5 ms·

Google’s Sergey Brin: China, SOPA, Facebook Threaten the ‘Open Web’

44 points by espeed 15y ago

dennisgorelik 15y ago
I think Brin confuses "closed" and "mature". Internet in 2012 is more accessible than in 1998 in spite of all these extra regulations, because there is so much more information available and tools are so much better.
loverobots 15y ago
I personally do not want my FB or any semi-private account indexed by Google and shown with tens of of "Is he a child molester, do a background check" type ads. It sucks for Google but that's life. A lot of FB /Apple data is searchable, by visiting Facebook and Apple. If I want it on the open, I'll post it on a blog
- voidr 15y ago
  You are screwed then, because it's indexable by both Facebook and Microsoft(Bing), they can abuse your data the same way Google or <insert any other company> here. You get zero security, zero privacy compared to posting this on a public blog and Facebook gets monopoly over your data, which can open it up for even more abuses.
  - loverobots 15y ago
    I think you are confusing the issue. I am not posting the Coca Cola recipe on FB expecting it to be private. But it's still a greater degree of privacy than having it indexed and merged with other info Google may have. Think of saying something about your neighbor to another neighbor vs posting it on a newspaper. There's no monopoly since I can delete it and eventually FB will have to delete it too (now they hide it instantly). Not so on Google or when snippets are posted over and over again in blog after blog.
    - voidr 15y ago
      > But it's still a greater degree of privacy than having it indexed and merged with other info Google may have. Sorry but I fail to understand the logic here: If you put something on a blog or whatever, it's indexable by Google and other search engines, if you put it on Facebook, it's indexable by Facebook and it's partners. If you post your data on Facebook it's searchable on Facebook(unless probably if it's marked private, that way it's only used for advertising), so basically if I want to add your data to my results, I just have to search twice, which is inconvenient but I wouldn't call it privacy. Heck I could probably write browser extension in a day that does this automatically. > indexed and merged with other info Google may have Facebook has your personal connections and a subset of your browser history, what can Google add to that to make it even creepier? FYI: Bing incorporates the Facebook data, they have permission from Facebook, which means you have precisely zero extra security on Facebook. But let's talk about security: do you really think your private stuff are really private on Facebook? If you want to control access to stuff, you are better off hosting a blog on a private server on an encrypted drive, that way your private info is really private. > There's no monopoly since I can delete it and eventually FB will have to delete it too (now they hide it instantly). You seem to confuse monopoly with consumer rights or control. If Facebook holds 90% of the social data in the world, it's a monopoly, period. Monopolies are illegal because they have the power to abuse. Also your deleted picture won't be hidden instantly, it will probably linger on a CDN for years to come. :) > Not so on Google or when snippets are posted over and over again in blog after blog. Are you implying that I can't copy paste your facebook post and repost it over and over again?
      - loverobots 15y ago
