30 ms·

Don't blame them if it's legal. Let the politicians close the loopholes. But it's amazing how many dark clouds are gathering around Google in the Larry Page er

Don't blame them if it's legal. Let the politicians close the loopholes. But it's amazing how many dark clouds are gathering around Google in the Larry Page era. One day it may start to rain or pour. Even TechCrunch bashed them over all deceptive ads search results http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/07/verbase/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/07/verbase/

devx 13y ago
Apple and Microsoft do the same. Apple got a bit of flack over it, too. Microsoft not much so far.
- sigzero 13y ago
  Apples situation is entirely different.
  - samspenc 13y ago
    Do you mind clarifying your statement? How is Apple different?
deelowe 13y ago
Just read that article. Does techcrunch have short term memory loss? Google had this for a while in their engine, but removed it because it didn't work well. For reference, there were up and down arrows next to the results(believe they were arrows), which allowed results to be ranked higher on an individual basis. This trained the algorithm to be custom tailored for the use and probably was also fed into the overall ranking. They removed it, because it didn't prove to be valuable when compared to other metrics. Odd TC didn't include this information when writing this piece. Seems fairly relevant.
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  This trained the algorithm to be custom tailored for the use and probably was also fed into the overall ranking. They removed it, because it didn't prove to be valuable when compared to other metrics. Odd TC didn't include this information when writing this piece. Seems fairly relevant. EVERYTHING above fold was ads, not sure what you're talking about. Ads and probably most people didn't realize that they were ads. Google, no doubt A/B tested the text and colors to fool the users.
  - deelowe 13y ago
    I'm talking about the article the OP posted: http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/07/verbase/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/07/verbase/ The whole "crowdsourced" ranking system was tried by Google. Odd that they left it out of the article.
wallawe 13y ago
Closing the loopholes (aka raising taxes) would only drive business out of America. Google provides thousands of jobs to Americans, and raising taxes on them and other big companies will drive more work out of the US.
- lubos 13y ago
  non-sense, I'm honestly surprised to see this argument on HN. the value USA provides to high-tech companies is concentration of talent and expertise you won't find anywhere else in the world.
  - wallawe 13y ago
    I think you are speaking of the US in it's current state, where the loopholes and lower taxes exist. My point is that businesses are encouraged by financial incentives. If you raise taxes you are incentivizing the company to move jobs elsewhere. Have we not seen this play out with the high cost of labor in manufacturing settings? The same will apply if you tax these companies at exorbitant rates. Long term, you will damage the US jobs market.
    - phaemon 13y ago
      >My point, and you can take a basic econ class to learn such info Oh well, if you learned it in school then it must be true!
      - talmand 13y ago
        Forget school, I just read it on the Internet. So it is true.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - lubos 13y ago
      Yes, businesses are encouraged by financial incentives and that's why Apple, Google, Facebook and countless of other IT giants and startups are based in Silicon Valley - the most expensive place to hire employees. Meanwhile corporate taxes and personal income taxes are at record low and it still didn't stop all manufacturing jobs to be outsourced to China. See your logical fallacy? Sometime "basic econ class" will teach you... well... just the basics.
fear91 13y ago
This is wrong thinking. Those loopholes are there because Google pays(lobbies) for them to be there. As far as I know, they've paid more in lobbying last year than Microsoft, Apple and Facebook combined. Those loopholes will never be closed, Google and the like will make sure of that.
- goostavos 13y ago
  I still see the root problem being the government. Kill the ability for corporations to spend millions of dollars buying votes and the incentive for keeping the loop holes open would surely close. I don't think it is "wrong thinking" on the parent comment's part not to blame the corporation for doing what it can to profit. Hell, if I could find a legal tax loophole I certainly would take it, too.
  - yapcguy 13y ago
    Loopholes might exist, but it doesn't mean you have to use them. Larry Page and Sergey Brin wanted Google to be different, but all they've done is create yet another giant corporation. On many matters Larry Page and Sergey Brin have had opportunity to take the moral high ground, but they have failed.
    - tomarr 13y ago
      I don't agree, because when you start dealing with regulations you see that 'loophole' as a term is often bandied around for minor things. Some may even be the intention of the regulation.
    - theorique 13y ago
      Loopholes might exist, but it doesn't mean you have to use them. Why would I want you as a CEO of a company I invest in if you're not doing everything legal to raise my stock price / return money to me as dividends?
      - varelse 13y ago
jmillikin 13y ago
That article claims that Google regularly returns result pages full of ads, and shows a screenshot of a search for [what is bitcoin] as evidence: http://i.imgur.com/eBtzYic.png http://i.imgur.com/eBtzYic.png Obviously a non-commercial query like this should return few (if any) ads, so I tried to reproduce the author's results. Here is a screenshot taken of searching for [what is bitcoin] in a fresh Incognito window: http://i.imgur.com/KfY3gvs.png http://i.imgur.com/KfY3gvs.png . There are no ads, and the search results a reasonable. I thought the vastly different result could maybe be a result of searching on google.com vs google.co.uk, but changing the domain did not generate any ads either: http://i.imgur.com/5gcOvtJ.png http://i.imgur.com/5gcOvtJ.png Does anyone on HN see a page full of ads when they search for [what is bitcoin]?
- phaemon 13y ago
  Yes, I got the plus500 ad on that search.
- ctz 13y ago
  > Does anyone on HN see ads when they search for [what is bitcoin]? Yes: http://i.imgur.com/2iFv7Yf.png http://i.imgur.com/2iFv7Yf.png
  - giarc 13y ago
    When is this from? I thought the black bar was all but gone.
- johnx123-up 13y ago
  FWIW, for getting ads, your location and TLD matters. Perhaps, you can check Adwords ad check tool--available when you place ad for any keywords.
- xSwag 13y ago
