How Google Discovered the Value of Surveillance(longreads.com)
longreads.com
How Google Discovered the Value of Surveillance
https://longreads.com/2019/09/05/how-google-discovered-the-value-of-surveillance/
90 comments
I quit Google because I could no longer be a part of the dystopian nightmare they envision as their version of the Nerd Paradise.
You have no idea how strong the reality distortion field is inside of that bubble. Googlers are breathtakingly naive about how the line has been pushed by the senior leadership in order to go from being mere billionaires to mega billionaires.
And it's not that hard to see the mental model and economic conditions that gave rise to this situation.
Assumption 1: Technology is a universal good.
Assumption 2: Centralization is the most efficient mode of operation. (this follows directly from the mission to "Organize the world's information")
Assumption 3: A dumb mantra like "Don't be evil", like intentions matter, and actions don't.
Assumption 4: A centralized data-driven computer system makes the best decisions.
Assumption 5: If the market rewards it, it's moral.
Assumption 6: The more you know about people, the better you can manipulate them (c.f. showing them "more relevant" ads)
Conclusion: Google knows best for everyone, its AI should run the whole world, and since it has a crapton of money, it must be right.
Just pump that 25% year-over-year growth long enough, and you have a sprawling multi-national entity that literally knows everything about everyone. What they search for, what they buy, every website they ever visit, how long they stay there, and how they interact with it, what they watch, what music they like, who they talk to and what about, who they spend their time with, and where, exactly, to the meter, they are every single second of every day, what they look like, what they like to take pictures of, what their voice sounds like, their credit history, criminal backgrounds, and soon, their DNA.
The world doesn't need Google to know this shit. I don't need Google to know this shit about me in order for it to tell me what Katy Perry's second album is named. For fuck sake, we need to stop this.
You have no idea how strong the reality distortion field is inside of that bubble. Googlers are breathtakingly naive about how the line has been pushed by the senior leadership in order to go from being mere billionaires to mega billionaires.
And it's not that hard to see the mental model and economic conditions that gave rise to this situation.
Assumption 1: Technology is a universal good.
Assumption 2: Centralization is the most efficient mode of operation. (this follows directly from the mission to "Organize the world's information")
Assumption 3: A dumb mantra like "Don't be evil", like intentions matter, and actions don't.
Assumption 4: A centralized data-driven computer system makes the best decisions.
Assumption 5: If the market rewards it, it's moral.
Assumption 6: The more you know about people, the better you can manipulate them (c.f. showing them "more relevant" ads)
Conclusion: Google knows best for everyone, its AI should run the whole world, and since it has a crapton of money, it must be right.
Just pump that 25% year-over-year growth long enough, and you have a sprawling multi-national entity that literally knows everything about everyone. What they search for, what they buy, every website they ever visit, how long they stay there, and how they interact with it, what they watch, what music they like, who they talk to and what about, who they spend their time with, and where, exactly, to the meter, they are every single second of every day, what they look like, what they like to take pictures of, what their voice sounds like, their credit history, criminal backgrounds, and soon, their DNA.
The world doesn't need Google to know this shit. I don't need Google to know this shit about me in order for it to tell me what Katy Perry's second album is named. For fuck sake, we need to stop this.
Your list doesn't really look that damning. All of them are true to a large extent (I suppose they wouldn't be enticing to smart people if they were completely wrong).
The actual cause of Google's bad behavior isn't on the list, though it's hinted by Assumption 6. Namely, Google decided to become an advertising business at its core. When your very essence is poisoned, it's only matter of time when ethics go out of the window, and business practices become increasingly abusive.
The actual cause of Google's bad behavior isn't on the list, though it's hinted by Assumption 6. Namely, Google decided to become an advertising business at its core. When your very essence is poisoned, it's only matter of time when ethics go out of the window, and business practices become increasingly abusive.
Exactly. That's what doomed it. Same with Facebook. There is no way to run an ethical business when your core business model is advertising. It's hard enough when you run a company whose income relies on advertising (like a newspaper), but impossible when you yourself make advertising your primary feature.
I honestly, personally, would not care much if Google had a lot of information about me if their goal was something other than influencing me to buy products and services. I know many others are uncomfortable with any sort of privacy loss, but for me, it depends entirely on the end goal and exact nature of the data usage. And for others, they should have an easy universal opt-out (e.g. disabling all Google Analytics tracking without having to install a Google browser extension: https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/181881).
I honestly, personally, would not care much if Google had a lot of information about me if their goal was something other than influencing me to buy products and services. I know many others are uncomfortable with any sort of privacy loss, but for me, it depends entirely on the end goal and exact nature of the data usage. And for others, they should have an easy universal opt-out (e.g. disabling all Google Analytics tracking without having to install a Google browser extension: https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/181881).
> would not care much if Google had a lot of information about me if their goal was something other than influencing me to buy products and services
Ironically, I'm the opposite. I don't care about the advertising targeted at me (I pretty much never bought anything based on targeted advertising). I worry about the knowledge about someone being used to hurt them.
For example, a professor once said that each of us commits 3 felonies a day. With perfect knowledge of people, it brings the specter of selective enforcement. That selective enforcement can be used to blackmail/extort/manipulate anyone you want to.
