8 ms·

Google: The harmful consequences of Congress’s anti-tech bills

67 points by KoftaBob 5y ago

more_corn 5y ago
“The government’s attempts to rein in our harmful monopoly will cause a slight dip in our absurd profits and potentially protect citizens and users from some, but certainly not all, of our abuses”
- mannerheim 5y ago
  Just because the bill is bad for Google doesn't mean users will be protected. I, for one, remain confident in the government's ability to come up with solutions that will leave everybody equally miserable.
emptyparadise 5y ago
At least show us the bill before starting the PR machine.
tombert 5y ago
Sorry, which anti-tech bills are they referring to?
- fendy3002 5y ago
  Afaik the Antitrust law, from the third paragraph. Not American, but why is it suddenly being talked about? Is it being discussed for change right now?
  - MBCook 5y ago
    https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/18/22889903/democrats-targeted-advertising-facebook-google-surveillance https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/18/22889903/democrats-target... Bill was just announced today.
  - tombert 5y ago
    Interesting. I've railed in the past about how much I hate advertising in any form, and the Snowden leaks made me hate the targeted ads even more. I'm somewhat of the opinion of "no one is immune to propaganda", at least not entirely. Ads serve effectively as propaganda for corporations, and sometimes literal propaganda towards politics. If Google cannot make a profit without creating a massive surveillance state, then I don't think they should be in business.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      > If Google cannot make a profit without creating a massive surveillance state, then I don't think they should be in business. And yet many people don't want to pay for YT Premium. YouTube wouldn't exist if targeted ads didn't exist, and I imagine such a predicament isn't what most people envision. (and, if Google can't convert all viewers to paying customers, I don't see why another subscription-only social video platform would work either).
      - frabcus 5y ago
        Early on Google adverts were entirely targeted on search terms and made tons of money. It’s a myth that targeting users is needed - it makes more profit, and creates a moat for the ad market, but that’s all. DuckDuckGo shows this is the case.
        judge2020 5y ago
        Google search ads are still entirely contextual - but YouTube likely doesn't have the same volume of advertisers to match how much niche content is out there.
      - MBCook 5y ago
        The bill as I understand it from reading an article or two still allows targeting based on content. So if you’re watching videos about car maintenance, they can put up ads for Pep Boys. They’re not banned from advertising totally. What they can’t do is put up ads for vacuum cleaners because you were searching for them on another site or emailed somebody about them.
- pronlover723 5y ago
  probably https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29987342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29987342
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lallysingh 5y ago
After their anti-union campaign, is there much remaining reputation behind their voice?
- umeshunni 5y ago
  - Mizza 5y ago
    "I don't anyone with half a brain supports unions in the US." The ironing is delisauce.
  - gremlinsinc 5y ago
    That's correct anyone with half a brain does not support unions. Those who do not support unions are generally uneducated so I guess you could say have 'half a brain'. Anyone with a full brain can see through the corporate propaganda anti-union videos they get lambasted with during on-boarding and see that unions are why workers have any pleasant living conditions at all.
fluidcruft 5y ago
I started reading that and... it really doesn't say anything. Even after introducing "Some specifics:" it's just generic FUD hemming and hawing. Basically it says Google doesn't like some legislation (without getting into any details about why) and I guess we should be concerned because Google says they will have to take their balls home. The big problem here is Google has a long history of handing out balls to the public and taking them away whenever Google got tired of those balls. So what if Google gets rid of Gmail or Maps or Search or whatever. Shouldn't everyone expect Google to get rid of any of their free services at any time anyway? I'm really very curious what exactly this legislation is proposing that makes Google so hysterical? Maybe that they must provide support and appeals processes when their machines grind up users?
- judge2020 5y ago
