5 ms·

I feel like this is one of the things that Gergely has sensationalized recently to drive attention. This started with a bunch of tweets which amounted to "why

I feel like this is one of the things that Gergely has sensationalized recently to drive attention. This started with a bunch of tweets which amounted to "why wasn't I told about this immediately". I suspect that this decision was made at exec levels with the lower levels asked to work out the details which obviously resulted in a delay. As a Google Domains customer, this wasn't particularly problematic. It's just a big company getting its ducks in a row which takes time. It's self-evident that acquisitions can happen and that data will be transferred as a result. Most most attention is typically on other aspects of how Google handles data and this seems like an attempt to latch onto that. I personally feel better about basic data security and processing under Google than I would under a company like Squarespace. I know Google have faced nation state attackers so they've got some security chops. I feel that they'll enforce reasonable contractual requirements on the purchaser, but those won't override Google being a safer bet with the basics.

aaomidi 3y ago
> It's self-evident that acquisitions can happen and that data will be transferred as a result. Most most attention is typically on other aspects of how Google handles data and this seems like an attempt to latch onto that. I mean it's not that surprising though? The better option would've been to allow the user to opt out of transfer to squarespace and move their domain to somewhere else in the meantime?
- justrealist 3y ago
  > allow the user to opt out of transfer to squarespace and move their domain to somewhere else in the meantime I don't mean to downplay the overall idiotic nature of this sale, but you've always been free to transfer your domains out of Google Domains at any time (or any other registrar for that matter).
  - remram 3y ago
    The fact that Google Domains has still not sent any email to customers kind of goes against this. You can easily transfer out if you happened to hear about the sale early enough on social media.
- abraham 3y ago
  > move their domain to somewhere else in the meantime? Everyone can already do this.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    I'm not saying its possible, I'm saying the communications should send reminders to people to decide what they want to do.
    - paxys 3y ago
      The actual acquisition is many months (possibly even a year+) away. The initial announcement they made was a legal requirement because they are both public companies. There's no reason to believe that there won't be more customer facing ones in the upcoming weeks.
      - aaomidi 3y ago
        Even though I work here, the lack of communications isn’t the fault of the customers that are hearing about this. It’s not like Google didn’t know filing these notices were gonna go unnoticed.
JohnFen 3y ago
> It's self-evident that acquisitions can happen and that data will be transferred as a result. Correct, which is one of the big reasons why I do my best to avoid all data collection I can, even if I fundamentally trust the company doing the collecting.
- aeternum 3y ago
  Sure they happen, but this should trigger class action lawsuits. "We don't sell your data" is a plainly worded claim, and is blatantly false if/when a company is sold. Companies should be required to say "We don't sell your data unless acquired" or "We don't sell your data now but might in the future". Allowing consumers to make an informed choice is critical for properly functioning free markets, let's enforce this.
  - rpbiwer2 3y ago
    Agreed, "we will not sell your data" is a straight up lie if you eventually end up selling the data.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Sure, I agree. But in the meantime, it's on us to protect ourselves as best we can.
    - noizejoy 3y ago
      Isn’t this one of those moral hazards? i.e. Encouraging everyone to protect themselves inadvertently slows down the fixing of the root problem?
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        I don't see how the two things are remotely mutually exclusive. I think to tell people they should remain at risk while a larger solution is developed sounds extremely unwise and a bit unfair.
PragmaticPulp 3y ago
> I feel like this is one of the things that Gergely has sensationalized recently to drive attention. It's important to remember that Gergely is in the business of clicks and views. While I've enjoyed some of his reporting, it's very clear that he's optimizing his reporting based on what gets engagement. On places like Twitter, sensationalizing topics and riding waves of outrage is a cheap way to drive engagement. This material plays well to certain subsets of Twitter, HN, Reddit, and other social media sites where people thrive on sensationalism and outrage. His previous thread about leaving Google Cloud because it might be abandoned at any minute (lol) was sensationalist enough that even the usual outlets were starting to call him out on it, but I'm afraid the engagement may have only incentivized returning to the well for another dip into the "Google Bad" outrage pool. This isn't the only Substack author I've followed who veered into audience capture like this. There's something about the ultra-tight feedback loop where authors/influencers can see the real-time engagement with their topics and continue pressing whatever button drives the most engagement.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > This isn't the only Substack author I've followed who veered into audience capture like this It was an entirely predictable outcome of Medium-/Substack-/Patreon-based journalism. People were complaining about mainstream media reporting being biased, and cheering on democratization of journalism; but Substack more directly ties specific stories to financial rewards foe the authoe. Pandering to your audiences biases will make you more money, so why would you ever report on anything outside of their bubble (or contradicts their worldview) when that hits your pockets?
- gregdoesit 3y ago
  Author here. I noticed this tweet made it to Hacker News. (I didn’t even notice that another one did yesterday as well) I don’t care about the views or clicks or “engagement” or “driving attention” or similar. I understand talk is cheap so I have asked dang to blacklist all tweets from my Twitter account (this URL) going forward on HN, which should significantly reduce such views and clicks. The tweets are not editable, and I often type them out as I go. I shared this, for example, after talking with a current Googler who was very, very frustrated exactly because of this. I thought it’s an interesting angle, especially as I’m also a Domains customer. “Sensationalist” is something I would definitely like to avoid. I used to “break” layoff news at tech companies the fall of 2022 (before or as they happened) which had very high “engagement” but sat increasingly poorly with me - and it did feel sensationalist - so I stopped doing all of this, regardless of anything I learn ahead of some other outlet sharing it. I’m happier for it. I do have my own opinions and experiences with Google as a customer, going back all the way to the massive GAE price increases in 2011 when I was an early customer, and of course this contributes to my - necessarily biased - outlook. There is also truth to Twitter takes often feeling sensationalist - brewity doesn’t help with nuance - and I don’t want to get more views/clicks/ “engagement” on any of these or contribute to “outrage.” (By the way, thank you for an earlier criticism that I took to heart.)
chaxor 3y ago
I don't understand the reasoning that some company has better security than another. It's honestly trivial to set up good security. The main problem is incentive to go against/ break that security, which will likely grow with company size, or other factors. So it seems completely unreasonable to trust certain companies over others. Perhaps trusting governments, since they have less silly financial reasons to break security is reasonable.
cowsandmilk 3y ago
> It's just a big company getting its ducks in a row which takes time. It is most common for both sides of a transaction to announce simultaneously. This was a bit weird in that SquareSpace made an announcement and there was nothing from the Google side. If Google was still preparing their communications, the norm would be SquareSpace waiting for Google to be ready.

