4 ms·

They've poisoned the internet with their monopoly on advertising, the air pollution of the online world, which is an transgression that far outweighs any good t

They've poisoned the internet with their monopoly on advertising, the air pollution of the online world, which is an transgression that far outweighs any good they might have done. Much of the negative social effects of being online come from the need to drive more screen time, more engagement, more clicks, and more ad impressions firehosed into the faces of users for sweet, sweet, advertiser money. When Google finally defeats ad-blocking, yt-dlp, etc., remember this.

visarga 11mo ago
Yes, this is correct, and it happens everywhere. App Store, Play Store, YouTube, Meta, X, Amazon and even Uber - they all play in two-sided markets exploiting both its users and providers at the same time.
notepad0x90 11mo ago
They're not a moral entity. corporations aren't people. I think a lot of the harms you mentioned are real, but they're a natural consequence of capitalistic profit chasing. Governments are supposed to regulate monopolies and anti-consumer behavior like that. Instead of regulating surveillance capitalism, governments are using it to bypass laws restricting their power. If I were a google investor, I would absolutely want them to defeat ad-blocking, ban yt-dlp, dominate the ad-market and all the rest of what you said. In capitalism, everyone looks out for their own interests, and governments ensure the public isn't harmed in the process. But any time a government tries to regulate things, the same crowd that decries this oppose government overreach. Voters are people and they are moral entities, direct any moral outrage at us.
- layer8 11mo ago
  Why should the collective of voters be any more of a moral entity than the collective of people who make up a corporation (which you may include its shareholders in if you want)? It’s perfectly valid to criticize corporations for their actions, regardless of the regulatory environment.
  - svnt 11mo ago
    Because of the inherent capitalism structure that leads to the inevitable: the tragedy of the commons.
  - notepad0x90 11mo ago
    > Why should the collective of voters.. They're accountable as individuals not as a collective. And it so happens, they are responsible for their government in a democracy but corporations aren't responsible for running countries. > It’s perfectly valid to criticize corporations for their actions, regardless of the regulatory environment. In the free speech sense, sure. But your criticism isn't founded on solid ground. You should expect corporations to do whatever they have to do within the bounds of the law to turn a profit. Their responsibility is to their investors and employees, they have no responsibility to the general public beyond that which is laid out in the law. The increasing demand in corporations being part of the public/social moral consciousness is causing them to manipulate politics more and more, eroding what little voice the individuals have. You're trying to live in a feudal society when you treat corporations like this. If you're unhappy with the quality of Google's services, don't do business with them. If they broke the law, they should pay for it. But expecting them to be a beacon of morality is accepting that they have a role in society and government beyond mere revenue generating machines. And if you expect them to have that role, then you're also giving them the right to enforce that expectation as a matter of corporate policy instead of law. Corporate policies then become as powerful as law, and corporations have to interfere with matters of government policy on the basis of morality instead of business, so you now have an organization with lots of money and resources competing with individual voters. And then people have the nerve to complain about PACs, money in politics, billionaire's influencing the government, bribery,etc.. you can't have it both ways. Either we have a country run partly by corporations, and a society driven and controlled by them, or we don't.
    - layer8 11mo ago