  For 'hurt small businesses', two links deep is this article[0], and the only accusations it actually makes are: > Like the House’s bill, the Senate’s bill would force companies like Amazon to separate their marketplace from their own retail offerings. This sounds “good” in theory, but the end of hybrid services would inevitably mean the decline of the SMBs who use and succeed on these platforms. and > The Senate’s legislation would also make it impossible for Amazon to offer its Prime free shipping service on millions of products, many of which are from small and medium-sized businesses. Consumers will likely turn to big retailers, none of whom are targeted by the bill and most do not provide the same seamless and robust access to massive consumer markets or promote small businesses nearly as well. Despite these, I can't find the bill text in these articles. (also, I hope the marketplace breakup would also affect walmart.com - they made a 3p seller marketplace that has caused confusion in customers who now think Walmart is selling GPUs at scalper prices[1] when they're actually just taking a % of those scalpers' revenue) 0: https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/26/small-businesses-would-be-collateral-damage-in-the-senates-new-antitrust-bill/ https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/26/small-businesses-would... 1: https://www.walmart.com/ip/MSI-NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-3080-Ti-Graphic-Card-12-GB-GDDR6X/937910242 https://www.walmart.com/ip/MSI-NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-3080-Ti-Gr...
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
> These bills may compel us to share the sensitive data you store with us with unknown companies in ways that could compromise your privacy. Is that really any worse than sharing the sensitive data we store with them with known companies in ways that definitely compromise our privacy though?
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  Google sells advertising. They don't sell your private data to 3rd parties. Same with Facebook. It's not in the interests of these companies to sell their proprietary user targeting data to other companies. They need to keep it closely guarded if they want to retain any edge in the marketplace. Two very different things, but they've been (intentionally) conflated in a lot of the public debates to make it sound more evil.
  - tchalla 5y ago
    And, why does Google and Facebook not sell data? It’s not out some altruistic concern. They want to play kingmaker. Tomorrow, if there’s an option to sell data versus stay in business let’s see what they’d do.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      We're not saying they wouldn't sell data if it meant 10x revenue, but it'd have to be 10x revenue sustained for eternity. As of now, all of that data staying safe in their solos means (A) they don't lose customers who are fine with advertising but not that data going to some DB that anyone could then inspect (since you know some company would buy it then charge others $x thousands of dollars to dig into users' lives), and (B) they're the only ones with that data, and thus their advertising business can use it to possibly show more relevant ads. If the competing ad company can just buy Google's user data, they could sell just as well-targeted ads as Google but undercut them by x% margin, thus always winning the ad space on a website.
  - newfonewhodis 5y ago
    > The idea that Google or Facebook "sell your data" is a myth. Do you have hard evidence for this claim?
cblconfederate 5y ago
> Every day, millions of Americans use online services like Google Search, Maps and Gmail to find new information and get things done. Can we talk about this instead? Whats up with not finding the things i search for. Either the internet has stopped having the useful info i was seeking or google couldn't find it. It would not be a great annoyance if it was easy to switch to bing. Google holds all the entry points to the internet for themselves
- pb7 5y ago
  Switching to Bing is a matter of going to bing.com or changing the default search engine in your browser, literally the easiest thing imaginable.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > literally the easiest thing imaginable. Oh, I can imagine something even easier: getting annoyed at someone using "literally" that way. In fact it's so easy, it happens even if I don't want it to.
- shuntress 5y ago
  Self-hosted text-based pages with no SEO make up a significantly smaller percentage of the web than they used to.
sremani 5y ago
When the legal guy tries to make the case -- it may be the right thing from Companies perspective but to me this a tad bit above PR with linguistic gymnastics of Legal. Not buying it, not going to waste my life reading these vacuous hocus pocus arguments. edit: I want the tech guy or the founder make the case, with basic blocking and tackling tactics and strategy bits. edit2: I read about half the shiz.. it was unbearably vague BS I gave up. Google apologists downvoting can go read that garbage.
Hamuko 5y ago
Who's the intended audience for this? Does blog.google actually have any kind of a measurable reach?
johnklos 5y ago