For a fictional example, check out the TV series "Suits". The "good guys" are always turning the tables on the "bad guys" by digging into their past and finding dirt on them. And vice versa. It's the plot of pretty much every episode. (But of course the good guys do this for good, and the bad guys use it for bad. But in real life, this isn't so simple.)
Even if you think outing people for doing bad things is always a good thing, the data collected on people is often wrong, and innocents get hurt as well. The definition of what is "bad" also shifts over time.
Ironically, I'm the opposite. I don't care about the advertising targeted at me (I pretty much never bought anything based on targeted advertising). I worry about the knowledge about someone being used to hurt them.
For example, a professor once said that each of us commits 3 felonies a day. With perfect knowledge of people, it brings the specter of selective enforcement. That selective enforcement can be used to blackmail/extort/manipulate anyone you want to.
For a fictional example, check out the TV series "Suits". The "good guys" are always turning the tables on the "bad guys" by digging into their past and finding dirt on them. And vice versa. It's the plot of pretty much every episode. (But of course the good guys do this for good, and the bad guys use it for bad. But in real life, this isn't so simple.)
Even if you think outing people for doing bad things is always a good thing, the data collected on people is often wrong, and innocents get hurt as well. The definition of what is "bad" also shifts over time.
Agreed. Moreover, if their core business model wasn't related to advertising, their data collection practices could (and probably would) have looked much different. For instance, there's no reason to be opaque about exactly what data you collect, or to make the collection enabled by default, or apply dark patterns coercing people to opt back in when they opt out, etc. - no reason to do all that, if the data isn't used for shady purposes.
> And for others, they should have an easy universal opt-out (e.g. disabling all Google Analytics tracking without having to install a Google browser extension
Problem with that is you'd require installing yet another cookie, which is another data point to fingerprint people.
Problem with that is you'd require installing yet another cookie, which is another data point to fingerprint people.
Or, they could just start voluntarily respecting the DNT header.
Let's not and make that a legal (and legally punishable) mandate.
…which some browsers have already started removing.
Then it should be opt-in. If you don't have the "I opted in" cookie, then you aren't subjected to the surveillance.
> Namely, Google decided to become an advertising business at its core.
That's a massive bingo right there. And engineers at the company really don't grok this at all.
That's a massive bingo right there. And engineers at the company really don't grok this at all.
The content of your response is so divergent than what I have heard from people working at Google that I interact with, both personally and professionally, that I find it difficult to believe you actually spent a significant amount of time (if any) at Google.
1. I've never heard anyone say or imply that technology is universally good. I've heard people talk about how making information readily available and accessible to all is good (though people disagree on how universally to apply it).
2. As far as centralization, from the things I've heard it seems that centralization is considered bad. Everything needs to be distributed, standardized, and redundant. Yes, they seem to like to keep things organized, but apparently they'd rather do it in a heterogeneously distributed manner (like each user request creates many internal requests to different functions and then the result is stitched together).
3. "Don't be evil" seems to be interpreted in the "Don't do evil things" sense instead of "Don't be motivated by evil".
4. I would say a "data-driven system" makes the best decision is the closest I could find to your assumption, and I would tend to agree with them.
5. I've never heard of anything like that. I have heard people mention things that Google could do but doesn't since it is considered not good -- an example of this is that there seems to be high level opposition to using browser fingerprinting for getting around browser cookie blocking for advertising (despite already having developed state of the art techniques that are used in anti-abuse).
6. This might be the closest assumption you have, actually, since it depends on your definition of manipulation. If you ask me if fire is hot and I teach you that fire is dangerously hot (and maybe also provide some example sets of protective items and clothing you could use to work with fire to mitigate the danger), I have likely manipulated you into not getting burned later. So sorry that I'm so manipulative ;)
1. I've never heard anyone say or imply that technology is universally good. I've heard people talk about how making information readily available and accessible to all is good (though people disagree on how universally to apply it).
2. As far as centralization, from the things I've heard it seems that centralization is considered bad. Everything needs to be distributed, standardized, and redundant. Yes, they seem to like to keep things organized, but apparently they'd rather do it in a heterogeneously distributed manner (like each user request creates many internal requests to different functions and then the result is stitched together).
3. "Don't be evil" seems to be interpreted in the "Don't do evil things" sense instead of "Don't be motivated by evil".
4. I would say a "data-driven system" makes the best decision is the closest I could find to your assumption, and I would tend to agree with them.
5. I've never heard of anything like that. I have heard people mention things that Google could do but doesn't since it is considered not good -- an example of this is that there seems to be high level opposition to using browser fingerprinting for getting around browser cookie blocking for advertising (despite already having developed state of the art techniques that are used in anti-abuse).
6. This might be the closest assumption you have, actually, since it depends on your definition of manipulation. If you ask me if fire is hot and I teach you that fire is dangerously hot (and maybe also provide some example sets of protective items and clothing you could use to work with fire to mitigate the danger), I have likely manipulated you into not getting burned later. So sorry that I'm so manipulative ;)
> Everything needs to be distributed, standardized, and redundant.
Being distributed within a single company's data centres is still centralisation.
Being distributed within a single company's data centres is still centralisation.