  Did you make sure to disable Adblock and extensions like Ghostery? I used the stock crunchbang browser (iceweasel) and it showed me advertisements: http://i.imgur.com/mhJhc5W.png http://i.imgur.com/mhJhc5W.png
grinning 13y ago
Re Techcrunch: Their site is little more than PRwire and their posts are glorified press releases. To get reader attention these press releases (that TC regurgitates with little editorial input) often contain controversial statements about a high profile company they mean to offset and that company is usually Google.
DanBC 13y ago
> Don't blame them if it's legal. Obviously Google isn't evading taxes. Google has lawyers and accountants telling them that this is legal. But some of the schemes that big companies are using are not legal, and the only way to test that is in court or to hope they agree and pay up. This is a small argument in favour of tax simplification. The UK tax regime is baffling, and simplifying it would be a good thing. {EDIT: I say UK tax system, I assume the same is true for the US tax system too.}
- yapcguy 13y ago
  Actually, there is evidence that Google is evading taxes. Whether it would stand up in court or not is another thing, but it looked bad when the MPs griled Google at a public hearing recently. They are pretending that UK sales are taking place in Ireland, a lower tax jurisdiction, and then in Ireland they are saying they must pay Royalty payments to Bermuda, an even lower tax jurisdiction. The FT reports that UK sales represent 10% of global sales, so the UK generates $4.9 billion of revenue but Google only pays $70 million corporation tax on that, an effective tax rate of 0.3%!!!
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - talmand 13y ago
    Actually, there is evidence of people accusing Google of evading taxes but until they are found guilty of it, they are not evading taxes. Since you yourself admit you have no idea if the accusation would stand up in court then you cannot say that they are in fact evading taxes. The MP can grandstand in front of an audience grilling Google in a public hearing every day, it means nothing. If the MP is so sure they are breaking the law, then charge them and take them to court over it. Otherwise, it's just posturing for people who like the drama of accusing large companies of keeping the little guy down by using special versions of the law that supposedly only they have access to. Some people see a bad company, I see a bad law. A company following a bad law does not necessarily make for a bad company.
hackinthebochs 13y ago
Don't blame the hacker for stealing your personal information, blame the software vendors for allowing such access, right? Intent matters, and these loopholes circumvent the intent of tax laws.
- waqf 13y ago
  Next time you are unfairly double taxed, try telling that to your local tax agency.
- talmand 13y ago
  Bad wording. If the software vendor did in fact allow access to a third party for nefarious reasons, then you're darn tootin' I'm going to blame them for it. Plus I'm going to blame the hacker for the nefarious things he does with my personal information. Loopholes do not circumvent tax laws in any way, if the method is allowed within the wording of the law then it is perfectly legal. By your logic any time I follow the law to reduce my tax burden I am in effect circumventing the intent of the tax law, which somehow makes me immoral. I guess the difference is that if people don't like it or can't do it themselves it's a "loophole" and somehow wrong.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    I think you're missing the point. Every hack ever created is allowed by the software itself. The software logic allows the "loophole" which the hacker is able to exploit. The issue about tax laws is exactly analogous.
    - talmand 13y ago
      I suppose I'm seeing a difference between saying "software vendor" versus "software" in this case. I would guess it also depends on how one uses the term "allow". Typically I see that in this as defined as intentionally letting the hacker do as they wish with no attempt to prevent it. I can see that possibly what you may mean is that their potentially bad code gave an opening to the hacker to do as they wished. Either way, they are still getting some of that blame. Whatever blame they don't get goes to the hacker. I fail to see an issue with this. So, as to your tax analogy, I see it much the same way in terms of language. You see the loophole as a means to exploit the tax law, I'm assuming to imply they are doing something they should not be doing. But the word exploit has positive as well as negative meanings. You say they saw a loophole in the tax law and they exploited it in a negative way meaning it was unethical, immoral, and/or illegal. I say they saw a business opportunity and exploited it for the advantage of their company and shareholders, which is totally legal. Which one of us is right? Don't know. Someone has to complain to proper channels and let a court of law determine the outcome. But considering that most laws go with the notion of innocent until proven guilty, we can only go with that the tax methods used are legal. Questionable? Yes, but legal.
brymaster 13y ago
> Don't blame them if it's legal. Let the politicians close the loopholes. That's the same line Eric Schmidt used and what he's really saying is "I defy you to change this as our lobbying power will ensure it's never closed. We already own the politicians so don't bother."
- cma 13y ago
  Don't blame them if lobbying is legal. Let the politicians implement campaign finance reform, but first support a constitutional amendment so that it is even legislatively possible after the recent Supreme Court rulings. Not serious =). A much more realistic short term strategy is to give Google bad PR over this to the point that they stop, then they will start lobbying against it if their competitors are still getting to take advantage of the loophole.
  - talmand 13y ago
    I would think it would take an incredible amount of bad PR for them to stop doing this willingly. The PR would have to be bad enough for them to be able show they are losing money over time using this method. I can't see that happening.
    - cma 13y ago
      Bad PR also occasionally gets congress investigating things and poking around, etc. Many times companies "voluntarily" make changes when that is the case. OP's solution of don't blame the player just blame the game won't get us anywhere any time soon.
znowi 13y ago
> amazing how many dark clouds are gathering around Google Not nearly as enough as they deserve. It should have started pouring years ago.
specialist 13y ago
Close the loopholes, end the subsidies, enforce fair play, absolutely. But keep in mind that there is no set of rules which can prevent, much less detect, all forms of cheating. Any non-trivial game can be "broken". Said another way: Locks keep honest people honest.