Ummm... This is Google propaganda, nothing more. There's no actual content that substantiates their claim that Congress will hurt people, or to substantiate their bullshit "anti-tech" title.
mrkramer 5y ago
>Americans might get worse, less relevant, and less helpful versions of products like Google Search and Maps Yea don't do it Google Search is already bad enough.
bryan_w 5y ago
I'm sure I agree with most of this post, but it would really help if they gave an overview of the laws being proposed or at least a link to the drafts
the_doctah 5y ago
We should be focused on anti-censorship laws.
m1117 5y ago
Lol what is it about? So vague.
Animats 5y ago
The ad-supported part of the economy has become far too big. It used to be just a few ad agencies on Madison Avenue in New York and TV stations that were purely ad-supported. Now it's a sizable fraction of the economy. Maybe it's time to stop allowing advertising as a tax-deductible business expense. Encourage companies to focus on doing the thing, instead of hyping the thing.
syshum 5y ago
This is one of those "torn between 2 evils" situations... Google == Evil Government == Evil there needs to be a 3rd option
- csdvrx 5y ago
  > there needs to be a 3rd option Public "cancel" movements == Evil
- gremlinsinc 5y ago
  Create an eco-village (buy land and everyone puts their own tiny houses on it), go mostly off-grid, use alternative search engines, create mutual aid w/ others to provide healthcare costs for the least of the members, and create some recurring streams of income -- glamping maybe? or real estate rent outside the intentional community...expand this to a worker co-op or just something where you have a lot of people who can synergistically combine forces and create mutual aid networks, alternative to current companies that are themselves worker owned and part of the syndicate...etc... So step 1 would be start a co-op or co-living space. Step 2 - join w/ other co-ops/co-living spaces to create a wider network. Step 3 - create powerful income producing shared resources among the groups. Step 4 - ignore the govt cause they now provide less and less benefit and thus have less control on your life.
  - wstrange 5y ago
    Step 5 - the co-op members dont always agree. Create a government council and police to settle disputes.
betwixthewires 5y ago
Even if Google is being genuine with this article, it's still a bad look. They've expended their social capital, they could speak pure truth and nobody would believe them. And not for no reason. People have good reasons to distrust them. But having read the article, it references "these bills" without a single sentence from any of them. I'm supposed to take your word for it that all of "these bills" would harm me? There are absolutely no anti trust approaches that wouldn't be harmful to me? Sounds like a load of scaremongering, a little "hurt national competitiveness and security" language as a thinly veiled message to legislators, and grasping at public perception to protect their asses. If you want to convince anyone, quote the lines in the bills and lay out how they would affect the public. People see through your bullshit and nobody is buying it.
- gremlinsinc 5y ago
  Trust and ethics aside, maybe they should worry less about controlling everything, and more about the actual quality of their products... Currently there's literally no good search engines... I've tried em all, and google's results are just like slightly better but hardly enough to notice, and the only reason I use it is because it sometimes guesses what I want from the omnibar better... if I'm revisiting doc sites, etc...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ksec 5y ago
I dont agree with Google or Apple. But I also dont think regulation or Anti-Tech bill is the answer. But both Google and Apple seems to be blindsided as why the world have turned against them. Not surprised given how they think of themselves as so righteous. Which is also why this piece doesn't actually address any of the underlying issue, and instead writing what is like propaganda. May be Self-reflection really is a rare thing.
- sebow 5y ago
  Here's food for thought: most of the "regulations" in the tech industry have started well past the point of when apple & google, facebook have established themselves as the big monopolistic players. So while Google complains now about regulation, and i'm in the same boat generally speaking: less regulation is net positive in the vast majority of cases, it's kind of hypocritical from them to say it:these corporations have enjoyed 10-15 years or even more of non-regulations towards them.And, without sourcing the following statement because i don't have the information at hand, in most cases Google,Apple & Co. themselves have >lobbied< for legislation, regulations, which raise the bar of entry in the market.Again, no sources to hold my statement, but i would be surprised if anyone is able to dig anything up considering the amount of collusion that kept happening for the last 20 years when talking about billions->now trillion dollar industry.
