5 ms·

Please bear in mind that Google was perfectly aware how much negative feedback they will receive from developers and they are completely and fully prepared for

Please bear in mind that Google was perfectly aware how much negative feedback they will receive from developers and they are completely and fully prepared for it. In other words, this decision was made with full awareness that developers and "screeching voices of minority" won't like it.

SiempreViernes 1y ago
Do you have evidence that they have accurate estimates of the potential for backlash? It is not that uncommon that people in power take decisions without thinking them though properly
- egorfine 1y ago
  I've got no evidence that they have an estimation of the volume or scale of the feedback. But I reckon we can all make an educated guess that they did anticipate negative feedback.
j4hdufd8 1y ago
[dead]
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > delegitimize developer criticism before addressing its substance. This attacks the critics rather than engaging with their actual concerns It’s a petition, not a debate. Who is speaking is absolutely relevant. Tens of thousands of tiny developers with a few million collective users aren’t relevant to Google. > Appeal to Corporate Omniscience This is not a logical fallacy. You may be thinking of appeal to improper authority. But in that case the criticism is that we don’t know Google anticipated this. Not what you wrote, which is technically ad hominem, since you conclude adversely based on Google being a corporation. > ignores the possibility that feedback could be legitimate even if anticipated No, it does not. It says such a petition brings no new information to the decision makers at Google. If Google (note: this is OP’s hypothesis, not a fact) anticipated small developers complaining. Small developers are complaining. That doesn’t make the complaints wrong. But it would make them practically irrelevant.
  - j4hdufd8 1y ago
    I did not mention the petition. I am merely offering feedback on the grandparent's argument about Google's policy (which itself also does not mention the petition). It is absolutely a debate. Why are you here if not to debate?
- egorfine 1y ago
  > The phrase "screeching voices of minority" is a https://www.howtogeek.com/746588/apple-discusses-screeching-voices-of-the-minority-in-internal-memos/ https://www.howtogeek.com/746588/apple-discusses-screeching-...
- egorfine 1y ago
  > Appeal to Corporate Omniscience - The argument assumes that because Google anticipated negative feedback, this somehow validates their decision or renders criticism invalid. A company expecting pushback doesn't automatically make their decision correct. This argument is not present nor implied in my comment. > Circular Reasoning - The logic is essentially: "Google knew people would complain, therefore the complaints don't matter because Google expected them." This doesn't address whether the complaints have merit. My text did not comment or expressed any opinion whether the complaints have merit. > False Dichotomy - It implies that developer feedback is either completely valid (and Google should have changed course) or completely invalid (because Google was "prepared" for it). This ignores the possibility that feedback could be legitimate even if anticipated. My comment does not present this dichotomy as described by you.
  - j4hdufd8 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - kotaKat 1y ago
    The easy thing to do is ignore an AI slop comment like that, because someone apparently couldn’t think for themselves and had to shove it into an arrogant little machine to come up with a response.
    - j4hdufd8 1y ago
      Whether or not the arguments are AI generated is itself a logical fallacy. Insinuating I cannot think is also a logical fallacy. Man you guys are really bad at this.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - 1y ago
- OgsyedIE 1y ago
  The above post listing fallacies is entirely AI-generated and is likely a sleeper agent account that has been woken up from a pattern of posting non-content to disguise inactivity to start astroturfing for Google. The cost/benefit of doing such on Hn is high.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > likely a sleeper agent account that has been woken up from a pattern of posting non-content to disguise inactivity to start astroturfing for Google “Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
kotaKat 1y ago
Yep. In the announcement, they already got full green light approval from various governments basically saying this was a great idea and the clear path ahead. > …with Indonesia’s Ministry of Communications and Digital Affairs praising it for providing a “balanced approach” that protects users while keeping Android open. > …Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society sees it as a “positive and proactive measure” that aligns with their national digital safety policies. > In Brazil, the Brazilian Federation of Banks (FEBRABAN) sees it as a “significant advancement in protecting users and encouraging accountability.”
- nashashmi 1y ago
  Did the US government not give endorsement?
  - weirdpickles 1y ago
    The "feature" isn't being rolled out to the US yet, so it doesn't appear that any official statement has been made one way or the other by the US government. Google is orchestrating buy-in with world governments. They've already signaled that this is happening everywhere, no matter what, and its just a paced rollout unfortunately.
  - deltaburnt 1y ago
    The restrictions are initially limited to those countries.
- username332211 1y ago
  The fact that they haven't cited any endorsement from a first-world organization or government is interesting. I'd be curious to know, if it was because they never asked for one or because they never got one?
- danillonunes 1y ago
  FEBRABAN is an association that represents the banks at the federal level, but it's not a government entity.
tliltocatl 1y ago
You might be right, but didn't same thing applied to Web Environment Integrity stuff, that they ended up stepping back on (for how short of a time stretch is another story)?
- egorfine 1y ago
  First, web environment integrity was about the web as a whole, not about something that is completely owned and under their control. Second, they will not stop trying. It was not their first approach and it won't be the last. So, I believe that if they decided this is the path they want to take - they will find one way or another. It's not that resistance is futile (it's not!) but I believe that petitions are not a good tool for the case.
AnonymousPlanet 1y ago
The nerds are the ones who pave the way for technology, enabling people around them to adapt more easily to it. They find new paths into the undiscovered land that then get either shut down or commercially exploited. Companies like Google have piggybacked on this volunteer work. I have the feeling that these companies don't need nerds anymore. Who needs pioneers if everything is paved and regulated?
- weirdpickles 1y ago
  [dead]
jerf 1y ago
They can still miscalculate the intensity of the backlash or the willingness of people to do something about it. Many such stories. "The enemy has a plan so let's do nothing" is a great way to get consistently rolled in the world. As the saying goes, everyone has a plan until they are punched in the face; dishing out the occasional (and in this case fully metaphorical) punch in the face is not a hopeless endeavor. (I agree with some other threads that merely signing a random petition is not a punch to the face. That's just whining. Systematic and organized, perhaps, but just whining.)
pbhjpbhj 1y ago
I mean, who is going to stop them, USA doesn't have a functioning government any more -- for large corporations just pay Trump a bribe (eg a "settlement" for a court case; or a very expensive meal ticket) and do what you like. Google pay fealty to Trump, who is going in to bat for consumers over this when they won't even protect the constitution or rule of law?
creatonez 1y ago
What an excellent reason to not mobilize on this issue... ...No. Giving them the loud protest they deserve is the bare minimum
- egorfine 1y ago
  Well... initially I would like to agree with you. When company does a dumb thing they may find out that users are not happy with the choice and then retract. But in this particular case, they knew exactly and in advance that developers won't like the change, hence why I believe that in this particular case whining won't dent a thing.

