Hacker News Reader

> It seems they can't win either way

People like to bitch and gossip about whoever's on top. It's why celebrity tabloids exist, it's perversely why shows like Jersey Shore and My Super Sweet 16 exist, it's why people complain about Apple or Google or Microsoft back in the day.

Couple the innate tendency towards bitching with the prospect of ad revenue from eyeballs, and you get the kind of tabloidy trash we've seen from pandodaily et al. It's just people capitalizing on some of the seedier aspects of human nature.

Google will survive this "controversy" (which 99.99% of its users haven't heard of), just as it will endure the cyclic cries of "you're being evil!". Sarah Lacy will continue to write sordid tales of no-goodery, and the Internet will continue to lap it up. Bloggers will continue to seize on the latest controversy to get pageviews, and so on.

> I do have to ask, though - if you have an issue with Google's having access to your data, why do you use Google services?

Because no one does have a real issue with it. They might be bugged by the abstract thought of it, but they certainly aren't bothered enough to do anything. Empty words, floating on the wind...

Do you honestly think MS's actions didn't have serious consequences? Broken companies, destroyed dreams, lack of progress? We're 5 or 6 years behind where we should have been with the web because of them. And I still buy their stuff. Good Guy Gates is a disturbing meme in my book, the greatest trick and all that.

But on to my point, you must have an extremely short attention span, do you not even remember what happened with Buzz? As it pretty much invalidates your entire point.

That big BOOM, straight in their face. Happened pretty much exactly two years ago?

People do have issues with this stuff, if you don't, and I really mean this:

Shut up and sit down.

This is serious stuff, dangerous stuff, very, very, very dangerous stuff. You don't get that. That Google engineer above doesn't get that, disingenuously comparing fantastic user experiences with tracking you and invading your privacy for better advertising.

The worst thing in life you can do is live in this little bubble of 'I don't see the problem, I wish people would stop complaining'. If you don't, don't assume it's because you know best. Learn from history, this kind of consolidation of power is bad news.

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I'm not talking about people invading your home and sweeping you off into the night tomorrow. But history has taught us time and time and time again that there's every chance that'll be happening 20 years from now.

Maybe you think I'm being melodramatic, but it's the erosion between your life and what any sort of organisation can easily take from you that has to be continually fought, be it a government or corporation.

Just be glad there's people doing it for you. But never compare it to celebrity gossip.

EDIT: I feel a bit of a fool for posting this, but in the end it comes down to this. If you knew that on average every 50 years the world get hit by meteorites somewhere, you'd build a bomb shelter. No question. You'd take precautions. We know that every few generations some force in power will go crazy and do evil things. Giving them tools to seriously screw you up now when they're not evil is not good forward planning.

Thank you. I start to feel cold and lonely whenever I go more than a day without seeing somebody trot out the old Father Niemuller quote for something wildly mundane and less important than the Holocaust, and I think in this case it had been two.

We're talking about Picasa having access to your address book (or whatever). Get a freaking grip.

If by 'address book' you mean your searches, your email, your political leaning, where you go, what you read, what time you're in the house, your location, your sexual preferences, what you find funny, what you hate, who you're fucking, who you hang out with, who you don't like, whether you do drugs and everyone you've ever talked to then we have very different definitions of address books.

Again, if you don't feel comfortable with Google having that information, Don't give it to them. They've always had the data; now they're saying they'll use it. If the US Government went off the rails and decided to take all of Google's data and track down dissidents, they would have been just as capable of doing so before this update as after.

You're throwing out a lot of scary-sounding nonsense without saying why it's bad. Sure, someone could use the information to do evil. Someone could also use nuclear power to make a bomb. The problem is the bomb, not the power. If your primary concern with Google is not that someone will use their information maliciously, but rather that someone could do so, you would be far better off focusing your efforts on preventing the bad men from gaining access to it.

Seriously, this what-ifery is why we have the TSA. Focus on the real threats, not the hypothetical ones that could be realized if x, y, z, and z++ all align.

I'm not talking about MS being evil, I'm talking about the routine bitching about things as minor as this. The same bitching people do about Facebook's UI changes.

Buzz was a serious fuckup on Google's part, and they learned their lesson. Case closed. It has precisely zero relevance to the "issue" at hand, which is that Google is going to start doing what everyone assumed they did anyway and use your behaviour across their properties to target ads at you. This isn't Kristallnacht, it's using my viewing habits on youtube to sell me shit on Search. I'm fine with that. If you aren't, then don't use their products. If you already don't use their products, great. Good for you. But don't be so fucking sanctimonious as to think that my belief that targeted advertising is not the worst thing since Hitler can only be explained by woeful ignorance. And if you are going to be that sanctimonious, don't be so obnoxious as to tell me.

The case obviously isn't closed or minor or we wouldn't be here. This wouldn't have climbed the rankings on HN. This isn't Reddit or Digg.

The reality is some people think linking search to social to surfing habits is a fundamentally scary thought. It gives someone a massive insight into who you are. And that's far more important and complex than [generic celebrity couple]s breakup.

You really have to open your eyes a little, YouTube isn't even Google branded for example, what % of users even knew it was owned by Google till they switched the sign in? I bet a large % wouldn't even realise anyway and think it's like facebook connect.

And stop telling people to stop using services they value and have invested their time and effort in. That's what being sanctimonious is actually about, that's what it actually means. You actually couldn't care either way, the feigned piety is yours, not mine. I'm sincere in my beliefs.

What strikes me the most about this whole debacle is that people have complained for ages that Google doesn't "get" social. Its products have been poorly integrated and incongruent. Then, when Google says "Okay, we're going to integrate the balls off of everything, and provide a single consistent experience across all our products", people pitch a fit.

That's because there are two entirely different classes of people that are do the bitching:

1) industry "analysts" and commentators claiming that Google doesn't "get" social and will one day lose out because of it

2) actual users of Google disliking the way that Google, in an effort to be "social" (whatever that is) is inserting unhelpful crap into the previously-pristine search results.

Isn't it possible that this diversion into "social" will end up being a big mistake down the road if it fundamentally alters the main Search product? "Social search" seems to be something that prognosticators always claim is right around the corner and is going to change the way we do things, but I don't know a single person that really wants results from their social network in their search results. If we wanted to know what our friends thought about Search Topic X, we would just ask them.

My issue with it is mostly in the visual implementation.

I had hoped that Google would be more subtle about it, instead I look at the SERPs and see them shouting at me.

I think that's a fair point. Some people like the simpler search results. Does the SPYW toggle solve that complaint for you, though, or is there a deeper problem that I'm missing?

It does, but it's not just SPYW. It's the endless amounts of "extra" stuff that keeps getting added to the formally very clean SERP.

> I do have to ask, though - if you have an issue with Google's having access to your data, why do you use Google services? As with any web property, if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound.

This is exactly why I don't use Google's services, except for search and Google Maps. What bothers me is the possibility that even those basic services are being compromised in order to further Google's social media goals.

> people have complained for ages that Google doesn't "get" social

Who exactly "complained"? Google didn't get social, and it was fine. Now they still don't, but they've decided to try anyway. It's like an awkward teenager who thinks they can dance. It's embarrassing.