7 ms·

What a silly article. It is not "nefarious" to enlist satisfied users of a product against legislation that could destroy the product. Again, a reminder that n

• 1cvmask 5y ago
  There is nothing wrong when you enlist satisfied users. It can become an issue when you start to penalize users who refuse to be enlisted.
  • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    I have read nothing about Google penalizing users who don't enlist in the article? Clearly Google has taken a political stance and also adjusts search results to stir people into a certain political direction (ironically it seems to be the direction the author of the article actually favors). But that is not the subject of the article and not penalizing users, either. It is a good reason to stop using Google, but again, not subject of the article.
• dazc 5y ago
  'Maybe he should simply stop using Google, if he is unhappy with the way they conduct their business.' Which is exactly what some of us are already doing.
  • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Fine - I'm in the same boat.
• pmlnr 5y ago
  > satisfied users of a product LOL. Do you have a business listed on google? I'm yet to meet satisfied owners to be honest. For example: I rent a room for classes weekly, and I have no google sanction way to show that on the map, because I don't own the business location itself. All the structured data, the rich result, etc stuff from google is a mirage, and despite the fact the I can hand write the correct JSON-LD they want, it doesn't even make a dent in the search results.
  • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Sure, I also know people who have huge problems with their Google business listing. Nevertheless it is normal for a company to call its users to aid against government regulation that would harm the product. What other course of action would you propose for a company? Just give up and donate their business to the communist party? If most users are unhappy with the product, it just means they will be unlikely to follow the call for action, which makes it even less of an issue to worry about. What makes the article even more ridiculous, however, is calling on the statements by Yelp as witness for the evilness of Google. Yelp is actually known for shady business practices (asking for bribes to have bad reviews removed).
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • beaconstudios 5y ago
      > What other course of action would you propose for a company? Just give up and donate their business to the communist party? just because businesses fight regulation, doesn't mean they're morally in the right. Car companies fought seatbelt regulation for years. They also convinced their users/drivers that this was operating in their best interests and tried to get them on-side to fight said regulation.
      • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        "ust because businesses fight regulation, doesn't mean they're morally in the right." True, but they are also not automatically not morally in the right. The article cites "they oppose government regulation" as proof that they are evil, which is nonsense. There are many evil governments in the world, which to oppose would be the morally right thing to do. And many proposed legislations in the US are evil, too.
        • beaconstudios 5y ago
          true, but regulations are primarily bad when corporations capture their regulators and use them to shut out competition. Which is once again the corporations doing something immoral. There's a whole issue with ineffective or overreaching regulations too, but that's bog standard incompetence rather than malice. Could you give an example of a regulation in the US that is straightforwardly evil? Generally speaking when I think of evils propagated by government I think of wars/colonialism, oppressive social policies and benefitting businesses at the cost of citizens' wellbeing. The US does all of these in varying degrees but I'm curious as to how the US is actually oppressing its corporations; from my perspective, the US seems like the most corporation-friendly country on the planet.
• travoc 5y ago
  I think it’s more than fair to highlight Google’s attempt to enlist thousands of users to lobby the government on its behalf. Why would a bit of transparency and exposure to this information bother you so much?
  • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    "transparency and exposure" - I don't think it is kept secret, according to the article, it is the first thing that Google shows to its users. I have nothing against commenting on that and writing critical articles. What bothers me is the framing as nefarious and evil, of a completely normal activity. Clearly Google has different interests than the author. That doesn't make them evil. Of course the author is also entitled to consider them evil. I merely point out that it is ridiculous, or at least the argument is it evil because they enlist their users is ridiculous. I am not even a fan of Google, I detest them for a lot of things.
    • leereeves 5y ago
      > I don't think it is kept secret, according to the article, it is the first thing that Google shows to its users. The first thing Google shows to users of Business Profile. Other people (which is most people) wouldn't know about it without articles like this. And does Google disclose that two of their three sources are funded by Google?
      • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        As I said (maybe in another thread, I don't remember), I have nothing against reporting that this is happening. I take issue with the framing as nefarious, especially the argument that it is nefarious because they advertise to their own users. By all means, make it public. I personally don't see the huge issue. Of course they are against government regulation that would harm their business. In the same vein I don't think it is very newsworthy that they fund sources they cite. Why wouldn't they?
        • leereeves 5y ago
• prepend 5y ago
  > Maybe he should simply stop using Google, if he is unhappy with the way they conduct their business. Sadly, I can’t. For a business user, there’s really no alternative to Google. 95% of my search and referral is through Google and Google maps. If I stop using them, I stop having businesses. I don’t think it’s nefarious, I just think it’s abuse of market position. Do you think it’s ok for a business to ask all employees to sign up for anti-union material. Every time they log in to their employee profile?
  • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Yes of course it would be OK for a business to ask employees to sign up for anti-union material. Why not? I don't think it would be OK to demand businesses are pro union, or pro anything that endangers their business. Why would they be? Even if you feel you can't escape Google, I don't think it is abuse of market power if they advertise their interests. Maybe it is just market power, without the abuse part. You could campaign for people to stop using Google, if it means so much to you. Then businesses wouldn't rely so much on Google anymore. Edit: do you think it is OK for unions to abuse their power? They are essentially forming monopolies and then using their monopoly power to enforce things.