      When we criticize corporations, we really are criticizing the people who make the decisions in the corporations. I don’t see why we shouldn’t apply exactly the same moral standards to people’s decision in the context of a corporation as we do to people’s decisions made in any other context. You talk about lawfulness, but we wouldn’t talk about morals if we meant lawfulness. It’s also lawful to vote for the hyper-capitalist party, so by the same token moral outrage shouldn’t be directed towards the voters.
- ThrowawayR2 11mo ago
  Why are you directing the statement that "[Corporations are] not a moral entity" at me instead of the parent poster claiming that "[Google has] been the great balancing force (often for good) in the industry."? Saying that Google is a force "for good" is a claim by them that corporations can be moral entities; I agree with you that they aren't.
  - notepad0x90 11mo ago
    I could have just the same I suppose, but their comment was about google being a balancing force in terms of competition and monopoly. it wasn't a praise of their moral character. They did what was best for their business and that turns out to be good for reducing monopolies. If it turned out to be monopolistic, I would be wondering what congress and the DOJ are doing about it, instead of criticizing Google for trying to turn a profit.
bitpush 11mo ago
This is an understandable, but simplistic way of looking at the world. Are you also gonna blame Apple for mining for rare earths, because they made a successful product that requires exotic materials which needs to be mined from earth? How about hundreds of thousands of factory workers that are being subjected to inhumane conditions to assemble iPhones each year? For every "OMG, internet is filled with ads", people are conveniently forgetting the real-world impact of ALL COMPANIES (and not just Apple) btw. Either you should be upset with the system, and not selectively at Google.
- fractalf 11mo ago
  I dont think your comment justifies calling out any form of simplistic view. It doesnt make sense. All the big players are bad. They"re companies, their one and only purpose is to make money and they will do whatever it takes to do it. Most of which does not serve human kind.
  - jimbokun 11mo ago
    Compared to what?
- observationist 11mo ago
  Yes, we're absolutely holding Apple accountable for outsourcing jobs, degrading the US markets, using slave and child labor, laundering cobalt from illegal "artisanal" mines in the DRC, and whitewashing what they do by using corporate layering and shady deals to put themselves at sufficient degrees of separation from problematic labor and sources to do good PR, but not actually decoupling at all. I also hold Americans and western consumers are responsible for simply allowing that to happen. As long as the human rights abuses and corruption are 3 or 4 degrees of separation from the retailer, people seem to be perfectly OK with chattel slavery and child labor and indentured servitude and all the human suffering that sits at the base of all our wonderful technology and cheap consumer goods. If we want to have things like minimum wage and workers rights and environmental protections, then we should mandate adherence to those standards globally. If you want to sell products in the US, the entire supply chain has to conform to US labor and manufacturing and environmental standards. If those standards aren't practical, then they should be tossed out - the US shouldn't be doing performative virtue signalling as law, incentivizing companies to outsource and engage in race to the bottom exploitation of labor and resources in other countries. We should also have tariffs and import/export taxes that allow competitive free trade. It's insane that it's cheaper to ship raw materials for a car to a country in southeast asia, have it refined and manufactured into a car, and then shipped back into the US, than to simply have it mined, refined, and manufactured locally. The ethics and economics of America are fucking dumb, but it's the mega-corps, donor class, and uniparty establishment politicians that keep it that way. Apple and Google are inhuman, autonomous entities that have effectively escaped the control and direction of any given human decision tree. Any CEO or person in power that tried to significantly reform the ethics or economics internally would be ousted and memory-holed faster than you can light a cigar with a hundred dollar bill. We need term limits, no