aaomidi 3y ago

> It's self-evident that acquisitions can happen and that data will be transferred as a result. Most most attention is typically on other aspects of how Google handles data and this seems like an attempt to latch onto that. I mean it's not that surprising though? The better option would've been to allow the user to opt out of transfer to squarespace and move their domain to somewhere else in the meantime?

justrealist 3y ago
> allow the user to opt out of transfer to squarespace and move their domain to somewhere else in the meantime I don't mean to downplay the overall idiotic nature of this sale, but you've always been free to transfer your domains out of Google Domains at any time (or any other registrar for that matter).
- remram 3y ago
  The fact that Google Domains has still not sent any email to customers kind of goes against this. You can easily transfer out if you happened to hear about the sale early enough on social media.
abraham 3y ago
> move their domain to somewhere else in the meantime? Everyone can already do this.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  I'm not saying its possible, I'm saying the communications should send reminders to people to decide what they want to do.
  - paxys 3y ago
    The actual acquisition is many months (possibly even a year+) away. The initial announcement they made was a legal requirement because they are both public companies. There's no reason to believe that there won't be more customer facing ones in the upcoming weeks.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      Even though I work here, the lack of communications isn’t the fault of the customers that are hearing about this. It’s not like Google didn’t know filing these notices were gonna go unnoticed.