endisneigh 5y ago
It’s more or less undeniable that if you cracked down on Google, their end users would be negatively affected, yes. The question is whether or not better companies would be born and ultimately provide even greater services to the same set of customers. That - is what is obviously harder to prove. Personally I think the answer is to simply say that after a certain reach per industry a company must provide “access” to platforms or pay a percentage of revenue to nurture the smallest competitors. —- As an aside, I believe the bill in question (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23177323/Banning_Surveillance_Advertising_Act.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23177323/B...) is dumb. Basically it bans ads as a model for monetization. Terrible idea imho.
- frabcus 5y ago
  Not at all - the improved competition would help existing users by encouraging innovation and improving search quality. For example - by offering a way for any provider to embed info boxes and search UIs, all competing with each other. Or by reducing adverts to increase better quality organic results (Google can have much less cash and still run fine). Or by solving all the basic search relevancy flaws discussed on Hacker News in recent weeks.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    The things you’re stating are hardly obvious. In fact everything you’re saying is already true - providers can already compete with Google on search. It’s true that Google can run in less money, but the argument can’t simply be that. Otherwise you’re effectively saying companies cannot make as much money as possible in general, no?
    - frabcus 5y ago
      Yes, harmful behaviours by companies have to be regulated. We don’t let chemical waste get poured into rivers. Likewise, we shouldn’t allow harmful behaviour online. We have to as a society agree what that means, which is what is now finally happening. Ultimately the businesses will still be viable, just different. Most likely more innovative and making better products in more competitive environments.
shadowgovt 5y ago
Wow, is this a bad post. Hand-wavey discussion of "these bills" without even the name of them (let alone a thomas.loc.gov link)... Isn't Google an internet company? What's the call-to-action for the reader... Dial in to their Congressperson and complain about "these bills?"
mandeepj 5y ago
Well, the actual sentiment here at HN about Google is - "HN: The harmful consequences of Google's anti-user approach"
vorpalhex 5y ago
Well I was on the fence but Google has sold me. I'd love to not be forced into their entire ecosystem just by using one of their products. Choices? That would excellent.
puffoflogic 5y ago
This is a mix of surprisingly good arguments and absolute howlers. In my experience, the only way Google search results could be less relevant is if they disregarded the query altogether and invariably dispensed a liquid almost, but not entirely, unlike tea. More outrageously, wet streets apparently cause rain: "sectors where prices have actually been rising and contributing to inflation". You heard it here first folks, from the self-proclaimed most reliable source of information in the universe.
- njstraub608 5y ago
  So true. This line was great, “And when you use Google Search or Google Play, we might have to give equal prominence to a raft of spammy and low-quality services.” I’ve had to help family members put locks on their credit report because of top-ranked, fake websites that offer global entry, DMV license and registration renewals, etc. Digging deeper, you can find troves of consumer complaints about these websites being scammy. If they can’t even prevent spam websites for critical government services from being recommended, I’m not sure how much worse it could get before people start dropping them faster than Ask Jeeves.
thenerdhead 5y ago
Google is also the company that had a motto of "Don't be evil". > However, legislation being debated in the House and Senate could break these and other popular online services, making them less helpful and less secure, and damaging American competitiveness. We’re deeply concerned about these unintended consequences. The point of breaking up these services is so people can actually compete with them? > Antitrust law is about ensuring that companies are competing hard to build their best products for consumers. But the vague and sweeping provisions of these bills would break popular products that help consumers and small businesses, only to benefit a handful of companies who brought their pleas to Washington. Yeah, the benefit would be for the other S&P 500+ companies to even stand a chance. Google holds top market cap for the #5 & #6 spots today. More breaking up tech = more competition in smaller niches to make products that are absolutely amazing and affordable. Not increasing subscription plans when you have a monopoly on the market. The fun is over. Stop trying to play God Google.