more corporation people, money out of politics, and an overhaul, or we're going to be doing the same old kabuki show right up until the collapse or AI takeover. And yeah, you can single out Google for their misdeeds. They, in particular, are responsible for the adtech surveillance ecosystem and lack of any viable alternatives by way of their constant campaign of enshittification of everything, quashing competition, and giving NGOs, intelligence agencies, and government departments access to the controls of censorship and suppression of political opposition. I haven't and won't use Google AI for anything, ever, because of any of the big labs, they are most likely and best positioned to engage in the worst and most damaging abuse possible, be it manipulation, invasion of privacy, or casual violation of civil rights at the behest of bureaucratic tyrants. If it's not illegal, they'll do it. If it's illegal, they'll only do it if it doesn't cost more than they can profit. If they profit, even after getting caught and fined and taking a PR hit, they'll do it, because "number go up" is the only meaningful metric. The only way out is principled regulation, a digital bill of rights, and campaign finance reform. There's probably no way out.
nwienert 11mo ago
Suppressed wages to colluding with Apple to not poach.
kryogen1c 11mo ago
> They've poisoned the internet And what of the people that ravenously support ads and ad-supported content, instead of paying? What of the consumptive public? Are they not responsible for their choices? I do not consume algorithmic content, I do not have any social media (unless you count HN for either). You can't have it both ways. Lead by example, stop using the poison and find friends that aren't addicted. Build an offline community.
- xordon 11mo ago
  I don't understand your logic, it seems like victim blaming. Using the internet and pointing out that targeted advertising has a negative effect on society is not "having it both ways". Also, HN is by definition algorithmic content and social media, in your mind what do you think it is?
  - carlosjobim 11mo ago
    You are not a "victim" for using or purchasing something which is completely unnecessary. Or if that's the case, then you have no agency and have to be medicinally declared unfit to govern yourself and be appointed a legal guardian to control your affairs.
ApolloFortyNine 11mo ago
People love getting their content for free and that's what Google does. Even 25 years ago people wouldn't even believe Youtube exists. Anyone can upload whatever they want, however often they want, Youtube will be responsible for promoting it, they'll provide to however many billions users want to view it, and they'll pay you 55% of the revenue it makes?
- amelius 11mo ago
  > People love getting their content for free and that's what Google does. They are forcing a payment method on us. It's basically like they have their hand in our pockets.
- brabel 11mo ago
  Yep, it's hard to believe it exists for free and with not a lot of ads when you have a good ad blocker... though the content creator's ads are inescapable, which I think is ok since they're making a little money in exchange for what, your little inconvenience for 1 minute or so - if you're not skipping the ad, which you aren't, right??) - after which you can watch some really good content. The history channels on YT are amazing, maybe world changing - they get people to learn history and actually enjoy it. Same with some match channels like 3brown1blue which are just outstanding, and many more.
starchild3001 11mo ago
What kind of world do you live in? Actually Google ads tend to be some of the highest ROI for the advertiser and most likely to be beneficial for the user. Vs the pure junk ads that aren't personalized, and just banner ads that have zero relationship to me. Google Ads is the enabler of free internet. I for one am thankful to them. Else you end up paying for NYT, Washinton Post, Information etc -- virtually for any high quality web site (including Search).
- shakna 11mo ago
  Ads. Beneficial to the user. Most of the time, you need to pick one. Modern advertising is not based on finding the item with the most utility for the user - which means they are aimed at manipulating the user's behaviour in one way or another.

