[toby]

It was amazing how some people lapped up everything he wrote about Google (case in point: apparently a lot of people don't believe 20% time exists at all any more), I guess because he was so prolific (it was hard for actual Googlers to keep up rebut everything), and he was playing into some confirmation bias.

[SquareWheel]

The confirmation bias still exists today, too. On HN I frequently see users claim that Google sells user data, but that isn't true; user data is only used for ad personalization.

I also frequently see the claim that "Don't be evil" has been removed from Google's code of conduct, but it's still clearly visible in the document.

I hope we develop better tools to combat misinformation in the next few years, because social media is far too effective at propagating it. For every person that verifies and corrects a claim, there's ten others who will gladly repeat it. This is especially problematic when there's a bias to exploit, be it political or otherwise.

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."

[kortilla]

> Google sells user data, but that isn't true; user data is only used for ad personalization.

That is selling user data. It’s just got a layer of bullshit in between.

As long as Google offers ways to target ads at specific demographics, they are selling that demographic indicator about you whenever you click on one of those ads.

[SquareWheel]

If your data isn't being sold, then no, they're not selling user data. That's changing the meaning of language to make it sound worse than it really is.

You might argue that this data is being leaked, but that isn't clear either. Ads work on an auction system, and there's no guarantee that a user clicking an ad meets a demographic. You'd need to make a case that user data can be accurately built from buying ads alone.

Even if you could prove that, that's _still_ different than the claim that Google is selling user data directly.

[kortilla]

> If your data isn't being sold, then no, they're not selling user data.

That’s just phrasing to attempt to weasel out of the fact that it’s selling the ability to derive the user data. It’s effectively the same thing with a layer of indirection.

> Ads work on an auction system, and there's no guarantee that a user clicking an ad meets a demographic.

Auction system is irrelevant. Unless Google is ignoring your target demographic and keywords entirely, they are selling you a stream of traffic that matches that demographic on average.

[mike_hearn]

That's not a social media problem. The claim that Google sells user data came from the traditional news Big Media outlets like the NYT and WSJ. I remember when it started actually: it happened around the time Google News launched. The narrative in the media industry became very quickly "Google is making tons of money whilst we're going through huge layoffs" and the media spin went from highly positive to very negative at dizzying speed.

A major inflection point was when Rupert Murdoch gave a speech proclaiming the iPad was the future of news and Google was some sort of parasite sucking the blood of journalists. The tone of the output from his newspapers changed overnight and they immediately started digging around for largely fake 'scandals'. The rest of the news industry didn't need much persuading and the rest is history.

Claims you see on social media since then are largely just repeating the media's talking points. It's not like it originated there.

[bawolff]

> Google sells user data, but that isn't true; user data is only used for ad personalization.

I mean, i guess that's a lot better in principle, but it still seems like basically the same thing with an extra layer of indirection. It certainly doesn't give me warm fuzzy feelings about google.

[kopakabana]

> Google sells user data, but that isn't true; user data is only used for ad personalization.

And other companies getting referrals can’t connect the dots when they know the user clicking on the AdWords Ad and what the Ad was for?

Companies that work with big data companies run AdWords campaigns in Google for other companies, right?

Even if Google isn’t evil and does everything in the interest of privacy, if their ads, based on your preferences from your emails and browsing history, are used to direct you to some product, there is a way that other companies will learn of those preferences, store them, sell them, and use them.

[jayd16]

How is that a Google problem and not simply the other company tracking their own customers?

[visarga]

Google is targeting the ads, with each targeted ad they leak personal information about the users. Advertisers only have to pay and Google tells them who's matching whatever demographic they want. On the other hand print and billboard ads don't reveal personal information to the advertisers.

[HideousKojima]

IIRC the confusion over "Don't Be Evil" started due to changes by Google's parent company Alphabet when they restructured.

[SquareWheel]

I think so too. Alphabet does have their own Code of Conduct, but it is an additional document. It didn't replace the original.

https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/

https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct/

[P_I_Staker]

Also (and keep in mind I'm just repeating the rumor) wasn't it supposedly replaced with the slogan "do the right thing"? It was something else fairly harmless.

[SquareWheel]

Not quite. That's the slogan used by Google's parent company, Alphabet. It never replaced Google's slogan which remains the same today.