devx 13y ago

Apple and Microsoft do the same. Apple got a bit of flack over it, too. Microsoft not much so far.

sigzero 13y ago
Apples situation is entirely different.
- samspenc 13y ago
  Do you mind clarifying your statement? How is Apple different?

deelowe 13y ago

Just read that article. Does techcrunch have short term memory loss? Google had this for a while in their engine, but removed it because it didn't work well. For reference, there were up and down arrows next to the results(believe they were arrows), which allowed results to be ranked higher on an individual basis. This trained the algorithm to be custom tailored for the use and probably was also fed into the overall ranking. They removed it, because it didn't prove to be valuable when compared to other metrics. Odd TC didn't include this information when writing this piece. Seems fairly relevant.

bsullivan01 13y ago
This trained the algorithm to be custom tailored for the use and probably was also fed into the overall ranking. They removed it, because it didn't prove to be valuable when compared to other metrics. Odd TC didn't include this information when writing this piece. Seems fairly relevant. EVERYTHING above fold was ads, not sure what you're talking about. Ads and probably most people didn't realize that they were ads. Google, no doubt A/B tested the text and colors to fool the users.
- deelowe 13y ago
  I'm talking about the article the OP posted: http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/07/verbase/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/07/verbase/ The whole "crowdsourced" ranking system was tried by Google. Odd that they left it out of the article.

wallawe 13y ago

Closing the loopholes (aka raising taxes) would only drive business out of America. Google provides thousands of jobs to Americans, and raising taxes on them and other big companies will drive more work out of the US.