visarga 11mo ago

Yes, this is correct, and it happens everywhere. App Store, Play Store, YouTube, Meta, X, Amazon and even Uber - they all play in two-sided markets exploiting both its users and providers at the same time.

notepad0x90 11mo ago

They're not a moral entity. corporations aren't people. I think a lot of the harms you mentioned are real, but they're a natural consequence of capitalistic profit chasing. Governments are supposed to regulate monopolies and anti-consumer behavior like that. Instead of regulating surveillance capitalism, governments are using it to bypass laws restricting their power. If I were a google investor, I would absolutely want them to defeat ad-blocking, ban yt-dlp, dominate the ad-market and all the rest of what you said. In capitalism, everyone looks out for their own interests, and governments ensure the public isn't harmed in the process. But any time a government tries to regulate things, the same crowd that decries this oppose government overreach. Voters are people and they are moral entities, direct any moral outrage at us.

layer8 11mo ago
Why should the collective of voters be any more of a moral entity than the collective of people who make up a corporation (which you may include its shareholders in if you want)? It’s perfectly valid to criticize corporations for their actions, regardless of the regulatory environment.
- svnt 11mo ago
  Because of the inherent capitalism structure that leads to the inevitable: the tragedy of the commons.
- notepad0x90 11mo ago
  > Why should the collective of voters.. They're accountable as individuals not as a collective. And it so happens, they are responsible for their government in a democracy but corporations aren't responsible for running countries. > It’s perfectly valid to criticize corporations for their actions, regardless of the regulatory environment. In the free speech sense, sure. But your criticism isn't founded on solid ground. You should expect corporations to do whatever they have to do within the bounds of the law to turn a profit. Their responsibility is to their investors and employees, they have no responsibility to the general public beyond that which is laid out in the law. The increasing demand in corporations being part of the public/social moral consciousness is causing them to manipulate politics more and more, eroding what little voice the individuals have. You're trying to live in a feudal society when you treat corporations like this. If you're unhappy with the quality of Google's services, don't do business with them. If they broke the law, they should pay for it. But expecting them to be a beacon of morality is accepting that they have a role in society and government beyond mere revenue generating machines. And if you expect them to have that role, then you're also giving them the right to enforce that expectation as a matter of corporate policy instead of law. Corporate policies then become as powerful as law, and corporations have to interfere with matters of government policy on the basis of morality instead of business, so you now have an organization with lots of money and resources competing with individual voters. And then people have the nerve to complain about PACs, money in politics, billionaire's influencing the government, bribery,etc.. you can't have it both ways. Either we have a country run partly by corporations, and a society driven and controlled by them, or we don't.
  - layer8 11mo ago
    When we criticize corporations, we really are criticizing the people who make the decisions in the corporations. I don’t see why we shouldn’t apply exactly the same moral standards to people’s decision in the context of a corporation as we do to people’s decisions made in any other context. You talk about lawfulness, but we wouldn’t talk about morals if we meant lawfulness. It’s also lawful to vote for the hyper-capitalist party, so by the same token moral outrage shouldn’t be directed towards the voters.
ThrowawayR2 11mo ago
Why are you directing the statement that "[Corporations are] not a moral entity" at me instead of the parent poster claiming that "[Google has] been the great balancing force (often for good) in the industry."? Saying that Google is a force "for good" is a claim by them that corporations can be moral entities; I agree with you that they aren't.
- notepad0x90 11mo ago
  I could have just the same I suppose, but their comment was about google being a balancing force in terms of competition and monopoly. it wasn't a praise of their moral character. They did what was best for their business and that turns out to be good for reducing monopolies. If it turned out to be monopolistic, I would be wondering what congress and the DOJ are doing about it, instead of criticizing Google for trying to turn a profit.

bitpush 11mo ago

This is an understandable, but simplistic way of looking at the world. Are you also gonna blame Apple for mining for rare earths, because they made a successful product that requires exotic materials which needs to be mined from earth? How about hundreds of thousands of factory workers that are being subjected to inhumane conditions to assemble iPhones each year? For every "OMG, internet is filled with ads", people are conveniently forgetting the real-world impact of ALL COMPANIES (and not just Apple) btw. Either you should be upset with the system, and not selectively at Google.