For point 2, I think they mean in terms of product and not code, ie. "Google should create a centralized social platform (G+)" vs "Google should create a federated social platform or contribute to existing federated platforms (Mastodon)".
> "Don't be evil" seems to be interpreted in the "Don't do evil things" sense instead of "Don't be motivated by evil".
You are what you do.
You are what you do.
> 2. As far as centralization, from the things I've heard it seems that centralization is considered bad. Everything needs to be distributed, standardized, and redundant.
I feel like this has to be a willful misunderstanding of the parent comment. Why would the comment above you, in talking about Google's moral vision and action, be referring to the actual architecture of servers and code? Clearly they are talking about "centralizing" as in "if we can gather all the information together, and all our services can share information, then...."
The wiring of the data centers is irrelevant.
I feel like this has to be a willful misunderstanding of the parent comment. Why would the comment above you, in talking about Google's moral vision and action, be referring to the actual architecture of servers and code? Clearly they are talking about "centralizing" as in "if we can gather all the information together, and all our services can share information, then...."
The wiring of the data centers is irrelevant.
Not gonna get between you two, it could also be that you are a Googler and are thus inside the reality distortion bubble. Or maybe merely a SV resident. It's gonna twist your perception in ways you cannot even see until you're outside of that lens. Google has a tendency to take over people's lives. Googlers so often have only other Googlers as friends, eat 2 or even 3 meals a day there, the company is overly concerned with your well-being and work-life balance, etc. Part of your underlying point seems to be that since Google is made up of seemingly nice and well-meaning people that it couldn't possibly be a horrible thing. I'd argue that it is instead the configuration of people and its incentives that can turn something truly horrible. (something like the infamous prisoner experiment, but milder: Google essentially presents an internal narrative about its own virtuosity and need to scale and swallow the world) And I'd agree with the OP that the senior leadership is mostly concerned with scaling either their own fortunes or the company's bottom line.
1. Sure they don't say that out loud. It's just an assumption baked so deeply into the mindset that no one even considers it a thing worth openly stating or questioning. And others might quibble about making information universally accessible being wonderful. A lot of information is misinformed propaganda. Look at flat earth videos.
2. You are talking about decentralization (and replication) as a means of implementing robustness. You fundamentally misunderstood what this person was saying.
5. There are a massive number of free market libertarian types when it comes to economics, especially among the upper management.
Someone else pointed out that none of these assumptions are all that damning. I agree, they aren't. And I agree that the OP missed that Google's fundamental sin was its decision to be, at its core, an ad company. Googlers definitely don't understand that, either.
1. Sure they don't say that out loud. It's just an assumption baked so deeply into the mindset that no one even considers it a thing worth openly stating or questioning. And others might quibble about making information universally accessible being wonderful. A lot of information is misinformed propaganda. Look at flat earth videos.
2. You are talking about decentralization (and replication) as a means of implementing robustness. You fundamentally misunderstood what this person was saying.
5. There are a massive number of free market libertarian types when it comes to economics, especially among the upper management.
Someone else pointed out that none of these assumptions are all that damning. I agree, they aren't. And I agree that the OP missed that Google's fundamental sin was its decision to be, at its core, an ad company. Googlers definitely don't understand that, either.
>The content of your response is so divergent than what I have heard from people working at Google
Fair enough, but what do you hear from people who don't work at google?
I assume a lot don't care about tracking and the few that do.. though luck? Get used to it?
It's being sold to us as personalized advertising and somehow we're being told that everyone wants it. Is it really that strange for someone to say that they don't want it?
Fair enough, but what do you hear from people who don't work at google?
I assume a lot don't care about tracking and the few that do.. though luck? Get used to it?
It's being sold to us as personalized advertising and somehow we're being told that everyone wants it. Is it really that strange for someone to say that they don't want it?
> If the market rewards it, it's moral.
This is a very common stance. It's also, in my opinion, the core rot that is setting the tech industry up for a huge (and entirely justified) comeuppance.
This is a very common stance. It's also, in my opinion, the core rot that is setting the tech industry up for a huge (and entirely justified) comeuppance.
This won't be isolated to the tech industry. This is rot at the core of capitalism itself. As long as people worship money as the only real God, it's fine. But that sentiment is in rapid decline with the young.
A large number of people have left Google after their understanding of the larger context changed.
When I was there in the late 2000's I recognized that their internal and external narrative was very carefully constructed. For me, that is always a red flag as it suggests there is an alternative narrative that might not be quite so flattering, if not downright bad.
That isn't to say that they "lied" or they mislead, just that they consistently worked to emphasize information that fed the narrative they liked, and downplayed information that suggested other narratives might be more accurate.
I related some of this to a coworker at Google using an example that a friend of mine on the police force of Nashville gave me. He said, "I can tell you that this woman just picked up a gun and shot this guy in cold blood. Three people saw her, and she has admitted to doing it. She's a murderer right? That is a narrative. If I add in the fact that just prior to shooting the victim the woman had freed herself from a rope restraint system, and that the victim had kidnapped her and was holding her as a sex slave, now she is a hero right? The narrative changes. The fact that she killed him are the same, but the narrative is much different."
