zupa-hu 7y ago
  > You go first, I can't be bothered to switch! I had to upvote this. :D
- vim-guru 7y ago
  Switched about a year ago to duckduckgo. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but the search results are pretty darn good. Give it a go :)
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  I quit, divested, closed my accounts and never looked back (except for YouTube but I block the ads).
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  >but more regulation means higher barriers to entry which would suit them That's a recently very popular idea, but in this general form it is simply untrue. It depends on the specifics of any regulation. We can regulate oligopolists in a way that doesn't affect anyone else.
Arnt 7y ago
I'm not from Google... but I think you omit one threatened party, and it's the most seriously affected: Facebook. Google wants there to be lots of web sites, lots of web pages. So using someone's web site should be more convenient than using that someone's facebook page. How to achieve that? My guess is that Google has done some research into that, and a focus group or whatever named slowness (or an expectation of slowness) as a disadvantage of the web compared to facebook.
d0mine 7y ago
More regulation is good for big established players (who have money to spend on lobbying) and it is bad for small/new businesses.

cs02rm0 7y ago

I mostly agree, but more regulation means higher barriers to entry which would suit them. It's win-win. We should really just stop using Google so much. You go first, I can't be bothered to switch!

zupa-hu 7y ago
> You go first, I can't be bothered to switch! I had to upvote this. :D
vim-guru 7y ago
Switched about a year ago to duckduckgo. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but the search results are pretty darn good. Give it a go :)
birdyrooster 7y ago
I quit, divested, closed my accounts and never looked back (except for YouTube but I block the ads).
fauigerzigerk 7y ago
>but more regulation means higher barriers to entry which would suit them That's a recently very popular idea, but in this general form it is simply untrue. It depends on the specifics of any regulation. We can regulate oligopolists in a way that doesn't affect anyone else.

Arnt 7y ago

I'm not from Google... but I think you omit one threatened party, and it's the most seriously affected: Facebook. Google wants there to be lots of web sites, lots of web pages. So using someone's web site should be more convenient than using that someone's facebook page. How to achieve that? My guess is that Google has done some research into that, and a focus group or whatever named slowness (or an expectation of slowness) as a disadvantage of the web compared to facebook.

d0mine 7y ago

More regulation is good for big established players (who have money to spend on lobbying) and it is bad for small/new businesses.