fractalf 11mo ago
I dont think your comment justifies calling out any form of simplistic view. It doesnt make sense. All the big players are bad. They"re companies, their one and only purpose is to make money and they will do whatever it takes to do it. Most of which does not serve human kind.
- jimbokun 11mo ago
  Compared to what?
observationist 11mo ago
Yes, we're absolutely holding Apple accountable for outsourcing jobs, degrading the US markets, using slave and child labor, laundering cobalt from illegal "artisanal" mines in the DRC, and whitewashing what they do by using corporate layering and shady deals to put themselves at sufficient degrees of separation from problematic labor and sources to do good PR, but not actually decoupling at all. I also hold Americans and western consumers are responsible for simply allowing that to happen. As long as the human rights abuses and corruption are 3 or 4 degrees of separation from the retailer, people seem to be perfectly OK with chattel slavery and child labor and indentured servitude and all the human suffering that sits at the base of all our wonderful technology and cheap consumer goods. If we want to have things like minimum wage and workers rights and environmental protections, then we should mandate adherence to those standards globally. If you want to sell products in the US, the entire supply chain has to conform to US labor and manufacturing and environmental standards. If those standards aren't practical, then they should be tossed out - the US shouldn't be doing performative virtue signalling as law, incentivizing companies to outsource and engage in race to the bottom exploitation of labor and resources in other countries. We should also have tariffs and import/export taxes that allow competitive free trade. It's insane that it's cheaper to ship raw materials for a car to a country in southeast asia, have it refined and manufactured into a car, and then shipped back into the US, than to simply have it mined, refined, and manufactured locally. The ethics and economics of America are fucking dumb, but it's the mega-corps, donor class, and uniparty establishment politicians that keep it that way. Apple and Google are inhuman, autonomous entities that have effectively escaped the control and direction of any given human decision tree. Any CEO or person in power that tried to significantly reform the ethics or economics internally would be ousted and memory-holed faster than you can light a cigar with a hundred dollar bill. We need term limits, no more corporation people, money out of politics, and an overhaul, or we're going to be doing the same old kabuki show right up until the collapse or AI takeover. And yeah, you can single out Google for their misdeeds. They, in particular, are responsible for the adtech surveillance ecosystem and lack of any viable alternatives by way of their constant campaign of enshittification of everything, quashing competition, and giving NGOs, intelligence agencies, and government departments access to the controls of censorship and suppression of political opposition. I haven't and won't use Google AI for anything, ever, because of any of the big labs, they are most likely and best positioned to engage in the worst and most damaging abuse possible, be it manipulation, invasion of privacy, or casual violation of civil rights at the behest of bureaucratic tyrants. If it's not illegal, they'll do it. If it's illegal, they'll only do it if it doesn't cost more than they can profit. If they profit, even after getting caught and fined and taking a PR hit, they'll do it, because "number go up" is the only meaningful metric. The only way out is principled regulation, a digital bill of rights, and campaign finance reform. There's probably no way out.

nwienert 11mo ago

Suppressed wages to colluding with Apple to not poach.

kryogen1c 11mo ago

> They've poisoned the internet And what of the people that ravenously support ads and ad-supported content, instead of paying? What of the consumptive public? Are they not responsible for their choices? I do not consume algorithmic content, I do not have any social media (unless you count HN for either). You can't have it both ways. Lead by example, stop using the poison and find friends that aren't addicted. Build an offline community.

xordon 11mo ago
I don't understand your logic, it seems like victim blaming. Using the internet and pointing out that targeted advertising has a negative effect on society is not "having it both ways". Also, HN is by definition algorithmic content and social media, in your mind what do you think it is?
- carlosjobim 11mo ago
  You are not a "victim" for using or purchasing something which is completely unnecessary. Or if that's the case, then you have no agency and have to be medicinally declared unfit to govern yourself and be appointed a legal guardian to control your affairs.

ApolloFortyNine 11mo ago

People love getting their content for free and that's what Google does. Even 25 years ago people wouldn't even believe Youtube exists. Anyone can upload whatever they want, however often they want, Youtube will be responsible for promoting it, they'll provide to however many billions users want to view it, and they'll pay you 55% of the revenue it makes?

amelius 11mo ago
> People love getting their content for free and that's what Google does. They are forcing a payment method on us. It's basically like they have their hand in our pockets.
brabel 11mo ago
Yep, it's hard to believe it exists for free and with not a lot of ads when you have a good ad blocker... though the content creator's ads are inescapable, which I think is ok since they're making a little money in exchange for what, your little inconvenience for 1 minute or so - if you're not skipping the ad, which you aren't, right??) - after which you can watch some really good content. The history channels on YT are amazing, maybe world changing - they get people to learn history and actually enjoy it. Same with some match channels like 3brown1blue which are just outstanding, and many more.

starchild3001 11mo ago

What kind of world do you live in? Actually Google ads tend to be some of the highest ROI for the advertiser and most likely to be beneficial for the user. Vs the pure junk ads that aren't personalized, and just banner ads that have zero relationship to me. Google Ads is the enabler of free internet. I for one am thankful to them. Else you end up paying for NYT, Washinton Post, Information etc -- virtually for any high quality web site (including Search).

shakna 11mo ago
Ads. Beneficial to the user. Most of the time, you need to pick one. Modern advertising is not based on finding the item with the most utility for the user - which means they are aimed at manipulating the user's behaviour in one way or another.