Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway6845 | Hacker News Reader

> As Google suggests, it strains credulity that Plaintiff or class members would forego access to a free Gmail account and higher quality Google Books or Google Maps because their brief transcription of a single word might, indirectly or directly, facilitate Google’s profit earning

Call me a data point to the contrary. I don't use gmail or Google Books at all, and Google Maps rarely. I contribute to OpenStreetMap. It sticks in the craw that whenever I use any Google Captcha-enabled site (even if the site's not owned by Google) I'm helping to increase the quality divide between Google Maps and OSM.

View on HN

Can I call you someone that's invented a zero-sum scenario and is getting annoyed at their own misconception?

You contribute and therefore probably benefit OSM, you're using a google captcha enabled site so you're benefiting from something on that site, that site benefited from the captcha service because they didn't have to write one themselves so could spend their time improving the site you're benefiting from.

You're a link through which google captcha is benefiting OSM :)

It really sticks in your craw that you are improving the quality of data, just because that data belongs to Google? Seems petty.

can I sing you the little Blobby[0] song?

[0] http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39

Same as wanting to put your money in a credit union that invests your deposits in the community instead of a bank that spends it on executive bonuses.

Credit Unions tend to merge with each other instead of just growing organically, I think at least in part because the administrative employees can use the increase in size to justify larger compensation.

Depends on where you are. I live in an isolated college town with many regional banks and one well-liked credit union. I can't speak for people who live in big cities.

I'm a member of a relatively rural credit union that is merging with one of the other regional credit unions.

Why should I help Google make money, for free? I'll gladly discuss their employment options if they need my help.

""Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that plausibly suggest the few seconds it takes to type a second word is something for which a reasonable consumer would expect to receive compensation," US District Jacqueline Scott Corley wrote Wednesday in dismissing the suit.

I guess you are in the same category as the plaintiff?

You are helping Google make money for free whenever you are using one of their services. I fail to see the moral issue with that. If you don't want to help Google make money, don't use them.

In their defence, reCaptcha are fairly ubiquitous. Very difficult to avoid.

> Why should I help Google make money, for free?

Not for free, that's the point. You get access to Gmail.

ReCaptcha is not only used for GMail. I've never used GMail, in fact, yet I'm still filling out ten recaptchas a day.

I partly make my living through OSM. The better Google Maps gets, the less compelling OSM is, and therefore my earning power is reduced. Google has the right to compete, of course, it's just not in my interests to help them.

If OSM is only compelling if Google Maps is equally inaccurate aren't we all a little less better off? And if Google maps is more accurate, aren't we all a little better off even if you prefer OSM?

He just said that his livelihood partly depends on OSM.

That means that the answer to your questions is a resounding no. While on average we're better off, not everybody is, he in particular is worse off.

It doesn't usually though. It only contributes when you're asked to enter house numbers. The usual CAPTCHAs I see from them are the ones coming from their book scanning project, which I see as a public good.

Are there any CAPTCHA providers out there who OSM could team up with to do the same?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com