Comment by kevinalexbrown | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevinalexbrown | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

and we should be grateful.

What? I don't believe Google is evil, but at the same time, I'm not "grateful" that they're not evil any more than I'm grateful that a driver isn't evil and doesn't run me over. Yes, I'm glad, but I don't feel like she's going beyond what she owes me.

This perspective is subtly dangerous, because it takes the consumer out of the decision-making process. When we see Google as an amorphous blob of power we're grateful to, we've already conceded the right to set the terms of the marketplaces we engage in.

Individuals should be concerned about the state of the marketplaces they frequent. There are great reasons for simple rules and regulations. Except for the ideal case, individual incentives differ with the incentives of those the market serves.

For clarity, I love markets. The market is the most powerful tool society has ever developed. But a lot of the benefits of a very free market are lessened when the number of suppliers is small. In truth, how many companies do what Google does, even on a specific product other than gmail? A handful of search engines?

The point at which google is doing us a favor by not being evil, instead of merely abiding by the law, is the point at which our expectations should be updated.

Exactly right. They've made a choice but it's a choice that they benefit from by getting people to use their products. It's not something they're doing purely out of the goodness of their hearts the way an anonymous donation would be (that would be something to be grateful for).

By their nature, almost all economic transactions in a free market system are mutually beneficial to both parties or the transaction wouldn't take place. That does not mean that many companies do not make short-sighted decisions that harm themselves, their industry, and customers over the long term.

Here is a small list of examples which might serve as examples where decisions eventually hurt the company itself rather than only customers:

- early refusals to sell music, movies or television shows online

- highly inconvenient DRM strategies

- "closed software is more secure", and other non transparent practices

- cost cutting measures by manufacturers that reduce a product's durability in ways that are not obvious in the store

Google could monetize the information they can mine from their users more aggressively. They could also more actively depart from standards, such as by removing IMAP access to Gmail or requiring some proprietary plugin for Youtube. We'd be worse off, and Google would lose a lot of users and ad-viewing eyeballs. That still doesn't mean that it is a given that they would make these decisions. Facebook seems to have little reluctance when it comes to changing user agreements in non-obvious ways for the purpose monetizing their data, I switched from Yahoo mail to Gmail eight or nine years just because of IMAP, and Microsoft tried to push Silverlight for video content.

Even in the case of a cooperative game where mutually beneficial choices can be determined, that outcome is not always the result. What's wrong with being grateful that Google (at least some of the time) has apparently chosen such strategies? Claims that their benefit is somehow at the expense of users confuses the situation with noncooperative games, and suggests that Google would be better off not making the decisions that have benefited users, too.

> requiring some proprietary plugin for Youtube

You mean something like Flash Player?

Yes, I know, they are transitioning to html5, but not for everything.

I think people feel good when they donate, and that is what causes them to donate. How is that any less selfish?

(However I also know I am pretty selfish, so I could be simply reflecting)

We really don't do anything without it making us "feel good" on some fundamental level. Motivation/intrinsic reward for behavior goes to the very core of our being as self-directed organisms. So asking "how is donating any less selfish than not donating" is asking the wrong question. We have evolved to take pleasure in behaviors that are beneficial to ourselves. One who is selfish will take pleasure in things that are solely beneficial to him or herself. One who is unselfish has a reward system that is aligned with the benefit of others. So when we say someone is a "good person" or "unselfish", we are really judging the alignment of their reward system as being more suitable for a social environment.

As an aside, note that this way of thinking is compatible with determinism: while the murderer may not have any more control over his anti-social behavior than the altruist, the person is condemned for having a brain wired in such a way that is toxic to a collectivist society.

Yes, I'm glad, but I don't feel like she's going beyond what she owes me.

Nobody owes you anything by default. We might agree to mutually abide by rules not to harm each other, but you are not owed anything for free.

This is part of "free markets", and indeed used to be part of being a citizen of a country; the country provides you with various things in exchange for things you give up such as some freedoms, some money, and perhaps other things too.

Given the norm of people being completely self-centered these days, and being proud of it on top, I think altruism should be applauded and encouraged whenever it happens.

As I read the OP's comment my first thought was "I know what he means but 'she owes me' is probably not the best way to state it". I think you ran off on an unnecessary tangent about the term "owes". The point was "I'm glad she doesn't run me over but that's something we should expect vs be grateful for given we'd like the same courtesy applied when we're on foot"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com