SiempreViernes 1y ago

Do you have evidence that they have accurate estimates of the potential for backlash? It is not that uncommon that people in power take decisions without thinking them though properly

egorfine 1y ago
I've got no evidence that they have an estimation of the volume or scale of the feedback. But I reckon we can all make an educated guess that they did anticipate negative feedback.

j4hdufd8 1y ago

[dead]

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> delegitimize developer criticism before addressing its substance. This attacks the critics rather than engaging with their actual concerns It’s a petition, not a debate. Who is speaking is absolutely relevant. Tens of thousands of tiny developers with a few million collective users aren’t relevant to Google. > Appeal to Corporate Omniscience This is not a logical fallacy. You may be thinking of appeal to improper authority. But in that case the criticism is that we don’t know Google anticipated this. Not what you wrote, which is technically ad hominem, since you conclude adversely based on Google being a corporation. > ignores the possibility that feedback could be legitimate even if anticipated No, it does not. It says such a petition brings no new information to the decision makers at Google. If Google (note: this is OP’s hypothesis, not a fact) anticipated small developers complaining. Small developers are complaining. That doesn’t make the complaints wrong. But it would make them practically irrelevant.
- j4hdufd8 1y ago
  I did not mention the petition. I am merely offering feedback on the grandparent's argument about Google's policy (which itself also does not mention the petition). It is absolutely a debate. Why are you here if not to debate?
egorfine 1y ago
> The phrase "screeching voices of minority" is a https://www.howtogeek.com/746588/apple-discusses-screeching-voices-of-the-minority-in-internal-memos/ https://www.howtogeek.com/746588/apple-discusses-screeching-...
egorfine 1y ago
> Appeal to Corporate Omniscience - The argument assumes that because Google anticipated negative feedback, this somehow validates their decision or renders criticism invalid. A company expecting pushback doesn't automatically make their decision correct. This argument is not present nor implied in my comment. > Circular Reasoning - The logic is essentially: "Google knew people would complain, therefore the complaints don't matter because Google expected them." This doesn't address whether the complaints have merit. My text did not comment or expressed any opinion whether the complaints have merit. > False Dichotomy - It implies that developer feedback is either completely valid (and Google should have changed course) or completely invalid (because Google was "prepared" for it). This ignores the possibility that feedback could be legitimate even if anticipated. My comment does not present this dichotomy as described by you.
- j4hdufd8 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- kotaKat 1y ago
  The easy thing to do is ignore an AI slop comment like that, because someone apparently couldn’t think for themselves and had to shove it into an arrogant little machine to come up with a response.
  - j4hdufd8 1y ago
    Whether or not the arguments are AI generated is itself a logical fallacy. Insinuating I cannot think is also a logical fallacy. Man you guys are really bad at this.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - 1y ago
OgsyedIE 1y ago
The above post listing fallacies is entirely AI-generated and is likely a sleeper agent account that has been woken up from a pattern of posting non-content to disguise inactivity to start astroturfing for Google. The cost/benefit of doing such on Hn is high.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > likely a sleeper agent account that has been woken up from a pattern of posting non-content to disguise inactivity to start astroturfing for Google “Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