I was having this conversation with my friend in the context of how difficult policing could be. There are people who construct narratives around the facts they choose to present in order to construct an emotion in the listener.
Countering narratives require that more facts be made available. My Grandfather was a US Attorney and a big believer in honesty as the best policy, he would say "The truth of a matter doesn't change when you add additional facts." It took me a long time to appreciate the depth of that statement.
The issue of narratives is further compounded if one side of the situation is constrained in supplying additional facts, like the police are about on-going investigations and Google employees are by their non-disclosure agreements. It gives an advantage to the side not so constrained to construct their narrative the way they want to construct it without fear of contradiction.
I was told by a member of one of Google's many internal committees that I was considered something of a "trouble maker" for asking questions that "suggested the company was hiding something, even though I had no evidence to back up those suggestions." I appreciated that they were trying to help me be more successful at Google, but to be honest that was a reasonable characterization of my actions. Although the questions I asked tended to relate to a particular piece of data or fact that was missing and might change the current narrative.
My assumption going in was that if there was a data point missing from the discussion, and I could see how that data point would change the narrative, then the entity constructing the narrative was likely hiding something. I generally want to know that data point because I prefer to make my own judgement based on all of that facts that are knowable rather than accept someone else's judgement using only facts they provide.
Pro tip, this always bothers people who carefully construct narratives to serve their agenda :-) So don't do it unless you are okay with the person seeing you as a threat.
When I was there in the late 2000's I recognized that their internal and external narrative was very carefully constructed. For me, that is always a red flag as it suggests there is an alternative narrative that might not be quite so flattering, if not downright bad.
That isn't to say that they "lied" or they mislead, just that they consistently worked to emphasize information that fed the narrative they liked, and downplayed information that suggested other narratives might be more accurate.
I related some of this to a coworker at Google using an example that a friend of mine on the police force of Nashville gave me. He said, "I can tell you that this woman just picked up a gun and shot this guy in cold blood. Three people saw her, and she has admitted to doing it. She's a murderer right? That is a narrative. If I add in the fact that just prior to shooting the victim the woman had freed herself from a rope restraint system, and that the victim had kidnapped her and was holding her as a sex slave, now she is a hero right? The narrative changes. The fact that she killed him are the same, but the narrative is much different."
I was having this conversation with my friend in the context of how difficult policing could be. There are people who construct narratives around the facts they choose to present in order to construct an emotion in the listener.
Countering narratives require that more facts be made available. My Grandfather was a US Attorney and a big believer in honesty as the best policy, he would say "The truth of a matter doesn't change when you add additional facts." It took me a long time to appreciate the depth of that statement.
The issue of narratives is further compounded if one side of the situation is constrained in supplying additional facts, like the police are about on-going investigations and Google employees are by their non-disclosure agreements. It gives an advantage to the side not so constrained to construct their narrative the way they want to construct it without fear of contradiction.
I was told by a member of one of Google's many internal committees that I was considered something of a "trouble maker" for asking questions that "suggested the company was hiding something, even though I had no evidence to back up those suggestions." I appreciated that they were trying to help me be more successful at Google, but to be honest that was a reasonable characterization of my actions. Although the questions I asked tended to relate to a particular piece of data or fact that was missing and might change the current narrative.
My assumption going in was that if there was a data point missing from the discussion, and I could see how that data point would change the narrative, then the entity constructing the narrative was likely hiding something. I generally want to know that data point because I prefer to make my own judgement based on all of that facts that are knowable rather than accept someone else's judgement using only facts they provide.
Pro tip, this always bothers people who carefully construct narratives to serve their agenda :-) So don't do it unless you are okay with the person seeing you as a threat.
The fact that the woman did something wrong does not change, but the law make distinctions and things like mitigating or even eliminating the punishment around some situations like you state.
That is there are some new facts that could mitigate or even justify another fact or actions.
For example, if you enter a private property in the US with a gun(in order to steal, or kidnap or kill) the property owner can kill you. Which is a bad thing, but is justified by the fact that someone entered your property armed without your permission.
In some counties in Europe, if you use the force against someone that carries a weapon in your own property, and you kill this person, you go to jail!! And have to indemnify the robber!!
Yes, you do something that is very bad, but you were forced to do it by someone who wanted to profit doing something bad to you. It would be worse doing nothing.
The same happens in wars. Americans invaded Europe and killed (and raped) thousands of thousands of Europeans. That was terrible and wrong. But it was done because someone (Hitler) did it first to other countries in Europe, like Poland and France.(It would have been worse not doing something)
No soldier went to jail for killing enemies(or raping their daughters and wifes).
Another example is police men. They carry weapons(that kill) and they have to use them if necessary, even if it is wrong.
The narrative that you imply is actually creating stories(and facts) that justify your behavior that are actually false.
You know Hitler used german soldiers disguised as Polish in order to justify invading Poland?
He used the fire in the Reichstag fire as Narrative for taking absolute power.
That was stated already by Napoleon, who believed before invading a country you needed a pretext(A narrative) something he learnned from his favorite book, The Prince of Macciavelo.