67 points by KoftaBob 5y ago

“The government’s attempts to rein in our harmful monopoly will cause a slight dip in our absurd profits and potentially protect citizens and users from some, but certainly not all, of our abuses”

mannerheim 5y ago
Just because the bill is bad for Google doesn't mean users will be protected. I, for one, remain confident in the government's ability to come up with solutions that will leave everybody equally miserable.

emptyparadise 5y ago

At least show us the bill before starting the PR machine.

tombert 5y ago

Sorry, which anti-tech bills are they referring to?

fendy3002 5y ago
Afaik the Antitrust law, from the third paragraph. Not American, but why is it suddenly being talked about? Is it being discussed for change right now?
- MBCook 5y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/18/22889903/democrats-targeted-advertising-facebook-google-surveillance https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/18/22889903/democrats-target... Bill was just announced today.
- tombert 5y ago
  Interesting. I've railed in the past about how much I hate advertising in any form, and the Snowden leaks made me hate the targeted ads even more. I'm somewhat of the opinion of "no one is immune to propaganda", at least not entirely. Ads serve effectively as propaganda for corporations, and sometimes literal propaganda towards politics. If Google cannot make a profit without creating a massive surveillance state, then I don't think they should be in business.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    > If Google cannot make a profit without creating a massive surveillance state, then I don't think they should be in business. And yet many people don't want to pay for YT Premium. YouTube wouldn't exist if targeted ads didn't exist, and I imagine such a predicament isn't what most people envision. (and, if Google can't convert all viewers to paying customers, I don't see why another subscription-only social video platform would work either).
    - frabcus 5y ago
      Early on Google adverts were entirely targeted on search terms and made tons of money. It’s a myth that targeting users is needed - it makes more profit, and creates a moat for the ad market, but that’s all. DuckDuckGo shows this is the case.
      - judge2020 5y ago
        Google search ads are still entirely contextual - but YouTube likely doesn't have the same volume of advertisers to match how much niche content is out there.
    - MBCook 5y ago
      The bill as I understand it from reading an article or two still allows targeting based on content. So if you’re watching videos about car maintenance, they can put up ads for Pep Boys. They’re not banned from advertising totally. What they can’t do is put up ads for vacuum cleaners because you were searching for them on another site or emailed somebody about them.
pronlover723 5y ago
probably https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29987342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29987342

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lallysingh 5y ago

After their anti-union campaign, is there much remaining reputation behind their voice?

umeshunni 5y ago
- Mizza 5y ago
  "I don't anyone with half a brain supports unions in the US." The ironing is delisauce.
- gremlinsinc 5y ago
  That's correct anyone with half a brain does not support unions. Those who do not support unions are generally uneducated so I guess you could say have 'half a brain'. Anyone with a full brain can see through the corporate propaganda anti-union videos they get lambasted with during on-boarding and see that unions are why workers have any pleasant living conditions at all.

fluidcruft 5y ago

I started reading that and... it really doesn't say anything. Even after introducing "Some specifics:" it's just generic FUD hemming and hawing. Basically it says Google doesn't like some legislation (without getting into any details about why) and I guess we should be concerned because Google says they will have to take their balls home. The big problem here is Google has a long history of handing out balls to the public and taking them away whenever Google got tired of those balls. So what if Google gets rid of Gmail or Maps or Search or whatever. Shouldn't everyone expect Google to get rid of any of their free services at any time anyway? I'm really very curious what exactly this legislation is proposing that makes Google so hysterical? Maybe that they must provide support and appeals processes when their machines grind up users?

