3 ms·

There's racist stuff all over Google's biggest properties. Racist results on Google, videos on youtube, sites hosted on GCP. Give me a break with your fake tras

There's racist stuff all over Google's biggest properties. Racist results on Google, videos on youtube, sites hosted on GCP. Give me a break with your fake trashy virtue signalling Google. This is nothing more than a monopoly stomping out a platform it doesn't like. Probably because federation is a threat to Google's position as the central hub of the internet.

linuxftw 6y ago
Indeed. The real story is federated applications undermine their search monopoly.
- dageshi 6y ago
  I really doubt google cares about federated applications at all. I suspect they're just trying to avoid a potential future shitstorm where they're accused of facilitating something nasty because they "approved" apps to be on the play store.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    No, as others have said, you'd have to apply the same reasoning to a web browser. Google dominates the web search, so there's no need to prevent other browsers because it all drives Google's revenue anyway. Any app that allows you to break out of the garden is banned.
    - dageshi 6y ago
      Viewed through the lens of "what will cause the most bad publicity" a browser is understood by 90% of the population. The "fediverse" isn't. It can be spun to cause damage in the way a browser cannot. Google don't care about the federated stuff because it's not big enough to bother them, in fact it probably siphons all the crap they'd rather not index off to a place they no longer have to worry about. They care about bad publicity and being seen to implicitly support "bad" things via their app store.
      - linuxftw 6y ago
        > Google don't care about the federated stuff because it's not big enough to bother them, It seems their using their position to ensure this remains true.
- icebraining 6y ago
  Seems the opposite to me: most of the Fediverse is web accessible, where Google Search can crawl it. Google's nemesis are closed platforms owned by other companies (like Facebook).
young_unixer 6y ago
> This is nothing more than a monopoly stomping out a platform it doesn't like. Probably because federation is a threat to Google's position as the central hub of the internet. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. The real reason is that Google employees live in an ideological echo chamber where censoring anything that doesn't align with their ideologies is a completely normal thing to do. They think they're protecting the world from bad ideas, without noticing how they themselves promote other bad ideas. Basically: the moralistic version of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
- tjs8rj 6y ago
  That's fine and reasonable on an individual level, but not only does it seem like a clear case of violation of duty to shareholders to make otherwise unsound biz decisions on the basis of "it's moral", it's also just not an accurate depiction of the business process. Google is a business, and at the level these decisions are made, the decision is made overwhelmingly through the lens of business. A more fitting phrase in the context of a business would more accurately be "never attribute to goodwill that which is adequately explained by sound business thinking".
- spaced-out 6y ago
  >They think they're protecting the world from bad ideas, without noticing how they themselves promote other bad ideas. They, being Google executives, are only thinking of the company's bottom line when they make these decisions. Don't underestimate the impact of a few thousand (or more) Rose Twitter users spamming a companies marketing page. That company goes to Google and says "make this stop, I don't care how", then Google execs decide who they want to piss off, which is generally the people paying them the least amount of money.

linuxftw 6y ago

Indeed. The real story is federated applications undermine their search monopoly.

dageshi 6y ago
I really doubt google cares about federated applications at all. I suspect they're just trying to avoid a potential future shitstorm where they're accused of facilitating something nasty because they "approved" apps to be on the play store.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  No, as others have said, you'd have to apply the same reasoning to a web browser. Google dominates the web search, so there's no need to prevent other browsers because it all drives Google's revenue anyway. Any app that allows you to break out of the garden is banned.
  - dageshi 6y ago
    Viewed through the lens of "what will cause the most bad publicity" a browser is understood by 90% of the population. The "fediverse" isn't. It can be spun to cause damage in the way a browser cannot. Google don't care about the federated stuff because it's not big enough to bother them, in fact it probably siphons all the crap they'd rather not index off to a place they no longer have to worry about. They care about bad publicity and being seen to implicitly support "bad" things via their app store.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      > Google don't care about the federated stuff because it's not big enough to bother them, It seems their using their position to ensure this remains true.
icebraining 6y ago
Seems the opposite to me: most of the Fediverse is web accessible, where Google Search can crawl it. Google's nemesis are closed platforms owned by other companies (like Facebook).

young_unixer 6y ago

> This is nothing more than a monopoly stomping out a platform it doesn't like. Probably because federation is a threat to Google's position as the central hub of the internet. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. The real reason is that Google employees live in an ideological echo chamber where censoring anything that doesn't align with their ideologies is a completely normal thing to do. They think they're protecting the world from bad ideas, without noticing how they themselves promote other bad ideas. Basically: the moralistic version of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

tjs8rj 6y ago
That's fine and reasonable on an individual level, but not only does it seem like a clear case of violation of duty to shareholders to make otherwise unsound biz decisions on the basis of "it's moral", it's also just not an accurate depiction of the business process. Google is a business, and at the level these decisions are made, the decision is made overwhelmingly through the lens of business. A more fitting phrase in the context of a business would more accurately be "never attribute to goodwill that which is adequately explained by sound business thinking".
spaced-out 6y ago
>They think they're protecting the world from bad ideas, without noticing how they themselves promote other bad ideas. They, being Google executives, are only thinking of the company's bottom line when they make these decisions. Don't underestimate the impact of a few thousand (or more) Rose Twitter users spamming a companies marketing page. That company goes to Google and says "make this stop, I don't care how", then Google execs decide who they want to piss off, which is generally the people paying them the least amount of money.