Today of course those narratives continue existing. Most Americans agreed on Invading Iraq because 9-11. The invasion was planned in words of the secretary of State Defense years before the 9-11 attack. The fact that the country is 2000 miles away from where the terrorist came from (an US allied country) and that they are populated mostly by another faction of Islam didn't matter the least.
But narratives are not bad, if they are true. It is only when they are fabricated when they are terrible wrong.
That is there are some new facts that could mitigate or even justify another fact or actions.
For example, if you enter a private property in the US with a gun(in order to steal, or kidnap or kill) the property owner can kill you. Which is a bad thing, but is justified by the fact that someone entered your property armed without your permission.
In some counties in Europe, if you use the force against someone that carries a weapon in your own property, and you kill this person, you go to jail!! And have to indemnify the robber!!
Yes, you do something that is very bad, but you were forced to do it by someone who wanted to profit doing something bad to you. It would be worse doing nothing.
The same happens in wars. Americans invaded Europe and killed (and raped) thousands of thousands of Europeans. That was terrible and wrong. But it was done because someone (Hitler) did it first to other countries in Europe, like Poland and France.(It would have been worse not doing something)
No soldier went to jail for killing enemies(or raping their daughters and wifes).
Another example is police men. They carry weapons(that kill) and they have to use them if necessary, even if it is wrong.
The narrative that you imply is actually creating stories(and facts) that justify your behavior that are actually false.
You know Hitler used german soldiers disguised as Polish in order to justify invading Poland?
He used the fire in the Reichstag fire as Narrative for taking absolute power.
That was stated already by Napoleon, who believed before invading a country you needed a pretext(A narrative) something he learnned from his favorite book, The Prince of Macciavelo.
Today of course those narratives continue existing. Most Americans agreed on Invading Iraq because 9-11. The invasion was planned in words of the secretary of State Defense years before the 9-11 attack. The fact that the country is 2000 miles away from where the terrorist came from (an US allied country) and that they are populated mostly by another faction of Islam didn't matter the least.
But narratives are not bad, if they are true. It is only when they are fabricated when they are terrible wrong.
I mean, this is the dream of pretty much all technologists.
Humans cannot achieve homo economicus status on our own, we need a machine oracle to give us directions.
Humans cannot achieve homo economicus status on our own, we need a machine oracle to give us directions.
I agree with almost all of your post, except this:
> The only reason the tech industry uses [Apple's] products is because of its inherent qualities. No one had to be tricked into liking them. And they've always been honest about this.
This is not entirely true. There's a lot of snobbery, marketing and heavy-handed "evangelism" about using Apple products. This is more conspicuous in the case of personal use, but it happens even for professional use. I know this discussion often devolves into flamewars and endless arguing about the perceived vs real value of luxury items like Apple's, but at least you must concede this: it's a highly contested subject whether Apple's products are as good quality and reliable as their price tag and status would have you believe. Not saying they aren't -- if you press me I'll say so, of course -- just saying it's a contested issue.
> The only reason the tech industry uses [Apple's] products is because of its inherent qualities. No one had to be tricked into liking them. And they've always been honest about this.
This is not entirely true. There's a lot of snobbery, marketing and heavy-handed "evangelism" about using Apple products. This is more conspicuous in the case of personal use, but it happens even for professional use. I know this discussion often devolves into flamewars and endless arguing about the perceived vs real value of luxury items like Apple's, but at least you must concede this: it's a highly contested subject whether Apple's products are as good quality and reliable as their price tag and status would have you believe. Not saying they aren't -- if you press me I'll say so, of course -- just saying it's a contested issue.
>There's a lot of snobbery, marketing and heavy-handed "evangelism" about using Apple products.
I think I covered this with:
>It's always been confident, others would say arrogant about its products.
They've always used effusive marketing about their products but I just think that makes them good at marketing. If the products weren't good they'd never have had any success, especially over a sustained multi decade period. Even tech people who have an aversion to the proprietary, appliance-like nature of their products started using them in the early 2000s because it was UNIXy and they realized what a pain in the ass it was to use something like Linux on their laptop or desktop. My point is that the fundamental relationship between Apple and the tech industry was honest. You might not like what Apple represents but you bought the products because you liked them because of its inherent qualities.
All the people that go to work at Apple are there because they probably used Apple products as a child/teen and they want to work on them. Apple didn't court them with a con.
I think I covered this with:
>It's always been confident, others would say arrogant about its products.
They've always used effusive marketing about their products but I just think that makes them good at marketing. If the products weren't good they'd never have had any success, especially over a sustained multi decade period. Even tech people who have an aversion to the proprietary, appliance-like nature of their products started using them in the early 2000s because it was UNIXy and they realized what a pain in the ass it was to use something like Linux on their laptop or desktop. My point is that the fundamental relationship between Apple and the tech industry was honest. You might not like what Apple represents but you bought the products because you liked them because of its inherent qualities.
All the people that go to work at Apple are there because they probably used Apple products as a child/teen and they want to work on them. Apple didn't court them with a con.
Well, to me the kind of marketing and evangelism needed to convince people that a standard product is actually higher end and higher quality than it actually is, and that they should buy it because of the status it signals, is a form of trickery. Yes, some call it "marketing" :)
Not the worst kind of trickery, mind you, but trickery nonetheless, and definitively annoying. And yes, Apple is extremely successful at this.
