Hacker News Reader

Comment by jstarfish | Hacker News Reader

I agree in principle, and this is a shitty situation for the GP, but Google's "contract" with the public doesn't even comprise a gentlemen's agreement. They don't owe anybody anything, they're just the cool kid at school who won't acknowledge your existence. You can't (and shouldn't be able to) force them to be your friend. You can't claim harm because someone stopped being friends with you either.

There is a question to be asked of where does one draw the line about policing stuff that happens in virtual reality. Are we to start prosecuting people for espionage and insider trading in Eve Online too? Can we punish the church because God isn't answering my prayers in a timely manner?

(I don't think regulation is the answer. They had their 15 minutes of fame; it's time for everybody to form a new clique and cut Google out of it-- just like the Twitter exodus.)

View on HN

Well, it seems like Google / Alphabet ran a bunch of their services at a loss for years, until their practical competitors had been extinguished.

Youtube and Gmail spring to mind, though there seems to be a resurgence of people moving away from Gmail these days (my perception anyway).

Since Google wanted to be a monopoly in various markets so badly, they should be required to serve those markets properly.

Like, with customer service / support, and similar. "You won! Here are the consequences..."

It's a shame the push a while ago for them to be regulated like a utility didn't succeed.

It doesn’t matter, the EU already has definitions for companies that are big enough to be of public interest.

The majority of economic value creation over the long run happens on the internet, it’s high time to adjust the laws to match physical reality.

You can’t just randomly discriminate against people in the physical worlds too.

In practice Google is more like the security guard at the school entrance, who decides you can't come in and won't tell you why. Not just a popular kid who ignores you.

Regulation absolutely is a solution that should be pursued. Companies are responsible for what their automated services do. Your two examples are absurd red harrings and not at all comparable to this situation.

Google is effectively the gatekeeper to the internet for most people. That did not happen by accident, but through deliberate actions on their part.

They owe it to society to manage what they've built in a fair and attentive fashion, or to give it up to someone who will, for the public good.

If there's one thing that Google couldn't care less about, it's "the public good".

Which is why we need regulations to make holders of effectively public commons responsible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com