judge2020 5y ago
For 'hurt small businesses', two links deep is this article[0], and the only accusations it actually makes are: > Like the House’s bill, the Senate’s bill would force companies like Amazon to separate their marketplace from their own retail offerings. This sounds “good” in theory, but the end of hybrid services would inevitably mean the decline of the SMBs who use and succeed on these platforms. and > The Senate’s legislation would also make it impossible for Amazon to offer its Prime free shipping service on millions of products, many of which are from small and medium-sized businesses. Consumers will likely turn to big retailers, none of whom are targeted by the bill and most do not provide the same seamless and robust access to massive consumer markets or promote small businesses nearly as well. Despite these, I can't find the bill text in these articles. (also, I hope the marketplace breakup would also affect walmart.com - they made a 3p seller marketplace that has caused confusion in customers who now think Walmart is selling GPUs at scalper prices[1] when they're actually just taking a % of those scalpers' revenue) 0: https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/26/small-businesses-would-be-collateral-damage-in-the-senates-new-antitrust-bill/ https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/26/small-businesses-would... 1: https://www.walmart.com/ip/MSI-NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-3080-Ti-Graphic-Card-12-GB-GDDR6X/937910242 https://www.walmart.com/ip/MSI-NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-3080-Ti-Gr...
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

> These bills may compel us to share the sensitive data you store with us with unknown companies in ways that could compromise your privacy. Is that really any worse than sharing the sensitive data we store with them with known companies in ways that definitely compromise our privacy though?

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
Google sells advertising. They don't sell your private data to 3rd parties. Same with Facebook. It's not in the interests of these companies to sell their proprietary user targeting data to other companies. They need to keep it closely guarded if they want to retain any edge in the marketplace. Two very different things, but they've been (intentionally) conflated in a lot of the public debates to make it sound more evil.
- tchalla 5y ago
  And, why does Google and Facebook not sell data? It’s not out some altruistic concern. They want to play kingmaker. Tomorrow, if there’s an option to sell data versus stay in business let’s see what they’d do.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    We're not saying they wouldn't sell data if it meant 10x revenue, but it'd have to be 10x revenue sustained for eternity. As of now, all of that data staying safe in their solos means (A) they don't lose customers who are fine with advertising but not that data going to some DB that anyone could then inspect (since you know some company would buy it then charge others $x thousands of dollars to dig into users' lives), and (B) they're the only ones with that data, and thus their advertising business can use it to possibly show more relevant ads. If the competing ad company can just buy Google's user data, they could sell just as well-targeted ads as Google but undercut them by x% margin, thus always winning the ad space on a website.
- newfonewhodis 5y ago
  > The idea that Google or Facebook "sell your data" is a myth. Do you have hard evidence for this claim?

cblconfederate 5y ago

> Every day, millions of Americans use online services like Google Search, Maps and Gmail to find new information and get things done. Can we talk about this instead? Whats up with not finding the things i search for. Either the internet has stopped having the useful info i was seeking or google couldn't find it. It would not be a great annoyance if it was easy to switch to bing. Google holds all the entry points to the internet for themselves

pb7 5y ago
Switching to Bing is a matter of going to bing.com or changing the default search engine in your browser, literally the easiest thing imaginable.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > literally the easiest thing imaginable. Oh, I can imagine something even easier: getting annoyed at someone using "literally" that way. In fact it's so easy, it happens even if I don't want it to.
shuntress 5y ago
Self-hosted text-based pages with no SEO make up a significantly smaller percentage of the web than they used to.

sremani 5y ago

When the legal guy tries to make the case -- it may be the right thing from Companies perspective but to me this a tad bit above PR with linguistic gymnastics of Legal. Not buying it, not going to waste my life reading these vacuous hocus pocus arguments. edit: I want the tech guy or the founder make the case, with basic blocking and tackling tactics and strategy bits. edit2: I read about half the shiz.. it was unbearably vague BS I gave up. Google apologists downvoting can go read that garbage.

