4 ms·

You stated facts, with sources. I can't see why someone would downvote, and that too without stating the reason. I upvoted to counter at least one downvoter.

personZ 12y ago
They also created a new account to post a mixed list of random complaints. Sorry it's actually a repost given that this identical list was posted by angularfan -- also a fresh new account created purely to post this list -- 20 days ago. Is that really the behavior HN wants?
- findjashua 12y ago
  didn't know that this was a repost of a previous post, in this case OP should've just linked to that. I stand corrected.
- kybernetyk 12y ago
  > Is that really the behavior HN wants? He/She might have good reasons for anonymity. As long as the post contributes to the discussion I don't really care if the account is 10 years or 10 days old or if it has been posted 20 days ago.
  - personZ 12y ago
    It doesn't contribute to the discussion. It's a wall of noise hit list of entirely random quality, that draws absolute, nefarious conclusions from complex situations. If someone hates Google, then sure, it's "contributing". If you're just looking for information it's just extremist nonsense. Indeed, this very submission was already submitted a week ago (just as that hit list appeared before), and of course would have been blocked by HN as a dupe but made it through courtesy of the fun of querystrings.
    - stephenr 12y ago
      Right, because on a comment thread about google's ever-increasing control over the web/etc, the following are irrelevant: * A court case about breaching US federal privacy laws * A court case about Google using it's relationship with device manufacturers to negatively impact a company with a competing service * An article about how Google tracks mobile users and the disclosure/notification about said tracking, with input from the EFF * An article about how Google was less than open and transparent about the handling of an employee who spied on/stalked four underage users of Google services * Several articles about what are basically deceptive practices - paid inclusions, much less identifiable ads compared to organic search results and artificially increasing the search rank of it's own properties when a search mentions a specific competitor * An article about Google's decision to refuse any interaction with a news agency that posted an article discussing Google in relation to privacy concerns, in which they demonstrate the risks by publishing material about Eric Schmidt that was found via google searches But no, you are right. None of them are relevant. Remember what I said in another comment about cult-like status? Should I call Rick Ross for you?
      - kybernetyk 12y ago
        Yes, it's interesting. Anything that is remotely critical of Google gets downvoted pretty quick here on HN. Now I don't know if it's because many Google employees browse HN or because people still believe in that "don't be evil" marketing babel.
        stephenr 12y ago
        As I said in another comment, google has reached cult status with a lot of tech people.
      - personZ 12y ago
        Sarcasm does not further a debate. If you want to froth at the mouth and show your agenda, sure, but not actually having constructive discussions. Posting enormous gripe lists is not useful on any board, relevant or not, even minus the comically skewed narrative provided with them. In this case it wasn't even original but instead is a "create a puppet account and paste the complaint list again" tactic, which is just boorish and cowardly. Go make a "whygoogleisevil.com" site and casually reference that in a legitimate post, sure, but not this. And your whole "it's a cult" angle is ridiculous. If you convince yourself that people who find this strong polarization unconstructive must be in awe of Google, you have a very binary view of a complex world.
  - DCKing 12y ago
    Anonymous posting is one thing. Anonymous copy-pasting of generic mostly off-topic link lists to influence opinion is something else. The latter is, hopefully, not behavior HN wants.
eropple 12y ago
I downvoted and flagged him because he spams this post on Google threads, using a sockpuppet every time. He is not interested in discussion, he's interested in frothing.
- walterbell 12y ago
  Did you flag the entire thread or the single offending post?
- dang 12y ago
  If true, that's abusive. If you email links of previous instances to hn@ycombinator.com, we will investigate.
  - eropple 12y ago
    I believe they're linked elsewhere on this thread. (On a phone, can't go searching)

personZ 12y ago

They also created a new account to post a mixed list of random complaints. Sorry it's actually a repost given that this identical list was posted by angularfan -- also a fresh new account created purely to post this list -- 20 days ago. Is that really the behavior HN wants?

findjashua 12y ago
didn't know that this was a repost of a previous post, in this case OP should've just linked to that. I stand corrected.
kybernetyk 12y ago
> Is that really the behavior HN wants? He/She might have good reasons for anonymity. As long as the post contributes to the discussion I don't really care if the account is 10 years or 10 days old or if it has been posted 20 days ago.
- personZ 12y ago
  It doesn't contribute to the discussion. It's a wall of noise hit list of entirely random quality, that draws absolute, nefarious conclusions from complex situations. If someone hates Google, then sure, it's "contributing". If you're just looking for information it's just extremist nonsense. Indeed, this very submission was already submitted a week ago (just as that hit list appeared before), and of course would have been blocked by HN as a dupe but made it through courtesy of the fun of querystrings.
  - stephenr 12y ago
    Right, because on a comment thread about google's ever-increasing control over the web/etc, the following are irrelevant: * A court case about breaching US federal privacy laws * A court case about Google using it's relationship with device manufacturers to negatively impact a company with a competing service * An article about how Google tracks mobile users and the disclosure/notification about said tracking, with input from the EFF * An article about how Google was less than open and transparent about the handling of an employee who spied on/stalked four underage users of Google services * Several articles about what are basically deceptive practices - paid inclusions, much less identifiable ads compared to organic search results and artificially increasing the search rank of it's own properties when a search mentions a specific competitor * An article about Google's decision to refuse any interaction with a news agency that posted an article discussing Google in relation to privacy concerns, in which they demonstrate the risks by publishing material about Eric Schmidt that was found via google searches But no, you are right. None of them are relevant. Remember what I said in another comment about cult-like status? Should I call Rick Ross for you?
    - kybernetyk 12y ago
      Yes, it's interesting. Anything that is remotely critical of Google gets downvoted pretty quick here on HN. Now I don't know if it's because many Google employees browse HN or because people still believe in that "don't be evil" marketing babel.
      - stephenr 12y ago
        As I said in another comment, google has reached cult status with a lot of tech people.
    - personZ 12y ago
      Sarcasm does not further a debate. If you want to froth at the mouth and show your agenda, sure, but not actually having constructive discussions. Posting enormous gripe lists is not useful on any board, relevant or not, even minus the comically skewed narrative provided with them. In this case it wasn't even original but instead is a "create a puppet account and paste the complaint list again" tactic, which is just boorish and cowardly. Go make a "whygoogleisevil.com" site and casually reference that in a legitimate post, sure, but not this. And your whole "it's a cult" angle is ridiculous. If you convince yourself that people who find this strong polarization unconstructive must be in awe of Google, you have a very binary view of a complex world.
- DCKing 12y ago
  Anonymous posting is one thing. Anonymous copy-pasting of generic mostly off-topic link lists to influence opinion is something else. The latter is, hopefully, not behavior HN wants.

eropple 12y ago

I downvoted and flagged him because he spams this post on Google threads, using a sockpuppet every time. He is not interested in discussion, he's interested in frothing.

walterbell 12y ago
Did you flag the entire thread or the single offending post?
dang 12y ago
If true, that's abusive. If you email links of previous instances to hn@ycombinator.com, we will investigate.
- eropple 12y ago
  I believe they're linked elsewhere on this thread. (On a phone, can't go searching)