Not the worst kind of trickery, mind you, but trickery nonetheless, and definitively annoying. And yes, Apple is extremely successful at this.
I strongly disagree with that. Apple's marketing has always been honest. And talking about the honesty or transparency of the product marketing is kind of a surface level thing compared to what I'm really talking about, which is the kind of myths and narratives that these companies tell about themselves, as well as what others say about them.
I think there's something more fundamentally deceptive about how Google has carried themselves out to be for the past 20 years than there is with Apple. And I think you're actually seeing the result of that now with the turmoil that's been taking place for the past couple of years at Google.
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery...
I think there's something more fundamentally deceptive about how Google has carried themselves out to be for the past 20 years than there is with Apple. And I think you're actually seeing the result of that now with the turmoil that's been taking place for the past couple of years at Google.
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery...
To be clear: I agree with you about Google.
[deleted]
I disagree completely.
First, stop using the term "marketing" for "sales and advertisements". It is not.
Real Marketting is "the study of the markets", that is, what people need or wants. Apple in times of Steve Jobs was amazing in Real Marketing.
Apple created revolutionary new products like the mac, Ipod, Iphone, Ipad that sold (and curently sell) in the tens of millions each year. No other company has been able to do so at that scale.
Lots of people wrongly believe that people is brainwashed to buy what they don't want or need, because they don't understand.
They do not understand that it is the other way around. You design what is going to be sold like hotcakes. Because people want it or need it.
It is not even a secret: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE
By the way for a lot of years I wanted a laptop that was done in metal(instead of using plastic with flame retardants) and Apple was the only one doing it. With batteries that lasted lots of hours, lightweight, and silent.
Those were essential for me as a traveler. People that could not understand would believe(because they did not have my needs) I was stupid for buying something 3x more expensive than a 3kgs crappy plastic laptop.
First, stop using the term "marketing" for "sales and advertisements". It is not.
Real Marketting is "the study of the markets", that is, what people need or wants. Apple in times of Steve Jobs was amazing in Real Marketing.
Apple created revolutionary new products like the mac, Ipod, Iphone, Ipad that sold (and curently sell) in the tens of millions each year. No other company has been able to do so at that scale.
Lots of people wrongly believe that people is brainwashed to buy what they don't want or need, because they don't understand.
They do not understand that it is the other way around. You design what is going to be sold like hotcakes. Because people want it or need it.
It is not even a secret: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE
By the way for a lot of years I wanted a laptop that was done in metal(instead of using plastic with flame retardants) and Apple was the only one doing it. With batteries that lasted lots of hours, lightweight, and silent.
Those were essential for me as a traveler. People that could not understand would believe(because they did not have my needs) I was stupid for buying something 3x more expensive than a 3kgs crappy plastic laptop.
[deleted]
> There's never been a bait and switch. It's always been proprietary.
Originally, the iPhone app ecosystem was supposed to be html5-based via Safari and the open web. https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
Originally, the iPhone app ecosystem was supposed to be html5-based via Safari and the open web. https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
>Apple ... never tried to cloak themselves with the mantle of open source.
No, although they weren't shy about having built OS X on top of open source technology [0]. I really miss those days, when they built beautiful computers that were rock solid hardware-wise.
[0]: http://xahlee.info/i/apple_unix_ad-s.jpg
No, although they weren't shy about having built OS X on top of open source technology [0]. I really miss those days, when they built beautiful computers that were rock solid hardware-wise.
[0]: http://xahlee.info/i/apple_unix_ad-s.jpg
This is what keeps me up at night these days. Between information gerrymandering, the quest for increased engagement, uncanny valleys, de-platforming and so forth I wonder how it will affect our ability to avoid misinformation, have original ideas, and not descend into some weird form of chaos a la Idiocracy (2006).
If anyone is passionate about trying to find ways to treat people like individual humans again, please reach out to me. I want to solve this problem by creating a business that's sustainable and better than the Google/FB approach.
If anyone is passionate about trying to find ways to treat people like individual humans again, please reach out to me. I want to solve this problem by creating a business that's sustainable and better than the Google/FB approach.
One way developers and product managers can help craft the world you envision is to exercise good moral judgement when confronted with choices that may lead to degraded sovereignty of personal data. The same way a civil engineer ought not sign off on a bridge design that's compromised.
I realize not everyone is in a position to take a stand, and some will argue others will inevitably step in to do the shady deed. Keep in mind bold actions of integrity will often inspire others.
I realize not everyone is in a position to take a stand, and some will argue others will inevitably step in to do the shady deed. Keep in mind bold actions of integrity will often inspire others.
It's really, really hard to do this when it goes against the bottom line, no matter how good of a person you are.
The company will eventually act in ways that serve to increase revenue. Thus, if your incentives are misaligned, the actions you take to increase revenue will be harmful to users.
The company will eventually act in ways that serve to increase revenue. Thus, if your incentives are misaligned, the actions you take to increase revenue will be harmful to users.
Sometimes doing what's right lands you in prison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
It's important to reiterate that this isn't an issue with companies, nor with people per se. The issue is that the bottom line is the only incentive in capitalist economies.