Hamuko 5y ago

Who's the intended audience for this? Does blog.google actually have any kind of a measurable reach?

johnklos 5y ago

Ummm... This is Google propaganda, nothing more. There's no actual content that substantiates their claim that Congress will hurt people, or to substantiate their bullshit "anti-tech" title.

mrkramer 5y ago

>Americans might get worse, less relevant, and less helpful versions of products like Google Search and Maps Yea don't do it Google Search is already bad enough.

bryan_w 5y ago

I'm sure I agree with most of this post, but it would really help if they gave an overview of the laws being proposed or at least a link to the drafts

the_doctah 5y ago

We should be focused on anti-censorship laws.

m1117 5y ago

Lol what is it about? So vague.

Animats 5y ago

The ad-supported part of the economy has become far too big. It used to be just a few ad agencies on Madison Avenue in New York and TV stations that were purely ad-supported. Now it's a sizable fraction of the economy. Maybe it's time to stop allowing advertising as a tax-deductible business expense. Encourage companies to focus on doing the thing, instead of hyping the thing.

syshum 5y ago

This is one of those "torn between 2 evils" situations... Google == Evil Government == Evil there needs to be a 3rd option

csdvrx 5y ago
> there needs to be a 3rd option Public "cancel" movements == Evil
gremlinsinc 5y ago
Create an eco-village (buy land and everyone puts their own tiny houses on it), go mostly off-grid, use alternative search engines, create mutual aid w/ others to provide healthcare costs for the least of the members, and create some recurring streams of income -- glamping maybe? or real estate rent outside the intentional community...expand this to a worker co-op or just something where you have a lot of people who can synergistically combine forces and create mutual aid networks, alternative to current companies that are themselves worker owned and part of the syndicate...etc... So step 1 would be start a co-op or co-living space. Step 2 - join w/ other co-ops/co-living spaces to create a wider network. Step 3 - create powerful income producing shared resources among the groups. Step 4 - ignore the govt cause they now provide less and less benefit and thus have less control on your life.
- wstrange 5y ago
  Step 5 - the co-op members dont always agree. Create a government council and police to settle disputes.

betwixthewires 5y ago

Even if Google is being genuine with this article, it's still a bad look. They've expended their social capital, they could speak pure truth and nobody would believe them. And not for no reason. People have good reasons to distrust them. But having read the article, it references "these bills" without a single sentence from any of them. I'm supposed to take your word for it that all of "these bills" would harm me? There are absolutely no anti trust approaches that wouldn't be harmful to me? Sounds like a load of scaremongering, a little "hurt national competitiveness and security" language as a thinly veiled message to legislators, and grasping at public perception to protect their asses. If you want to convince anyone, quote the lines in the bills and lay out how they would affect the public. People see through your bullshit and nobody is buying it.

gremlinsinc 5y ago
Trust and ethics aside, maybe they should worry less about controlling everything, and more about the actual quality of their products... Currently there's literally no good search engines... I've tried em all, and google's results are just like slightly better but hardly enough to notice, and the only reason I use it is because it sometimes guesses what I want from the omnibar better... if I'm revisiting doc sites, etc...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ksec 5y ago

I dont agree with Google or Apple. But I also dont think regulation or Anti-Tech bill is the answer. But both Google and Apple seems to be blindsided as why the world have turned against them. Not surprised given how they think of themselves as so righteous. Which is also why this piece doesn't actually address any of the underlying issue, and instead writing what is like propaganda. May be Self-reflection really is a rare thing.

sebow 5y ago
Here's food for thought: most of the "regulations" in the tech industry have started well past the point of when apple & google, facebook have established themselves as the big monopolistic players. So while Google complains now about regulation, and i'm in the same boat generally speaking: less regulation is net positive in the vast majority of cases, it's kind of hypocritical from them to say it:these corporations have enjoyed 10-15 years or even more of non-regulations towards them.And, without sourcing the following statement because i don't have the information at hand, in most cases Google,Apple & Co. themselves have >lobbied< for legislation, regulations, which raise the bar of entry in the market.Again, no sources to hold my statement, but i would be surprised if anyone is able to dig anything up considering the amount of collusion that kept happening for the last 20 years when talking about billions->now trillion dollar industry.