lubos 13y ago
non-sense, I'm honestly surprised to see this argument on HN. the value USA provides to high-tech companies is concentration of talent and expertise you won't find anywhere else in the world.
- wallawe 13y ago
  I think you are speaking of the US in it's current state, where the loopholes and lower taxes exist. My point is that businesses are encouraged by financial incentives. If you raise taxes you are incentivizing the company to move jobs elsewhere. Have we not seen this play out with the high cost of labor in manufacturing settings? The same will apply if you tax these companies at exorbitant rates. Long term, you will damage the US jobs market.
  - phaemon 13y ago
    >My point, and you can take a basic econ class to learn such info Oh well, if you learned it in school then it must be true!
    - talmand 13y ago
      Forget school, I just read it on the Internet. So it is true.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - lubos 13y ago
    Yes, businesses are encouraged by financial incentives and that's why Apple, Google, Facebook and countless of other IT giants and startups are based in Silicon Valley - the most expensive place to hire employees. Meanwhile corporate taxes and personal income taxes are at record low and it still didn't stop all manufacturing jobs to be outsourced to China. See your logical fallacy? Sometime "basic econ class" will teach you... well... just the basics.

fear91 13y ago

This is wrong thinking. Those loopholes are there because Google pays(lobbies) for them to be there. As far as I know, they've paid more in lobbying last year than Microsoft, Apple and Facebook combined. Those loopholes will never be closed, Google and the like will make sure of that.

goostavos 13y ago
I still see the root problem being the government. Kill the ability for corporations to spend millions of dollars buying votes and the incentive for keeping the loop holes open would surely close. I don't think it is "wrong thinking" on the parent comment's part not to blame the corporation for doing what it can to profit. Hell, if I could find a legal tax loophole I certainly would take it, too.
- yapcguy 13y ago
  Loopholes might exist, but it doesn't mean you have to use them. Larry Page and Sergey Brin wanted Google to be different, but all they've done is create yet another giant corporation. On many matters Larry Page and Sergey Brin have had opportunity to take the moral high ground, but they have failed.
  - tomarr 13y ago
    I don't agree, because when you start dealing with regulations you see that 'loophole' as a term is often bandied around for minor things. Some may even be the intention of the regulation.
  - theorique 13y ago
    Loopholes might exist, but it doesn't mean you have to use them. Why would I want you as a CEO of a company I invest in if you're not doing everything legal to raise my stock price / return money to me as dividends?
    - varelse 13y ago

jmillikin 13y ago

That article claims that Google regularly returns result pages full of ads, and shows a screenshot of a search for [what is bitcoin] as evidence: http://i.imgur.com/eBtzYic.png http://i.imgur.com/eBtzYic.png Obviously a non-commercial query like this should return few (if any) ads, so I tried to reproduce the author's results. Here is a screenshot taken of searching for [what is bitcoin] in a fresh Incognito window: http://i.imgur.com/KfY3gvs.png http://i.imgur.com/KfY3gvs.png . There are no ads, and the search results a reasonable. I thought the vastly different result could maybe be a result of searching on google.com vs google.co.uk, but changing the domain did not generate any ads either: http://i.imgur.com/5gcOvtJ.png http://i.imgur.com/5gcOvtJ.png Does anyone on HN see a page full of ads when they search for [what is bitcoin]?

phaemon 13y ago
Yes, I got the plus500 ad on that search.
ctz 13y ago
> Does anyone on HN see ads when they search for [what is bitcoin]? Yes: http://i.imgur.com/2iFv7Yf.png http://i.imgur.com/2iFv7Yf.png
- giarc 13y ago
  When is this from? I thought the black bar was all but gone.
johnx123-up 13y ago
FWIW, for getting ads, your location and TLD matters. Perhaps, you can check Adwords ad check tool--available when you place ad for any keywords.
xSwag 13y ago
Did you make sure to disable Adblock and extensions like Ghostery? I used the stock crunchbang browser (iceweasel) and it showed me advertisements: http://i.imgur.com/mhJhc5W.png http://i.imgur.com/mhJhc5W.png

grinning 13y ago

Re Techcrunch: Their site is little more than PRwire and their posts are glorified press releases. To get reader attention these press releases (that TC regurgitates with little editorial input) often contain controversial statements about a high profile company they mean to offset and that company is usually Google.

