Hacker News Reader

Comment by bjt2n3904 | Hacker News Reader

Amazing that the Internet culture that vehemently opposed DRM and created things like bit torrent so quickly lined up behind algorithmic content moderation.

View on HN

IMHO, the problem started when we all jumped on Gmail, knowing that there was no support, and if it broke, we got to keep both pieces. I watched my wife's account get taken over in real time a couple years ago. Ten years of personal and financial info, now in the hands of God-knows-who for God-knows-why. I simply deleted the account from her devices, and moved on. There was nothing I could do, and no one I could complain to about it. The WILD success of this model has led everyone else to do the same thing.

>> IMHO, the problem started when we all jumped on Gmail, knowing that there was no support

Back when Gmail was invite-only, most people used Hotmail or Yahoo Mail, which would offer a base level of (I think) about 50-100MB of storage at the time. If you wanted more storage; you'd have to pay for your email service - an idea I don't think anyone born past 2000 has even heard of.

Gmail came along, and suddenly offers us 1 GB of free storage, for free. This was around a quarter the size of some people's hard drives at this point.

Of course we didn't care if there was no support!

Are you kidding? I don't think Hotmail had support, either - (maybe I'm wrong?) - even if you paid for it; but here Google was offering a substantial value for anyone using any other existing mainstream email service, immediately.

They even had STMP and IMAP support, meaning you could use whatever client you preferred. Back in the day most people used computer-side email clients and had local backups of emails anyway - so if one went missing from Google's side it wouldn't be so bad.

There's a reason Gmail is still one of Google's strongest and unusually longest-lasting product of Google's. There's less reason now - but my God, when it was introduced it was an honest-to-God mindfuck as to how they were offering such a large amount of space and features for nothing.

Other competing services gave you 2-5MB, which was so low that the standard thing to do was to delete email after you read it.

The selling feature of Gmail was "Now you can keep all your mail and have a permanent searchable history of all your electronic communication".

IIRC, Hotmail provided 2 MB when Gmail was released. The 1 GB amount was so large by contrast that people thought it was a joke.

I mean, it was also released on April Fools' Day.

That’s if you knew someone who would invite you!

> it was an honest-to-God mindfuck as to how they were offering such a large amount of space and features for nothing.

Of course, now we all understand that they were harvesting all the personal data this gave them access to, in order to monetize it, and sell access to it to anyone who would write them a check.

And then we found out that this information was so valuable, and in such a concentrated place, that the CIA placed fiber taps on Google’s data center drops.

Unsurprisingly, after funding the initial round of Google investment, the DoD would come back not much later to eavesdrop on the email and uploads delivered to gmail into that storage.

What i found is that darpa paid for research at a university and the students learned something from their project and then when they graduated they built something with their knowledge? It seems like the system of publicly funded research is working.

Not DARPA, In-Q-Tel which is a non-profit venture capital group guided by CIA. They directly funded Google, after it was spun out from Stanford.

"In-Q-Tel scouts the global market for commercially focused technologies with the potential to contribute to national security." - Source: iqt.org

I don't think in-q-tel was one of the original VCs that funded google. Google acquired Keyhole some time after founding, and Keyhole was in-q-tel funded, so in-q-tel ended up getting google stock.

I think that internet (that opposed drm) and this one are very different. The anti drm movement was more of a popular movement and this one is a reaction by large corporations to new legal regulations (or threats of more regulations). It’s hard to even think of those as the same “culture”

The Internet culture fighting DRM and sharing of information is decidedly not the same group of people wishing for algorithmic content moderation

fans of bittorrent and fans of services with auto content moderation share at least one common factor: they are free to use. Many people are not motivated much further than keeping their hard earned cash.

It’s a forced legislation in most places. Flagging is understandable, automatic removal with no way to recover is an awful practice.

Yes, those two sets of people are one and the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com