5 ms·

That part is just smoke and mirrors, of course. They don't give a crap about that and "privacy" is becoming yet another marketing buzzword that rarely stands up

That part is just smoke and mirrors, of course. They don't give a crap about that and "privacy" is becoming yet another marketing buzzword that rarely stands up to scrutiny but is very convenient to hit your opponents over the head with. Google just wants a monopoly on advertising.

kyrra 6y ago
Googler opinions are my own. I'd disagree. There is a trend in HN comments to remind people that a company is a collection of people. Google is a collection of people. There are those of us who care deeply about privacy at Google. First: it's interesting talking with googlers or reading their thoughts on how Google does ads and data collection. Many people definitely feel the same way as commenters on HN feel. Lots of people are torn on the fact that ads lets us build lots of other cool products for people. I would say this helps motivate other teams, like cloud, do you find other revenue sources for the company so you don't have to be as dated collection focused. Second: I have seen googlers fight the privacy of users even within my division (payments). Many of us want to do right by our users, and be as privacy focused as we are capable given our constraints. We also know there is a general thought that Google is data collection focused, and one slip up will cause a big drama out on the internet and in the news (Google would likely receive more scrutiny here than some other companies). This helps remind us that we need to treat user data as best we can and minimize what we do collect.
- CivBase 6y ago
  > There is a trend in HN comments to remind people that a company is a collection of people. Google is a collection of people. There are those of us who care deeply about privacy at Google. It sounds like there is little overlap between Google's employees and the people who make and influence major decisions for Google. Wasn't that recently given as one of the major justifications for unionization?
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  > There is a trend in HN comments to remind people that a company is a collection of people. A company isn't really that, though: a company employs a collection of people to do the work desired by its owners. Since Google is not an employee-owned company, it's not obvious that a group of employees have effective power in this matter.
  - shrimp_emoji 6y ago
    It's the same game theory behind dictatorship. In this case, the dictator can simply be an abstract profit motive, and its lust for blood tomorrow could always overrun today's principled moderation (especially once it begins to starve, which it will since all organizations, no matter how Ozymandian and grand, somehow crumble eventually). The best foundation for good outcomes is to not trust a company and to reject its control to begin with.
- stiray 6y ago
  I am sorry but this seems like a conflict of interest. Googlers are earning most of their paycheck from spying on people. This is a fact. And everything about google is moving into direction of earning even more - stock owners demand it and based on infinite hunger for more revenue, this is a lost fight. Whatever you do, from within the Alphabet, it is lost game. Now some fraction of those that are not aware of reality might be really fighting for user privacy but your fight is like biting a hand that feeds you. And this is observed as crazy at best. If you want to talk the talk and walk the walk, stop helping them and allow to have public image that they deserve instead of defending them based on some strange minority that is clueless where they work. Or if you want it differently, it is like selling weapons to Central Africa and then saying "Weapons dont kill, people do.". Sure. True. But you are making it more efficient. Now we will probably move to the part "someone else will do it instead". This is the part of having moral and this makes a difference between someone who has it and someone who is searching for apologies.
  - lima 6y ago
    > Googlers are earning most of their paycheck from spying on people. This is a fact. This a popular misconception about Google. They don't need to spy on people. You're the product, but you don't pay with data (except for basic demographics) - you pay with attention.
- arexxbifs 6y ago
  > Google is a collection of people. (...) Many of us want to do right by our users, and be as privacy focused as we are capable given our constraints. When push comes to shove, Google _isn't_ a collection of people - it's a legal entity with the sole purpose of turning an ever-increasing profit. The best way to ensure privacy is to not track users across the web. Hence, if Google was interested in privacy, that's what Google would do - not add extra "anonymized" tracking features.

kyrra 6y ago

Googler opinions are my own. I'd disagree. There is a trend in HN comments to remind people that a company is a collection of people. Google is a collection of people. There are those of us who care deeply about privacy at Google. First: it's interesting talking with googlers or reading their thoughts on how Google does ads and data collection. Many people definitely feel the same way as commenters on HN feel. Lots of people are torn on the fact that ads lets us build lots of other cool products for people. I would say this helps motivate other teams, like cloud, do you find other revenue sources for the company so you don't have to be as dated collection focused. Second: I have seen googlers fight the privacy of users even within my division (payments). Many of us want to do right by our users, and be as privacy focused as we are capable given our constraints. We also know there is a general thought that Google is data collection focused, and one slip up will cause a big drama out on the internet and in the news (Google would likely receive more scrutiny here than some other companies). This helps remind us that we need to treat user data as best we can and minimize what we do collect.

CivBase 6y ago
> There is a trend in HN comments to remind people that a company is a collection of people. Google is a collection of people. There are those of us who care deeply about privacy at Google. It sounds like there is little overlap between Google's employees and the people who make and influence major decisions for Google. Wasn't that recently given as one of the major justifications for unionization?
throwaway2245 6y ago
> There is a trend in HN comments to remind people that a company is a collection of people. A company isn't really that, though: a company employs a collection of people to do the work desired by its owners. Since Google is not an employee-owned company, it's not obvious that a group of employees have effective power in this matter.
- shrimp_emoji 6y ago
  It's the same game theory behind dictatorship. In this case, the dictator can simply be an abstract profit motive, and its lust for blood tomorrow could always overrun today's principled moderation (especially once it begins to starve, which it will since all organizations, no matter how Ozymandian and grand, somehow crumble eventually). The best foundation for good outcomes is to not trust a company and to reject its control to begin with.
stiray 6y ago
I am sorry but this seems like a conflict of interest. Googlers are earning most of their paycheck from spying on people. This is a fact. And everything about google is moving into direction of earning even more - stock owners demand it and based on infinite hunger for more revenue, this is a lost fight. Whatever you do, from within the Alphabet, it is lost game. Now some fraction of those that are not aware of reality might be really fighting for user privacy but your fight is like biting a hand that feeds you. And this is observed as crazy at best. If you want to talk the talk and walk the walk, stop helping them and allow to have public image that they deserve instead of defending them based on some strange minority that is clueless where they work. Or if you want it differently, it is like selling weapons to Central Africa and then saying "Weapons dont kill, people do.". Sure. True. But you are making it more efficient. Now we will probably move to the part "someone else will do it instead". This is the part of having moral and this makes a difference between someone who has it and someone who is searching for apologies.
- lima 6y ago
  > Googlers are earning most of their paycheck from spying on people. This is a fact. This a popular misconception about Google. They don't need to spy on people. You're the product, but you don't pay with data (except for basic demographics) - you pay with attention.
arexxbifs 6y ago
> Google is a collection of people. (...) Many of us want to do right by our users, and be as privacy focused as we are capable given our constraints. When push comes to shove, Google _isn't_ a collection of people - it's a legal entity with the sole purpose of turning an ever-increasing profit. The best way to ensure privacy is to not track users across the web. Hence, if Google was interested in privacy, that's what Google would do - not add extra "anonymized" tracking features.