        So much ink spilled....for nothing. Share with: Just me > Friends > Groups I create > Friends of Friends > Everyone Lots of leeway. I specifically said that nothing I post there is secret, but I'd rather confine whatever I post to the group. The power is not as much in individual posts but on the ability to piece together sites I visits, searches, "friends" I have, what type of emails I get etc etc. When I delete a picture or comment, no doubt it will linger somewhere in backups but unless the FBI is looking for it's unlikely to be shown. You can copy my Facebook post if you see it. Scrappers for example will not and there is no way to link to it since almost all people will not see it. The real enemy of "Open Web" for Google are those Safari users that refuse third party cookies :) http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/17/google-under-fire-for-circumventing-safari-privacy-setting/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/17/google-under-fire-for-circu...
  - taligent 15y ago
    Facebook doesn't provide a way to search for other users based on content on their page and AFAIK neither does Bing. Do you have some evidence for this ?
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  How is that the concern? That's not what Google is wanting or arguing for.
taligent 15y ago
Sergey is nothing more than a hypocrite. Get back to me when Google: 1) Makes its search engine algorithm publicly available. 2) Stops distorting its search results to favor those with Google Plus content. 3) Stops allowing Android apps to be created. 4) Stops releasing proprietary technologies e.g. WebM, WebP. Then you can talk about how Apple and Facebook are bad for the "open" internet.
- robwgibbons 15y ago
  Agreed on your first two. I don't understand either of the second. Native app markets are not necessarily a threat to the open internet... only ones that are locked-down "walled gardens." And WebM and WebP are openly licensed specs.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    Open specs controlled by one company are only kind of open, especially when they can iterate the spec faster than smaller competitors can keep up. Here's a doomsday scenario with WebM. Google 1) updates the spec, 2) releases a new version of Chrome, and 3) transcodes all the videos on Youtube to the new format. The question becomes, can Google accomplish those three things faster than Apple/Microsoft/Mozilla can release updated browsers? The spec is open, even the source is open, so all you have to do is recompile and push an update to all your users whenever Google says so if you don't want them to see the "Your browser is obsolete" warning message.
    - ok_craig 15y ago
      Is this seriously something people think would happen? Wouldn't the internet at large be up in arms at Google for this kind of behavior?
      - tedunangst 15y ago
        Like I said, it's a sort of doomsday scenario. Then again, I've seen comments here on HN calling IE obsolete specifically because it didn't implement some HTML5 subspec that had been updated less than 48 hours before. It's hard to predict what will or will not enrage the internet.
robwgibbons 15y ago
Iroonnyyyyyy
yaix 15y ago
>> “If we could be in some magical jurisdiction that everyone in the world trusted, that would be great,” Take your servers, move to Iceland. Uh, no! They have laws protecting personal data.
ethank 15y ago
To Google: User-agent: * Disallow: / threatens their ability to index and serve ads against the open web, which is really what they mean.
- jlarocco 15y ago
  Not really. robots.txt has always been based on a good faith. All the reputable companies abide by it, but I don't doubt for a second they'd stop reading it if it started affecting their bottom line.
  - ethank 15y ago
    You can also actively reject the GoogleBot
    - jlarocco 15y ago
      True, but GoogleBot's user agent isn't set in stone.
danilocampos 15y ago
Really, Sergey? Isn't Google a little... young to pull the whole "My inability to compete with a competitor makes them a force for evil" card? They must be in worse shape than I'd guessed. Eh, then again, at 14 years old, it's about time for the crustiness to start setting in. I guess it shouldn't come as a shock.
rbarooah 15y ago
If this data is so valuable, and Google makes enormous revenue out of it, why shouldn't they pay for it?