One can dream up other forms of economies where the incentive would not be there. Some have already been discussed in great detail over the past couple centuries.
One can dream up other forms of economies where the incentive would not be there. Some have already been discussed in great detail over the past couple centuries.
It's interesting to see number of ultra-wealthy individuals who refocus their lives on philanthropy. Perhaps there's a point at which reputation and "good karma" became a more valuable commodity.
The extra problem here is: can the alternative forms of economy survive in competition with capitalism? If not, then they're unfortunately a non-starter.
(It's like with what is said about early humans discovering agriculture. Settling down and growing crops led to worse health and less happy life than hunter-gathering, but still gave people competitive advantage over the societies that did not make the transition.)
(It's like with what is said about early humans discovering agriculture. Settling down and growing crops led to worse health and less happy life than hunter-gathering, but still gave people competitive advantage over the societies that did not make the transition.)
This is exactly the reason the USSR fell. Sure, a lot of morally reprehensible actions were performed on innocent citizens, but that's not what actually ended it. The US et al. fought the USSR by destroying their crops and imposing high tariffs. The USSR couldn't produce everything it needed and so suffered because it still had to defer to the capitalist nations for the rest (who were, measured using the capitalist GDP metric, accelerating far in front of the USSR). The "communism" employed by the leaders of the USSR wasn't as profit-hungry as other strategies and so the federation suffered.
there are corporate structures that allow for decisions that aren't profit-seeking above all else. private corps and social purpose corps, are just two types:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_purpose_corporation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_purpose_corporation
There's a HUGE difference in those.
A civil engineer can analyze a structure an say "based on dimensions, projected load, etc, etc this is likely to fail in these ways" and there are estimates, measurements and equations to back up the conclusion. More importantly, since they're based on physical principles, other civil engineers can repeat the analysis and should get the same conclusion.
But "good moral judgement" is an entirely subjective term. Whether you grew up atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, agnostic, etc, etc or have a drive to improve the world or silence dissenting or harmful ideas or or or.. will have a major impact in what you consider, how you analyze, and therefore the conclusion you come to. And my conclusion - or even your conclusion a year from now - may not be the same.
Ethics and morality is not science and can't be reduced to a simple, repeatable equation.
A civil engineer can analyze a structure an say "based on dimensions, projected load, etc, etc this is likely to fail in these ways" and there are estimates, measurements and equations to back up the conclusion. More importantly, since they're based on physical principles, other civil engineers can repeat the analysis and should get the same conclusion.
But "good moral judgement" is an entirely subjective term. Whether you grew up atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, agnostic, etc, etc or have a drive to improve the world or silence dissenting or harmful ideas or or or.. will have a major impact in what you consider, how you analyze, and therefore the conclusion you come to. And my conclusion - or even your conclusion a year from now - may not be the same.
Ethics and morality is not science and can't be reduced to a simple, repeatable equation.
[deleted]
You should reach out to the folks at https://teamhuman.fm/. Might be some connections you could make there along these lines.
[deleted]
Thanks for the info! I'll try reaching out, but I'm probably too small of a fish for them to be interested :)
Great way to make someone think you're too small of a fish is to outright say it!
I am afraid this business will fail (as a business). People, on average, prefer to have freebies at the expense of losing their privacy, than pay even a moderate amount for a service.
One can see this in how quickly various products fall when a free alternative exists. How many people buy an email client, for example?
One can see this in how quickly various products fall when a free alternative exists. How many people buy an email client, for example?
MS Windows is the great exception to this, where not only do they collect an inflated price for their software, they also spy on their users. So making money on the product is no guarantee that a software vendor won't also invade your privacy.
Apparently the key to success is to get corporate lock-in.
Apparently the key to success is to get corporate lock-in.
MS Windows builds on a very long history, which involves it positioning itself as the default OS on PCs (price bundled with the price of equipment), which led to a lot of software (games in particular) being written just for it. It also strongly benefited for being free for a sizable population of the world - by means of Microsoft not fighting rampant piracy of its systems.
Well the key difference is that on-paper anyway, MS claims they use telemetry to make Windows better and fix bugs, Google spies on you and your personal data so that they can sell your profile to the highest bidder who will attempt to convince you to open your wallet.
I think context matters here...
In the US, at least, debt is really high. There is a regular desire for "more". And to get "more" faster than previous generations did. All while the generations entering the workforce make less (when accounting for inflation) than previous generations did at the same age.
This can drive people to try to get more from "free" things. Things aren't "free" but instead you pay with something else you may not realize the consequence of.
It's almost a "privacy debt" instead of a financial one.
Any new thing to fight the paying with privacy instead of money model needs to start in a landscape like this.
In the US, at least, debt is really high. There is a regular desire for "more". And to get "more" faster than previous generations did. All while the generations entering the workforce make less (when accounting for inflation) than previous generations did at the same age.
This can drive people to try to get more from "free" things. Things aren't "free" but instead you pay with something else you may not realize the consequence of.
It's almost a "privacy debt" instead of a financial one.
Any new thing to fight the paying with privacy instead of money model needs to start in a landscape like this.
I'm trying to prove this hypothesis wrong :) Obviously it's a big experiment.
