3 ms·

I've been seeing this new development being characterized as Google's "evil" moment, but I'm not convinced. I thought it was more evil when they changed account

I've been seeing this new development being characterized as Google's "evil" moment, but I'm not convinced. I thought it was more evil when they changed account creation last week to require both a Gmail and G+ account. That's bad for users. This doesn't seem that way to me.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jnorthrop 15y ago
How can you characterize Google's effort to make their privacy policy and terms of use more simple and clear as "evil?"
- trobertson 15y ago
  I think the "evil moment" is more about the new "Search Plus Your World". Every big social site that doesn't let Google index (and therefore, display) their content has called SPYW "evil", in that it "pollutes" Google Search results with content from Google+, Youtube, and other Google sites, instead of using stuff from Facebook, Twitter, etc. (who, as mentioned above, do not let Google see their content). The whole thing reeks of "You can't see my data, Google, but I DEMAND to be in your search results anyways". The new privacy policy is only incidental, and, as nknight mentions here [1], it is probably motivated by government regulation as much as it is Google's focus on integration. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3507707 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3507707
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    > ... instead of using stuff from Facebook, Twitter, etc. (who, as mentioned above, do not let Google see their content) Oh come on. A quick Google search shows three billion results from Twitter.com, and nearly eight billion from Facebook.com.
    - trobertson 15y ago
      tl;dr: Yes they do, and most of it is worthless. There's data, and there's data. I distinctly remember that Google used to have an "Instant feed" on Google News (I may remember the name wrong), where it showed relevant results from Twitter in real-time. They don't do that anymore, because Twitter no longer allows Google access to the real-time data. Google now has to crawl for it, which takes much longer and completely destroys any semblance of immediacy. They had to take the feature down (or, in any case, I can't find it after about 15 minutes of searching). Facebook has always hid as much data as they could. Searching for "site:facebook.com" in Google does, as you say, return about 7.5 billion results. Glancing through the first few pages, a majority seem to be from various organizations whose profiles are left completely open to the public. I'm not contesting that Google has some data from Twitter and Facebook (though on rereading my post, it does sound like I am saying that). Rather, I am saying that Google no longer has accurate, up-to-date information on a majority of profiles from Twitter and Facebook. If a majority of the data from a site is not complete, then Google has no choice but to penalize those pages in its results, because it has no way of guaranteeing that those results are relevant. It used to be able to do this with Twitter, but one side or the other let that deal fall through (I don't know which side is most responsible, but I heard, from here and other places, that Twitter was the primary culprit). It never had an information sharing deal with Facebook. What Twitter and Facebook are getting pissy about is that Google is refusing to send Twitter and Facebook pages to the top of the results page. They want this done, no questions asked. Google cannot in good conscience do this, because they do not have enough data to make accurate relevancy predictions. Google also cannot use Twitter and Facebook data in the Search Plus Your World results, because they have absolutely no access to Twitter and Facebook's social graphs. So, yes. Google has incomplete and outdated data from several billion pages from each site. It does not have enough data to guarantee relevancy, and so chooses to penalize those pages it does have, thus making Twitter and Facebook upset.
    - saalweachter 15y ago
      How many days worth of tweets do you think 3 billion is? Answer: about a fortnight's worth. http://www.quora.com/Twitter-1/How-many-tweets-per-day-are-there-on-Twitter http://www.quora.com/Twitter-1/How-many-tweets-per-day-are-t...
- nl 15y ago
  That's what a Gizmodo writer called it: http://gizmodo.com/5878987/its-official-google-is-evil-now http://gizmodo.com/5878987/its-official-google-is-evil-now I suspect that is what the OP was referring to.
- Steko 15y ago
  Because they have also amplified their tracking of users and many people deplore being tracked by corporations.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    My reading of the privacy policy is that Google isn't asking for any new rights here, they're just being explicit about what they plan to do with data they collect from you. For some people, the explicit enumeration will make them say, "whoa, time to get out of here!" And that's what Google wants; they don't want to surprise their users with features that may make users feel unsafe online. (Remember, Google tries to keep customers by providing great products, not by locking them in. If you want to stop using Google Reader, or whatever, you can export your data to a usually-standard file format, and join a competing service instead. That's pretty awesome, considering they make no money when you stop using their service.] You can chalk this up as "evil", but it's just the opposite. Google makes search results better when they can track you, so they want you to know that you're being tracked and how to opt out. Yes, tracking is scary and the ideal situation would be not tracking anyone ever. But that's how pre-Google search engines worked and those search engines barely worked at all. So I don't see how Google can provide a search engine without keeping some of your data around. They know this and want you to know, too. What you should be afraid of are the companies that try to disguise what they do with your data. Someone is selling my name and address to companies trying to sell me credit cards and aluminium siding. I doubt it's Google.
- lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  As a general rule, you should ignore all editorializing in press releases that spin something as a benefit, especially where your rights or data are involved. If they are trying to screw you, they are going to be spinning it. I am not saying they are or are not doing this in this case (though I am very concerned), but the goal is never to "make things more simple." Google did not sit around and pay a group of people to simplify their policies. In fact, it's insulting to users' intelligence that they state this as the primary motivator. This change is to enable something much bigger. Just like when facebook makes "sharing more simple".