kotaKat 1y ago

Yep. In the announcement, they already got full green light approval from various governments basically saying this was a great idea and the clear path ahead. > …with Indonesia’s Ministry of Communications and Digital Affairs praising it for providing a “balanced approach” that protects users while keeping Android open. > …Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society sees it as a “positive and proactive measure” that aligns with their national digital safety policies. > In Brazil, the Brazilian Federation of Banks (FEBRABAN) sees it as a “significant advancement in protecting users and encouraging accountability.”

nashashmi 1y ago
Did the US government not give endorsement?
- weirdpickles 1y ago
  The "feature" isn't being rolled out to the US yet, so it doesn't appear that any official statement has been made one way or the other by the US government. Google is orchestrating buy-in with world governments. They've already signaled that this is happening everywhere, no matter what, and its just a paced rollout unfortunately.
- deltaburnt 1y ago
  The restrictions are initially limited to those countries.
username332211 1y ago
The fact that they haven't cited any endorsement from a first-world organization or government is interesting. I'd be curious to know, if it was because they never asked for one or because they never got one?
danillonunes 1y ago
FEBRABAN is an association that represents the banks at the federal level, but it's not a government entity.

tliltocatl 1y ago

You might be right, but didn't same thing applied to Web Environment Integrity stuff, that they ended up stepping back on (for how short of a time stretch is another story)?

egorfine 1y ago
First, web environment integrity was about the web as a whole, not about something that is completely owned and under their control. Second, they will not stop trying. It was not their first approach and it won't be the last. So, I believe that if they decided this is the path they want to take - they will find one way or another. It's not that resistance is futile (it's not!) but I believe that petitions are not a good tool for the case.

AnonymousPlanet 1y ago

The nerds are the ones who pave the way for technology, enabling people around them to adapt more easily to it. They find new paths into the undiscovered land that then get either shut down or commercially exploited. Companies like Google have piggybacked on this volunteer work. I have the feeling that these companies don't need nerds anymore. Who needs pioneers if everything is paved and regulated?

weirdpickles 1y ago
[dead]

jerf 1y ago

They can still miscalculate the intensity of the backlash or the willingness of people to do something about it. Many such stories. "The enemy has a plan so let's do nothing" is a great way to get consistently rolled in the world. As the saying goes, everyone has a plan until they are punched in the face; dishing out the occasional (and in this case fully metaphorical) punch in the face is not a hopeless endeavor. (I agree with some other threads that merely signing a random petition is not a punch to the face. That's just whining. Systematic and organized, perhaps, but just whining.)

pbhjpbhj 1y ago

I mean, who is going to stop them, USA doesn't have a functioning government any more -- for large corporations just pay Trump a bribe (eg a "settlement" for a court case; or a very expensive meal ticket) and do what you like. Google pay fealty to Trump, who is going in to bat for consumers over this when they won't even protect the constitution or rule of law?

creatonez 1y ago

What an excellent reason to not mobilize on this issue... ...No. Giving them the loud protest they deserve is the bare minimum

egorfine 1y ago
Well... initially I would like to agree with you. When company does a dumb thing they may find out that users are not happy with the choice and then retract. But in this particular case, they knew exactly and in advance that developers won't like the change, hence why I believe that in this particular case whining won't dent a thing.