44 points by espeed 15y ago

I think Brin confuses "closed" and "mature". Internet in 2012 is more accessible than in 1998 in spite of all these extra regulations, because there is so much more information available and tools are so much better.

loverobots 15y ago

I personally do not want my FB or any semi-private account indexed by Google and shown with tens of of "Is he a child molester, do a background check" type ads. It sucks for Google but that's life. A lot of FB /Apple data is searchable, by visiting Facebook and Apple. If I want it on the open, I'll post it on a blog

voidr 15y ago
You are screwed then, because it's indexable by both Facebook and Microsoft(Bing), they can abuse your data the same way Google or <insert any other company> here. You get zero security, zero privacy compared to posting this on a public blog and Facebook gets monopoly over your data, which can open it up for even more abuses.
- loverobots 15y ago
  I think you are confusing the issue. I am not posting the Coca Cola recipe on FB expecting it to be private. But it's still a greater degree of privacy than having it indexed and merged with other info Google may have. Think of saying something about your neighbor to another neighbor vs posting it on a newspaper. There's no monopoly since I can delete it and eventually FB will have to delete it too (now they hide it instantly). Not so on Google or when snippets are posted over and over again in blog after blog.
  - voidr 15y ago
    > But it's still a greater degree of privacy than having it indexed and merged with other info Google may have. Sorry but I fail to understand the logic here: If you put something on a blog or whatever, it's indexable by Google and other search engines, if you put it on Facebook, it's indexable by Facebook and it's partners. If you post your data on Facebook it's searchable on Facebook(unless probably if it's marked private, that way it's only used for advertising), so basically if I want to add your data to my results, I just have to search twice, which is inconvenient but I wouldn't call it privacy. Heck I could probably write browser extension in a day that does this automatically. > indexed and merged with other info Google may have Facebook has your personal connections and a subset of your browser history, what can Google add to that to make it even creepier? FYI: Bing incorporates the Facebook data, they have permission from Facebook, which means you have precisely zero extra security on Facebook. But let's talk about security: do you really think your private stuff are really private on Facebook? If you want to control access to stuff, you are better off hosting a blog on a private server on an encrypted drive, that way your private info is really private. > There's no monopoly since I can delete it and eventually FB will have to delete it too (now they hide it instantly). You seem to confuse monopoly with consumer rights or control. If Facebook holds 90% of the social data in the world, it's a monopoly, period. Monopolies are illegal because they have the power to abuse. Also your deleted picture won't be hidden instantly, it will probably linger on a CDN for years to come. :) > Not so on Google or when snippets are posted over and over again in blog after blog. Are you implying that I can't copy paste your facebook post and repost it over and over again?
    - loverobots 15y ago
      So much ink spilled....for nothing. Share with: Just me > Friends > Groups I create > Friends of Friends > Everyone Lots of leeway. I specifically said that nothing I post there is secret, but I'd rather confine whatever I post to the group. The power is not as much in individual posts but on the ability to piece together sites I visits, searches, "friends" I have, what type of emails I get etc etc. When I delete a picture or comment, no doubt it will linger somewhere in backups but unless the FBI is looking for it's unlikely to be shown. You can copy my Facebook post if you see it. Scrappers for example will not and there is no way to link to it since almost all people will not see it. The real enemy of "Open Web" for Google are those Safari users that refuse third party cookies :) http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/17/google-under-fire-for-circumventing-safari-privacy-setting/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/17/google-under-fire-for-circu...
- taligent 15y ago
  Facebook doesn't provide a way to search for other users based on content on their page and AFAIK neither does Bing. Do you have some evidence for this ?
drivebyacct2 15y ago
How is that the concern? That's not what Google is wanting or arguing for.

taligent 15y ago

Sergey is nothing more than a hypocrite. Get back to me when Google: 1) Makes its search engine algorithm publicly available. 2) Stops distorting its search results to favor those with Google Plus content. 3) Stops allowing Android apps to be created. 4) Stops releasing proprietary technologies e.g. WebM, WebP. Then you can talk about how Apple and Facebook are bad for the "open" internet.

robwgibbons 15y ago
Agreed on your first two. I don't understand either of the second. Native app markets are not necessarily a threat to the open internet... only ones that are locked-down "walled gardens." And WebM and WebP are openly licensed specs.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  Open specs controlled by one company are only kind of open, especially when they can iterate the spec faster than smaller competitors can keep up. Here's a doomsday scenario with WebM. Google 1) updates the spec, 2) releases a new version of Chrome, and 3) transcodes all the videos on Youtube to the new format. The question becomes, can Google accomplish those three things faster than Apple/Microsoft/Mozilla can release updated browsers? The spec is open, even the source is open, so all you have to do is recompile and push an update to all your users whenever Google says so if you don't want them to see the "Your browser is obsolete" warning message.
  - ok_craig 15y ago
    Is this seriously something people think would happen? Wouldn't the internet at large be up in arms at Google for this kind of behavior?
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      Like I said, it's a sort of doomsday scenario. Then again, I've seen comments here on HN calling IE obsolete specifically because it didn't implement some HTML5 subspec that had been updated less than 48 hours before. It's hard to predict what will or will not enrage the internet.

robwgibbons 15y ago

Iroonnyyyyyy

yaix 15y ago

>> “If we could be in some magical jurisdiction that everyone in the world trusted, that would be great,” Take your servers, move to Iceland. Uh, no! They have laws protecting personal data.

ethank 15y ago

To Google: User-agent: * Disallow: / threatens their ability to index and serve ads against the open web, which is really what they mean.

jlarocco 15y ago
Not really. robots.txt has always been based on a good faith. All the reputable companies abide by it, but I don't doubt for a second they'd stop reading it if it started affecting their bottom line.
- ethank 15y ago
  You can also actively reject the GoogleBot
  - jlarocco 15y ago
    True, but GoogleBot's user agent isn't set in stone.

danilocampos 15y ago

Really, Sergey? Isn't Google a little... young to pull the whole "My inability to compete with a competitor makes them a force for evil" card? They must be in worse shape than I'd guessed. Eh, then again, at 14 years old, it's about time for the crustiness to start setting in. I guess it shouldn't come as a shock.

rbarooah 15y ago

If this data is so valuable, and Google makes enormous revenue out of it, why shouldn't they pay for it?