Hacker News Reader

Comment by henearkr | Hacker News Reader

This aligns with how I have always seen Facebook, in contrast to Google for example.

In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization, whereas Facebook centers on the revenue and does not shy away morally doubtful decisions (like selling user data without regard for their anonymity, which Google avoids by restricting sensitive access to closed-loop algorithms).

And that makes sense in that Google historically (and still now) favors attracting talents and great minds (who lean leftwards) to work in its teams, to build the best technology, whereas Facebook tries to focus on its market, and how to please users (quite 50/50 politically) as well as business partners (maybe rather revenue-focused guys than socially responsible guys).

Both approaches make sense, but I do prefer the Google approach.

View on HN

> In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization

What dream world are you living in and also where do you get this from? Google, like countless other companies in tech, is a for-profit company, that optimizes for revenue and revenue only. If they are doing anything for the "greater good", it's because it'll eventually drive up their revenue.

If they truly wanted to do something for the greater good, they'd turn Google/Alphabet into a non-profit. But alas, they are not.

I have no insight about what the parent comment said but Google at one point in the past did quit the Chinese market on principles, the success of their compatriots like Apple which were more flexible with their principles does show the opportunity they left.

There are several ways to build a business plan to make profit, and Google chose the one where they attract and retain an elite scientific and engineering staff in order to build awesome products, and so they respect the ideological lining of these staffs.

Facebook insists more, in a more conventional way for sure, on marketing and business negotiations.

Both approaches "increase revenue", of course, however not the same way, not with the same timeline (one of them is more long-term than the other), and, last but not least, not with the same heartburn when I read about it.

PS: greater good is not opposed to profit. Your physician gets your money to care for your health. He chose this job rather than, say, the military.

>In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization

I did not expect such display of naivety on HN of all places.

Google stopped several projects it had collaborating with Defense, retracted from the Chinese market, stopped mining Gmail data... all of that illustrate my point.

So, it is a point of view supported by evidence, not "naivety".

As I said, I am not personifying these companies, just stressing the leverage of different mechanisms as business plans, and the one favored by Google is to attract and retain its elite staff, and to do so they have to behave.

> like selling user data without regard for their anonymity, which Google avoids by restricting sensitive access to closed-loop algorithms

Where can we find evidence that this is true in both cases?

I certainly see the differences between how G and FB presents themselves to the world. But I'm not sure that deepdown how they paint themselves actually make material differences in how, as major tech companies at center of contemporary society, they operate, or what drives their leadership (ie. profit).

> In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization

No, they're not.

They just have better PR. They're both for profit companies with their share of controversies, but Google just has better PR.

PR is different from what the employees see from within.

Moreover, Google supported its "responsible" positions by carbon-neutral engagement, retracting from Chinese market, stopping mining email data, and more. I don't really understand why you would describe this as PR, if so then every decision is PR, and in this case "good PR" would amount to "good decisions" and I'm fine with that but not with the pejorative stench of the word PR (and because for most people it does not mean "decision").

Facebook ticks all of those?

It's banned on china.

https://sustainability.fb.com/

No proof on privacy issues but certainly neither seem saint.

Any other concrete examples?

That's good to hear.

It seems to me that FB is still a little short on ecological engagements. At least, compared to Google.

So, room for improvement.

About privacy concerns, for example: FB is not guaranteeing anything about not mining your private messages. What I find when googling it does not reassure me neither.

Facebook's privacy policy spells out what they use as sources of data for ads and messages are not on that list.

Personifying moral decisions is the wrong approach nine times out of ten.

Incentives and structures are more important than the character of the people or business plans. Neither company (nor any big public company) chooses principles when it would lose them large sums of money.

Both Google and Facebook sell adds but they do it differently. Facebook is in business where the gravity constantly pulls towards the type of decisions that Facebook does. Sure, Zuck could do better decisions, but even if he would he has only narrow options.

That's why you need government policies that alter the incentives.

I am not really personifying it besides the introductory line:

I am explaining that the mechanism is that Google cares foremost about attracting and retaining a somewhat socially and ecologically responsible (one could say as well leftwards as a synonym) staff.

The fact that elite scientists and engineers are leaning to the left is a demographics fact, not some opinion from me. And it can even been explained by how the education system endows its pupils with a set of values, meant to make them better citizens i.e. more responsible, and finally that means more on the left.

My argument was that "Google cares foremost" relevant to Facebook only as far as their business allows it, just like Facebook. There may be small percentage of something else but it's the main explanation.

This was my main criticism. What is your response to that?

FB could have taken the same stance than Google about carbon-neutrality targets.

It could have also pledged to not data-mine user DMs.

It did not.

> It could have also pledged to not data-mine user DMs.

To counter my argument you must

1) find an example,

2) estimate the economic burden of that estimate.

It's my understanding that DM' is much more important part of FB business than it is to Google. My argument relies on weighing the economic impact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com