endisneigh 5y ago

It’s more or less undeniable that if you cracked down on Google, their end users would be negatively affected, yes. The question is whether or not better companies would be born and ultimately provide even greater services to the same set of customers. That - is what is obviously harder to prove. Personally I think the answer is to simply say that after a certain reach per industry a company must provide “access” to platforms or pay a percentage of revenue to nurture the smallest competitors. —- As an aside, I believe the bill in question (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23177323/Banning_Surveillance_Advertising_Act.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23177323/B...) is dumb. Basically it bans ads as a model for monetization. Terrible idea imho.

frabcus 5y ago
Not at all - the improved competition would help existing users by encouraging innovation and improving search quality. For example - by offering a way for any provider to embed info boxes and search UIs, all competing with each other. Or by reducing adverts to increase better quality organic results (Google can have much less cash and still run fine). Or by solving all the basic search relevancy flaws discussed on Hacker News in recent weeks.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  The things you’re stating are hardly obvious. In fact everything you’re saying is already true - providers can already compete with Google on search. It’s true that Google can run in less money, but the argument can’t simply be that. Otherwise you’re effectively saying companies cannot make as much money as possible in general, no?
  - frabcus 5y ago
    Yes, harmful behaviours by companies have to be regulated. We don’t let chemical waste get poured into rivers. Likewise, we shouldn’t allow harmful behaviour online. We have to as a society agree what that means, which is what is now finally happening. Ultimately the businesses will still be viable, just different. Most likely more innovative and making better products in more competitive environments.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Wow, is this a bad post. Hand-wavey discussion of "these bills" without even the name of them (let alone a thomas.loc.gov link)... Isn't Google an internet company? What's the call-to-action for the reader... Dial in to their Congressperson and complain about "these bills?"

mandeepj 5y ago

Well, the actual sentiment here at HN about Google is - "HN: The harmful consequences of Google's anti-user approach"

vorpalhex 5y ago

Well I was on the fence but Google has sold me. I'd love to not be forced into their entire ecosystem just by using one of their products. Choices? That would excellent.

puffoflogic 5y ago

This is a mix of surprisingly good arguments and absolute howlers. In my experience, the only way Google search results could be less relevant is if they disregarded the query altogether and invariably dispensed a liquid almost, but not entirely, unlike tea. More outrageously, wet streets apparently cause rain: "sectors where prices have actually been rising and contributing to inflation". You heard it here first folks, from the self-proclaimed most reliable source of information in the universe.

njstraub608 5y ago
So true. This line was great, “And when you use Google Search or Google Play, we might have to give equal prominence to a raft of spammy and low-quality services.” I’ve had to help family members put locks on their credit report because of top-ranked, fake websites that offer global entry, DMV license and registration renewals, etc. Digging deeper, you can find troves of consumer complaints about these websites being scammy. If they can’t even prevent spam websites for critical government services from being recommended, I’m not sure how much worse it could get before people start dropping them faster than Ask Jeeves.

thenerdhead 5y ago

Google is also the company that had a motto of "Don't be evil". > However, legislation being debated in the House and Senate could break these and other popular online services, making them less helpful and less secure, and damaging American competitiveness. We’re deeply concerned about these unintended consequences. The point of breaking up these services is so people can actually compete with them? > Antitrust law is about ensuring that companies are competing hard to build their best products for consumers. But the vague and sweeping provisions of these bills would break popular products that help consumers and small businesses, only to benefit a handful of companies who brought their pleas to Washington. Yeah, the benefit would be for the other S&P 500+ companies to even stand a chance. Google holds top market cap for the #5 & #6 spots today. More breaking up tech = more competition in smaller niches to make products that are absolutely amazing and affordable. Not increasing subscription plans when you have a monopoly on the market. The fun is over. Stop trying to play God Google.