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jnorthrop 15y ago

How can you characterize Google's effort to make their privacy policy and terms of use more simple and clear as "evil?"

trobertson 15y ago
I think the "evil moment" is more about the new "Search Plus Your World". Every big social site that doesn't let Google index (and therefore, display) their content has called SPYW "evil", in that it "pollutes" Google Search results with content from Google+, Youtube, and other Google sites, instead of using stuff from Facebook, Twitter, etc. (who, as mentioned above, do not let Google see their content). The whole thing reeks of "You can't see my data, Google, but I DEMAND to be in your search results anyways". The new privacy policy is only incidental, and, as nknight mentions here [1], it is probably motivated by government regulation as much as it is Google's focus on integration. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3507707 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3507707
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  > ... instead of using stuff from Facebook, Twitter, etc. (who, as mentioned above, do not let Google see their content) Oh come on. A quick Google search shows three billion results from Twitter.com, and nearly eight billion from Facebook.com.
  - trobertson 15y ago
    tl;dr: Yes they do, and most of it is worthless. There's data, and there's data. I distinctly remember that Google used to have an "Instant feed" on Google News (I may remember the name wrong), where it showed relevant results from Twitter in real-time. They don't do that anymore, because Twitter no longer allows Google access to the real-time data. Google now has to crawl for it, which takes much longer and completely destroys any semblance of immediacy. They had to take the feature down (or, in any case, I can't find it after about 15 minutes of searching). Facebook has always hid as much data as they could. Searching for "site:facebook.com" in Google does, as you say, return about 7.5 billion results. Glancing through the first few pages, a majority seem to be from various organizations whose profiles are left completely open to the public. I'm not contesting that Google has some data from Twitter and Facebook (though on rereading my post, it does sound like I am saying that). Rather, I am saying that Google no longer has accurate, up-to-date information on a majority of profiles from Twitter and Facebook. If a majority of the data from a site is not complete, then Google has no choice but to penalize those pages in its results, because it has no way of guaranteeing that those results are relevant. It used to be able to do this with Twitter, but one side or the other let that deal fall through (I don't know which side is most responsible, but I heard, from here and other places, that Twitter was the primary culprit). It never had an information sharing deal with Facebook. What Twitter and Facebook are getting pissy about is that Google is refusing to send Twitter and Facebook pages to the top of the results page. They want this done, no questions asked. Google cannot in good conscience do this, because they do not have enough data to make accurate relevancy predictions. Google also cannot use Twitter and Facebook data in the Search Plus Your World results, because they have absolutely no access to Twitter and Facebook's social graphs. So, yes. Google has incomplete and outdated data from several billion pages from each site. It does not have enough data to guarantee relevancy, and so chooses to penalize those pages it does have, thus making Twitter and Facebook upset.
  - saalweachter 15y ago
    How many days worth of tweets do you think 3 billion is? Answer: about a fortnight's worth. http://www.quora.com/Twitter-1/How-many-tweets-per-day-are-there-on-Twitter http://www.quora.com/Twitter-1/How-many-tweets-per-day-are-t...
nl 15y ago
That's what a Gizmodo writer called it: http://gizmodo.com/5878987/its-official-google-is-evil-now http://gizmodo.com/5878987/its-official-google-is-evil-now I suspect that is what the OP was referring to.
Steko 15y ago
Because they have also amplified their tracking of users and many people deplore being tracked by corporations.
- jrockway 15y ago
  My reading of the privacy policy is that Google isn't asking for any new rights here, they're just being explicit about what they plan to do with data they collect from you. For some people, the explicit enumeration will make them say, "whoa, time to get out of here!" And that's what Google wants; they don't want to surprise their users with features that may make users feel unsafe online. (Remember, Google tries to keep customers by providing great products, not by locking them in. If you want to stop using Google Reader, or whatever, you can export your data to a usually-standard file format, and join a competing service instead. That's pretty awesome, considering they make no money when you stop using their service.] You can chalk this up as "evil", but it's just the opposite. Google makes search results better when they can track you, so they want you to know that you're being tracked and how to opt out. Yes, tracking is scary and the ideal situation would be not tracking anyone ever. But that's how pre-Google search engines worked and those search engines barely worked at all. So I don't see how Google can provide a search engine without keeping some of your data around. They know this and want you to know, too. What you should be afraid of are the companies that try to disguise what they do with your data. Someone is selling my name and address to companies trying to sell me credit cards and aluminium siding. I doubt it's Google.
lawnchair_larry 15y ago
As a general rule, you should ignore all editorializing in press releases that spin something as a benefit, especially where your rights or data are involved. If they are trying to screw you, they are going to be spinning it. I am not saying they are or are not doing this in this case (though I am very concerned), but the goal is never to "make things more simple." Google did not sit around and pay a group of people to simplify their policies. In fact, it's insulting to users' intelligence that they state this as the primary motivator. This change is to enable something much bigger. Just like when facebook makes "sharing more simple".