[dkei]

Post should be dated with "(2013)" appendage.

What's with these endless bouts of Google-hate on HN? seemingly if there isn't anything going on at the moment someone would readily whip something out from the archives just to keep the Google-bashing going and they will be generously rewarded with karma.

What have they ever done to you?!

[rayiner]

> What have they ever done to you?!

I don't dislike Google, but I think it's a problem that the vast majority of its users couldn't precisely articulate exactly how Google uses all the personal data they collect, from documents, searches, e-mails, phone usage, etc.

And I think it's improper to rely on the "people use Google voluntarily" canard. It's a classic case of information asymmetry: Google has all the information about how it uses personal data, and consumers don't. While I imagine most consumers understand that if they search for "laundry detergent" Google might show them ads for "Tide," what Google does goes far beyond that and I think very few people really understand what they are bargaining away in return for using their services.

[FireBeyond]

Is there really a notable portion of HN users who are living in blissful ignorance of Google's business model?

I understand writing such articles for general interest, but not sure, like the parent said about serial re-hashing of the same for the audience here.

[dkei]

Is it a Google specific issue though? I mean there is a policy users could read, they have the dashboard, transparency reports, bug trackers, forums, blog posts, the works, probably more than anyone else offers.

Also there are the many articles the keep popping up about Google with various motivations behind them, I think "people" are more "aware" than you give them credit for.

Also don't you think that data is/are a major part of the functionality of these products? they operate on data, data collection isn't a side effect but it's built into the utility of such services almost by definition.

[rayiner]

At the end of the day, people don't read privacy policies.[1] They depend on intuition: if I watch a lot of cat videos on Youtube, I might get ads for cat products. When your data analysis goes outside the boundaries of what users would intuitively expect based on their knowing,[2] and voluntary interactions with your service, then I think you're on shaky ground.

And no, it's not a Google-specific problem. Google is just the face of this new industry based on privacy-monetization, and the criticism it gets is to be expected based on its leadership position.

[1] And I think it's wrong-headed to infer consent from inaction.

[2] When you're talking about, e.g., Android, many users don't even realize they're interacting with Google services.

[final]

Hah, so now setting up your own email server is Google bashing, running Linux is Microsoft bashing and drinking water is Coca-Cola bashing ...

[dkei]

Maybe if you take this post as a singular occurrence but I've noticed many such post in the last week alone.

[final]

That doesn't surprise me. Google and the hacker/startup community have vastly different and often opposing interests.

In the end Google is the biggest advertising agency in the world. Advertising makes money by pushing people to make irrational choices - buy products and services that they don't need; buy from the vendor with bigger marketing budget, rather than superior engineering; overspend on stuff they need - e.g. cars, etc.

[dkei]

Google is not an "advertising agency", that is a specific thing. What they are is a mainly ad supported medium which is what most internet services are, same as TV/Radio/Newspapers/Mags etc.

Airing out philosophical and theoretical disagreements with the ad model is merely a rationalization after the fact in this situation.

[final]

What are you trying to say? I should shut up, because nobody cares about my opinion or something else?