JohnFen 3y ago

> It's self-evident that acquisitions can happen and that data will be transferred as a result. Correct, which is one of the big reasons why I do my best to avoid all data collection I can, even if I fundamentally trust the company doing the collecting.

aeternum 3y ago
Sure they happen, but this should trigger class action lawsuits. "We don't sell your data" is a plainly worded claim, and is blatantly false if/when a company is sold. Companies should be required to say "We don't sell your data unless acquired" or "We don't sell your data now but might in the future". Allowing consumers to make an informed choice is critical for properly functioning free markets, let's enforce this.
- rpbiwer2 3y ago
  Agreed, "we will not sell your data" is a straight up lie if you eventually end up selling the data.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Sure, I agree. But in the meantime, it's on us to protect ourselves as best we can.
  - noizejoy 3y ago
    Isn’t this one of those moral hazards? i.e. Encouraging everyone to protect themselves inadvertently slows down the fixing of the root problem?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      I don't see how the two things are remotely mutually exclusive. I think to tell people they should remain at risk while a larger solution is developed sounds extremely unwise and a bit unfair.

PragmaticPulp 3y ago

> I feel like this is one of the things that Gergely has sensationalized recently to drive attention. It's important to remember that Gergely is in the business of clicks and views. While I've enjoyed some of his reporting, it's very clear that he's optimizing his reporting based on what gets engagement. On places like Twitter, sensationalizing topics and riding waves of outrage is a cheap way to drive engagement. This material plays well to certain subsets of Twitter, HN, Reddit, and other social media sites where people thrive on sensationalism and outrage. His previous thread about leaving Google Cloud because it might be abandoned at any minute (lol) was sensationalist enough that even the usual outlets were starting to call him out on it, but I'm afraid the engagement may have only incentivized returning to the well for another dip into the "Google Bad" outrage pool. This isn't the only Substack author I've followed who veered into audience capture like this. There's something about the ultra-tight feedback loop where authors/influencers can see the real-time engagement with their topics and continue pressing whatever button drives the most engagement.

sangnoir 3y ago
> This isn't the only Substack author I've followed who veered into audience capture like this It was an entirely predictable outcome of Medium-/Substack-/Patreon-based journalism. People were complaining about mainstream media reporting being biased, and cheering on democratization of journalism; but Substack more directly ties specific stories to financial rewards foe the authoe. Pandering to your audiences biases will make you more money, so why would you ever report on anything outside of their bubble (or contradicts their worldview) when that hits your pockets?
gregdoesit 3y ago
Author here. I noticed this tweet made it to Hacker News. (I didn’t even notice that another one did yesterday as well) I don’t care about the views or clicks or “engagement” or “driving attention” or similar. I understand talk is cheap so I have asked dang to blacklist all tweets from my Twitter account (this URL) going forward on HN, which should significantly reduce such views and clicks. The tweets are not editable, and I often type them out as I go. I shared this, for example, after talking with a current Googler who was very, very frustrated exactly because of this. I thought it’s an interesting angle, especially as I’m also a Domains customer. “Sensationalist” is something I would definitely like to avoid. I used to “break” layoff news at tech companies the fall of 2022 (before or as they happened) which had very high “engagement” but sat increasingly poorly with me - and it did feel sensationalist - so I stopped doing all of this, regardless of anything I learn ahead of some other outlet sharing it. I’m happier for it. I do have my own opinions and experiences with Google as a customer, going back all the way to the massive GAE price increases in 2011 when I was an early customer, and of course this contributes to my - necessarily biased - outlook. There is also truth to Twitter takes often feeling sensationalist - brewity doesn’t help with nuance - and I don’t want to get more views/clicks/ “engagement” on any of these or contribute to “outrage.” (By the way, thank you for an earlier criticism that I took to heart.)

chaxor 3y ago

I don't understand the reasoning that some company has better security than another. It's honestly trivial to set up good security. The main problem is incentive to go against/ break that security, which will likely grow with company size, or other factors. So it seems completely unreasonable to trust certain companies over others. Perhaps trusting governments, since they have less silly financial reasons to break security is reasonable.

cowsandmilk 3y ago

> It's just a big company getting its ducks in a row which takes time. It is most common for both sides of a transaction to announce simultaneously. This was a bit weird in that SquareSpace made an announcement and there was nothing from the Google side. If Google was still preparing their communications, the norm would be SquareSpace waiting for Google to be ready.