DanBC 13y ago

> Don't blame them if it's legal. Obviously Google isn't evading taxes. Google has lawyers and accountants telling them that this is legal. But some of the schemes that big companies are using are not legal, and the only way to test that is in court or to hope they agree and pay up. This is a small argument in favour of tax simplification. The UK tax regime is baffling, and simplifying it would be a good thing. {EDIT: I say UK tax system, I assume the same is true for the US tax system too.}

yapcguy 13y ago
Actually, there is evidence that Google is evading taxes. Whether it would stand up in court or not is another thing, but it looked bad when the MPs griled Google at a public hearing recently. They are pretending that UK sales are taking place in Ireland, a lower tax jurisdiction, and then in Ireland they are saying they must pay Royalty payments to Bermuda, an even lower tax jurisdiction. The FT reports that UK sales represent 10% of global sales, so the UK generates $4.9 billion of revenue but Google only pays $70 million corporation tax on that, an effective tax rate of 0.3%!!!
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- talmand 13y ago
  Actually, there is evidence of people accusing Google of evading taxes but until they are found guilty of it, they are not evading taxes. Since you yourself admit you have no idea if the accusation would stand up in court then you cannot say that they are in fact evading taxes. The MP can grandstand in front of an audience grilling Google in a public hearing every day, it means nothing. If the MP is so sure they are breaking the law, then charge them and take them to court over it. Otherwise, it's just posturing for people who like the drama of accusing large companies of keeping the little guy down by using special versions of the law that supposedly only they have access to. Some people see a bad company, I see a bad law. A company following a bad law does not necessarily make for a bad company.

hackinthebochs 13y ago

Don't blame the hacker for stealing your personal information, blame the software vendors for allowing such access, right? Intent matters, and these loopholes circumvent the intent of tax laws.

waqf 13y ago
Next time you are unfairly double taxed, try telling that to your local tax agency.
talmand 13y ago
Bad wording. If the software vendor did in fact allow access to a third party for nefarious reasons, then you're darn tootin' I'm going to blame them for it. Plus I'm going to blame the hacker for the nefarious things he does with my personal information. Loopholes do not circumvent tax laws in any way, if the method is allowed within the wording of the law then it is perfectly legal. By your logic any time I follow the law to reduce my tax burden I am in effect circumventing the intent of the tax law, which somehow makes me immoral. I guess the difference is that if people don't like it or can't do it themselves it's a "loophole" and somehow wrong.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  I think you're missing the point. Every hack ever created is allowed by the software itself. The software logic allows the "loophole" which the hacker is able to exploit. The issue about tax laws is exactly analogous.
  - talmand 13y ago
    I suppose I'm seeing a difference between saying "software vendor" versus "software" in this case. I would guess it also depends on how one uses the term "allow". Typically I see that in this as defined as intentionally letting the hacker do as they wish with no attempt to prevent it. I can see that possibly what you may mean is that their potentially bad code gave an opening to the hacker to do as they wished. Either way, they are still getting some of that blame. Whatever blame they don't get goes to the hacker. I fail to see an issue with this. So, as to your tax analogy, I see it much the same way in terms of language. You see the loophole as a means to exploit the tax law, I'm assuming to imply they are doing something they should not be doing. But the word exploit has positive as well as negative meanings. You say they saw a loophole in the tax law and they exploited it in a negative way meaning it was unethical, immoral, and/or illegal. I say they saw a business opportunity and exploited it for the advantage of their company and shareholders, which is totally legal. Which one of us is right? Don't know. Someone has to complain to proper channels and let a court of law determine the outcome. But considering that most laws go with the notion of innocent until proven guilty, we can only go with that the tax methods used are legal. Questionable? Yes, but legal.

brymaster 13y ago

> Don't blame them if it's legal. Let the politicians close the loopholes. That's the same line Eric Schmidt used and what he's really saying is "I defy you to change this as our lobbying power will ensure it's never closed. We already own the politicians so don't bother."

cma 13y ago
Don't blame them if lobbying is legal. Let the politicians implement campaign finance reform, but first support a constitutional amendment so that it is even legislatively possible after the recent Supreme Court rulings. Not serious =). A much more realistic short term strategy is to give Google bad PR over this to the point that they stop, then they will start lobbying against it if their competitors are still getting to take advantage of the loophole.
- talmand 13y ago
  I would think it would take an incredible amount of bad PR for them to stop doing this willingly. The PR would have to be bad enough for them to be able show they are losing money over time using this method. I can't see that happening.
  - cma 13y ago
    Bad PR also occasionally gets congress investigating things and poking around, etc. Many times companies "voluntarily" make changes when that is the case. OP's solution of don't blame the player just blame the game won't get us anywhere any time soon.

znowi 13y ago

> amazing how many dark clouds are gathering around Google Not nearly as enough as they deserve. It should have started pouring years ago.

specialist 13y ago

Close the loopholes, end the subsidies, enforce fair play, absolutely. But keep in mind that there is no set of rules which can prevent, much less detect, all forms of cheating. Any non-trivial game can be "broken". Said another way: Locks keep honest people honest.