    • dvtrn 5y ago
      do you think it is OK for unions to abuse their power? They are essentially forming monopolies and then using their monopoly power to enforce things. Probably the first time I’ve heard someone describe labor unions as monopolies.
      • popcube 5y ago
        this sounds like the definition of government. country control all of power in one region in
      • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        If that's the first time you have heard at, I suppose it discredits the whole field of economics. Of course they are a monopoly, or trying to form one, to enforce their demands.
• ballenf 5y ago
  The gut-level issue people have is a company gaining trust through creating a level playing field with algorithmic ranking, etc. and then slowly trading in that trust in order to create an ever larger moat around their monopoly. The nefarious part is that Google pretends to still be an uninterested referee on a fair playing field. All the revelations regarding back door deals and anti-consumer activity makes it clear that they abandoned those principles in order to cement their monopoly and raise their rents. And as for recruiting your happy customers into your cause -- there are many things we're fine letting non-monopolies do that make us very uneasy when monopolies do the same. Whether this should be one of those things is worth discussing and shouldn't be dismissed with an oversimplified straw man argument.
  • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    "Google pretends to still be an uninterested referee on a fair playing field." It sounds to me as if they clearly lay out the disadvantages (in their view) to their users. That's pretty much all there is to it. I don't think they pretend to be "uninterested referees" in a call to action against certain legislation? Who would ever think that? Clearly they are "interested" in shooting down that legislation. As I said elsewhere, there is plenty to dislike about Google and their power. That article was not about that, though. The "monopolies" argument is just commie propaganda in my opinion. In general the "people with power" theory, which commies want to use to gain power over other people. If you don't like Google, again, don't use them. It is only the people giving it its power. Likewise, if your employer exerts "power" over you, look for another job. The people could stop using Google at any moment, taking away its power. Government regulations, on the other hand, are REAL tyranny as there is no way to opt out.
  • shadowgovt 5y ago
    When was the playing field level, I wonder? The entire point of algorithmic ranking is to bias some data over other data to maximize user satisfaction. Search engines have been creating winners and losers since day 1.
    • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
• einpoklum 5y ago
  > It is not "nefarious" to enlist satisfied users of a product against legislation that could destroy the product. You mean, like Tobacco companies encouraging smokers to complain about anti-cigarette legislation for example?
  • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    If that were the case, yeah, I don't think it would be nefarious. Lying about the unhealthy effects of smoking would be nefarious. But if people willingly decide they want to smoke, why wouldn't they be interested in preventing bans on smoking or whatever. I often wonder about it, as I can't stop eating chocolate. Would I prefer a world in which chocolate doesn't exist (and alcohol, and cigarettes)? I am not sure about that. All those things can be good in moderation (except perhaps tobacco, but I guess if I was a soldier maybe I would take up smoking, too, because why the hell not).
• nathias 5y ago
  > And big corporations are also not automatically bad. Yes, yes they are automatically bad when they make themselves into infrastructure. I can't avoid google, microsoft or amazon even if I go live in a cave.
  • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Of course you can avoid all those businesses. Plenty of people do. It would merely be inconvenient. There are many alternative search engines (granted, a lot of them powered by Bing, but at least you wouldn't submit their data to Microsoft - surely there are also some who have their own search corpus). Instead of Amazon, just use price comparison sites and order from other businesses (you may be surprised to find that Amazon does not always have the best price). Microsoft may be the hardest, but you can demand a Mac or a Linux machine at work and use LibreOffice. They are also not "infrastructure". Their crime apparently is to have created a product that is so convenient to use that everybody wants to use it. I don't think that is a healthy attitude for society.
    • sofixa 5y ago
      As a business, you can't avoid Google, or Facebook. Not having a presence on Google Maps/Google Search thing, or a page on Facebook, is severely limiting your reach
      • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        So what? You are turning things on their head. Google is giving you reach that you wouldn't have had before they existed. They are not taking away reach from you, they are giving you additional reach. You absolutely can get by without Google, you just have to limit your reach.
    • nathias 5y ago
      I work in tech, I can personally not use any of it, but will be forced to use them for doing business. Their crime is breaking anti-trust laws, for which they should have been disbanded a long time ago. I don't find them convenient in any way.
• rchaud 5y ago
  Your comment tells me you have never used Google My Business. I cannot imagine it having even one satisfied user. Google lets anybody "suggest" that your opening and closing hours are different than what you, the owner, have set them as. Enjoy receiving calls from irate customers because Big G decided that 'customer feedback' knows better than you do about when the store is open. Fix it, and Google will put it under 'manual review' so the incorrect hours continue to be shown for 2-3 more days. There are a million other problems with GMB, but this is by far the most glaring.
  • kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    I don't care for Google My Business. If they suck, users will be unlikely to follow their support link, and the article has even less of a case.