4 ms·

> has paid for their gross violations of trust and privacy of the entire world. Sorry, but who are you to speak for the entire world? You may not like facebook

> has paid for their gross violations of trust and privacy of the entire world. Sorry, but who are you to speak for the entire world? You may not like facebook and google personally, but it is far streach to think you know to represent one country let alone the whole world. For one thing, your are not speaking for myself: both google and facebook are some of the best tech I enjoy using every day, and they have and are improving mylife daily. They did not violate my trust in any way. And for your allegations, can you provide any proof for it? Even out of respect for the community, so here supporting material not just words, in the air is what appreciated the most. What I don't understand, is how a tendentious hateful post is not downvotes here on HN?

radley 5y ago
> And for your allegations, can you provide any proof for it? Actually, yes. The reason this is news is because it was recently unredacted from internal Google documents submited to the court: https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1451579045246820355?s=21 https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1451579045246820355?s=...
- sgregnt 5y ago
  So the court is not over yet? The allegation might not be proven true?
  - sofixa 5y ago
    It's not an allegation, it was in Google's internal documents discovered during a trial. The facts they represent aren't conditional on the outcome of said trial.
kerng 5y ago
This sounds like what a client of a drug dealer would say. There has been plenty of proof of illegal (downright malicious) behavior in multiple dimension by big tech (anti competitive, anti privacy, bad security practices, keeping wages low, lying in front of congress, inciting (or at least turning a blind eye on) war, genocide and riots, the list goes on...) and new revelations like these here are showing up nearly daily. Especially in the ad industry incentives are not aligned. The problem is that fines (which is proof of their illegal actions, since you asked for proof) are always very low - so companies design their actions with that in mind.
- sgregnt 5y ago
  > This sounds like what a client of a drug dealer would say. Maybe it's an indication that you are so impartial that you equate facebook with drug dealer?
  - kerng 5y ago
    It seems you have a similar association for Facebokks brand! Nowhere in my comment did I mention Facebook directly.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
Who is anyone to speak for the entire world? But we still get to speak. > And for your allegations, can you provide any proof for it? Read any of the half dozen articles on the front page this morning detailing google’s behavior. Or the links in TFA. > What I don't understand, is how a tendentious hateful post is not downvotes here on HN? Turns out that person does speak for a whole lot of people.
- sgregnt 5y ago
  > Who is anyone to speak for the entire world? But we still get to speak. So why then speak for the "entire world"? It would be much better phrased if some one wrote: "*in my opinion* the entire world is ... ", even this small addition of "in my opinion" makes for a much more serious discourse, I believe. From my personal experience, when I check a random sample of some of the accusations against facebook, then they all seem to be a misrepresentation of facebook... For the last part, I don't think HN is anywhere repesenatative of even the opinion of US, let alone the whole world. So not sure why you decide to mention that a lot of people on HN might agree with the op, what does it contribute to the discussion?

radley 5y ago

> And for your allegations, can you provide any proof for it? Actually, yes. The reason this is news is because it was recently unredacted from internal Google documents submited to the court: https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1451579045246820355?s=21 https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1451579045246820355?s=...

sgregnt 5y ago
So the court is not over yet? The allegation might not be proven true?
- sofixa 5y ago
  It's not an allegation, it was in Google's internal documents discovered during a trial. The facts they represent aren't conditional on the outcome of said trial.

kerng 5y ago

This sounds like what a client of a drug dealer would say. There has been plenty of proof of illegal (downright malicious) behavior in multiple dimension by big tech (anti competitive, anti privacy, bad security practices, keeping wages low, lying in front of congress, inciting (or at least turning a blind eye on) war, genocide and riots, the list goes on...) and new revelations like these here are showing up nearly daily. Especially in the ad industry incentives are not aligned. The problem is that fines (which is proof of their illegal actions, since you asked for proof) are always very low - so companies design their actions with that in mind.

sgregnt 5y ago
> This sounds like what a client of a drug dealer would say. Maybe it's an indication that you are so impartial that you equate facebook with drug dealer?
- kerng 5y ago
  It seems you have a similar association for Facebokks brand! Nowhere in my comment did I mention Facebook directly.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

Who is anyone to speak for the entire world? But we still get to speak. > And for your allegations, can you provide any proof for it? Read any of the half dozen articles on the front page this morning detailing google’s behavior. Or the links in TFA. > What I don't understand, is how a tendentious hateful post is not downvotes here on HN? Turns out that person does speak for a whole lot of people.

sgregnt 5y ago
> Who is anyone to speak for the entire world? But we still get to speak. So why then speak for the "entire world"? It would be much better phrased if some one wrote: "*in my opinion* the entire world is ... ", even this small addition of "in my opinion" makes for a much more serious discourse, I believe. From my personal experience, when I check a random sample of some of the accusations against facebook, then they all seem to be a misrepresentation of facebook... For the last part, I don't think HN is anywhere repesenatative of even the opinion of US, let alone the whole world. So not sure why you decide to mention that a lot of people on HN might agree with the op, what does it contribute to the discussion?