4 ms·

I’m sure you are an honest person working in good faith. But we saw very similar behavior from Google around AMP. They had a very narrow reasonable sounding ex

I’m sure you are an honest person working in good faith. But we saw very similar behavior from Google around AMP. They had a very narrow reasonable sounding explanation, and just ignored all criticism and requests from both users and publishers that didn’t fit their narrative. This went on for years. Today we know AMP was also a anticompetitive plot to kill off header bidding. Why should we to believe a word of what Google says about Manifest v3?

jefftk 5y ago
> Today we know AMP was also a anticompetitive plot to kill off header bidding. I completely disagree, and I think this will become clear as information continues to come out.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  It's been years since AMP went live. Disagreeing while pointing to information that's been withheld for years and does not (to my knowledge) have a timeline for release... that does not make a very compelling argument. It amounts to "trust us". But we don't-- that's kind of the point.
  - jefftk 5y ago
    I interpreted coffeefirst as referring to the current antitrust action against Google, and saying that I expect more information will come out as it progresses.
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
      There will never be a smoking gun because the people cooking up these dark pattern schemes are generally smart enough to not document them. The problem they want solved gets broken up into pieces that are given credible cover stories and then when it is all integrated together the intended outcome happens without it ever being explicitly written down in an incriminating email.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        Yes-- while never on a criminal level, I have seen it happen in places where I have worked before.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Good point, that may be what they meant. Although I would not count on all of those details coming out: for years Google has been warning employees against using certain types of language that could in someway look bad from an antitrust/anticompetitive point of view. So I would expect that a lot of documentation, emails, etc will look anodine on the surface through self-censorship. I don't expect anything that comes right out and says something like "we must implement AMP to as a strategy to remove competition from header bidding". Instead it will mostly be just the standard talking points about user experience and load times. I could be wrong though: plenty of things have been revealed in things like text messages where people don't think of them as being part of an official record.
- LamaOfRuin 5y ago
  Is it in dispute that google added an intentional delay? If it's not, then it doesn't really matter what else comes out.
  - jefftk 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25449748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25449748
- gerdesj 5y ago
  Recently a large software company managed to avoid looking into a bug report for several days about an inability to dial 911 on an Android handset until enough social media indignation was generated (1). However, the org in question ignored it until enough outrage on Reddit was generated and it was eventually noticed. Not one alarm bell seems to have gone off despite all those clever people and funky machines and the much vaunted AI/ML and stuff. That's a bug that might engender criminal liability in some jurisdictions. In this case, it appears that multiple large orgs are involved: G and M. One provides the environment and the other appears to have dropped their drawers and crapped in it but in the end a telephone should always be able to make emergency calls regardless of what is installed or configured on it. In the end this sort of thing might look like lack of responsibility due to arrogance due to lack of competition. I'm sure other interpretations are available. Normally the above should be considered an example of whataboutery but I think your response deserves little else. If you have something to contribute then please do but not that sort of thing. (1) https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/09/android_911_teams/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/09/android_911_teams/ [Edit: weird formatting snag, content unchanged]
- Lamad123 5y ago
  Stop astroturfing.. Your company is a scummy monster!!
  - jefftk 5y ago
    Google has not asked me to comment here, now or previously. When I see incorrect claims about something I have background on I point it out.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      But it was your incorrect claim that was trivially disproved. So if you weren't asked to, you're just astroturfing voluntarily. That's not better, it's worse: If one gives up one's integrity, one should at least get paid for it. Otherwise, one isn't acting just scummily, but scummily and stupidly.
      - jefftk 5y ago
        What claim have I made that is incorrect?
        CRConrad 5y ago
        This claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505292 Debunked in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505552 (as was the attempted defense a year ago that you linked to in response).
        jefftk 5y ago
        Your linked claim is that "AMP was also a anticompetitive plot to kill off header bidding". Your linked "debunking" is about AMP pages delaying loading for non-AMP ads, which is completely unrelated to header bidding.
        5y ago

jefftk 5y ago

> Today we know AMP was also a anticompetitive plot to kill off header bidding. I completely disagree, and I think this will become clear as information continues to come out.

ineedasername 5y ago
It's been years since AMP went live. Disagreeing while pointing to information that's been withheld for years and does not (to my knowledge) have a timeline for release... that does not make a very compelling argument. It amounts to "trust us". But we don't-- that's kind of the point.
- jefftk 5y ago
  I interpreted coffeefirst as referring to the current antitrust action against Google, and saying that I expect more information will come out as it progresses.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    There will never be a smoking gun because the people cooking up these dark pattern schemes are generally smart enough to not document them. The problem they want solved gets broken up into pieces that are given credible cover stories and then when it is all integrated together the intended outcome happens without it ever being explicitly written down in an incriminating email.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Yes-- while never on a criminal level, I have seen it happen in places where I have worked before.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Good point, that may be what they meant. Although I would not count on all of those details coming out: for years Google has been warning employees against using certain types of language that could in someway look bad from an antitrust/anticompetitive point of view. So I would expect that a lot of documentation, emails, etc will look anodine on the surface through self-censorship. I don't expect anything that comes right out and says something like "we must implement AMP to as a strategy to remove competition from header bidding". Instead it will mostly be just the standard talking points about user experience and load times. I could be wrong though: plenty of things have been revealed in things like text messages where people don't think of them as being part of an official record.
LamaOfRuin 5y ago
Is it in dispute that google added an intentional delay? If it's not, then it doesn't really matter what else comes out.
- jefftk 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25449748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25449748
gerdesj 5y ago
Recently a large software company managed to avoid looking into a bug report for several days about an inability to dial 911 on an Android handset until enough social media indignation was generated (1). However, the org in question ignored it until enough outrage on Reddit was generated and it was eventually noticed. Not one alarm bell seems to have gone off despite all those clever people and funky machines and the much vaunted AI/ML and stuff. That's a bug that might engender criminal liability in some jurisdictions. In this case, it appears that multiple large orgs are involved: G and M. One provides the environment and the other appears to have dropped their drawers and crapped in it but in the end a telephone should always be able to make emergency calls regardless of what is installed or configured on it. In the end this sort of thing might look like lack of responsibility due to arrogance due to lack of competition. I'm sure other interpretations are available. Normally the above should be considered an example of whataboutery but I think your response deserves little else. If you have something to contribute then please do but not that sort of thing. (1) https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/09/android_911_teams/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/09/android_911_teams/ [Edit: weird formatting snag, content unchanged]
Lamad123 5y ago
Stop astroturfing.. Your company is a scummy monster!!
- jefftk 5y ago
  Google has not asked me to comment here, now or previously. When I see incorrect claims about something I have background on I point it out.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    But it was your incorrect claim that was trivially disproved. So if you weren't asked to, you're just astroturfing voluntarily. That's not better, it's worse: If one gives up one's integrity, one should at least get paid for it. Otherwise, one isn't acting just scummily, but scummily and stupidly.
    - jefftk 5y ago
      What claim have I made that is incorrect?
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        This claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505292 Debunked in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29505552 (as was the attempted defense a year ago that you linked to in response).
        jefftk 5y ago
        Your linked claim is that "AMP was also a anticompetitive plot to kill off header bidding". Your linked "debunking" is about AMP pages delaying loading for non-AMP ads, which is completely unrelated to header bidding.
        5y ago