My belief is that with the right incentive system, and right messaging & social proof, you can fix the problem. We're not there yet, but we are seeing it work on a very small scale.
My belief is that with the right incentive system, and right messaging & social proof, you can fix the problem. We're not there yet, but we are seeing it work on a very small scale.
>I am afraid this business will fail (as a business). People, on average, prefer to have freebies at the expense of losing their privacy, than pay even a moderate amount for a service.
That is the current state yes, but I think that this was a manufactured type of psychology/expectation. I remember back in the day (90s 00s) when I used to install software for my family, one of my uncles was always flabbergasted that the software was free. "But why is it free?" "How do the make rent?!" I tried to explain the Hacker/OSS ethos and whatever else I could think of, but it never really sunk in for him.
I think paid software is going to make a comeback once clients realize that nobody except google (and a handful of companies) are actually benefiting from the pointless web surveillance. Hopefully that will happen when the tech industry stops giving Google a free pass for their spying and squarely puts them in the enemy camp...
That is the current state yes, but I think that this was a manufactured type of psychology/expectation. I remember back in the day (90s 00s) when I used to install software for my family, one of my uncles was always flabbergasted that the software was free. "But why is it free?" "How do the make rent?!" I tried to explain the Hacker/OSS ethos and whatever else I could think of, but it never really sunk in for him.
I think paid software is going to make a comeback once clients realize that nobody except google (and a handful of companies) are actually benefiting from the pointless web surveillance. Hopefully that will happen when the tech industry stops giving Google a free pass for their spying and squarely puts them in the enemy camp...
This has been true for a few decades, but it may not continue to be indefinitely.
Also, it’s worth asking wondering what percentage of users you need in order to make a huge impact even if most people continue to use free stuff.
My guess is that it could be as low as 1%.
Also, it’s worth asking wondering what percentage of users you need in order to make a huge impact even if most people continue to use free stuff.
My guess is that it could be as low as 1%.
Yep, I think you hit the nail on the head. When it comes to new companies and business models, timing is super important. A great example of this was the dotcom boom where you saw a bunch of companies with (arguably) the right idea go bust, and then years later another company picked up where they left off and succeeded.
you can be a 'good human' yourself, whatever that means. and if you start a business you can make an effort to try and be a 'good business', whatever that means. you won't earn billions, but perhaps can 'feel good about yourself', whatever that means.
You say as if it was all in GP's head, but being "a good human" and running a "good business" are concepts that are commonly understood, if a little fuzzy in the details. They're also the underpinning of society - the more good actors playing fair you have, the more stable and efficient a society is.
care to elaborate then? almost all decisions aren't as seemingly easy as you've stated. genuinely curious as most decisions straddle the whole "good" spectrum pretty seriously.
one thing i just went through: should i pick up the contract from a slightly less "good" org, or let 2 1099ers go, whose families will go without income for some period of time?
what's the good choice here in your opinion? or by good do you just mean non-cheating? is incorporating your company in a lower COL/higher talent area cheating in your eyes? etc. gets hairy quick.
one thing i just went through: should i pick up the contract from a slightly less "good" org, or let 2 1099ers go, whose families will go without income for some period of time?
what's the good choice here in your opinion? or by good do you just mean non-cheating? is incorporating your company in a lower COL/higher talent area cheating in your eyes? etc. gets hairy quick.
I don't think the decisions are easy. Especially under competitive pressure.
> one thing i just went through: should i pick up the contract from a slightly less "good" org, or let 2 1099ers go, whose families will go without income for some period of time?
Depends on the "slightly". If slightly enough, can you reject the contract and help these 1099ers find another contract, by e.g. referring them? I don't know the details of your situation and I'm not going to judge you either way.
I've been on the receiving end of a similar situation in that my boss once told me that there are troubles and he's looking for projects, and one potential contract that would be a good fit for my skills involved work on gambling machines. I refused on ethical grounds, and he later told me he was very happy that I did, because it didn't sit well with him either. Unfortunately, this ended up folding the company. Fortunately, he helped me move to another job and he got a job in a large shop himself, and from what I can tell, this ended up beneficial to everyone involved.
Besides these borderline situations, there's plenty in business world that's happening on the "bad" side. Like, does the grocery store next to my parents' house have to wash spoiling meat with a dish cleaner and sell it as fresh? Does the boss of a certain large secondhand book store in Poland have to mentally abuse his workers, exploiting the fact that he employs people from small towns who may have trouble finding a new job? Does he have to bribe local government inspector so that this doesn't get out[0]? Do restaurants have to offer "grilled" meat which really is microwaved meat with grill marks added with a sandwitch grill?
These are examples of clearly bad behavior. Whenever I befriend people working in any industry, I get to hear new stories like these. Companies doing that may get away with it on an open market, but these things do breed contempt. And come economic turmoil, people with pitchforks won't be checking if you were the (perceivably) rare entrepreneur that was good and honest.
As for what's the good choice in general, I think this is always incremental and case-by-case, but a guiding principle I could offer would be the Golden Rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Always strive to turn everything into win-win. Don't exploit people.
-
[0] - Allegation I have on good authority, but the party telling me this doesn't want to pursue it or have anything to do with their former boss. Fortunately, the guy got a kick in the butt from the building safety inspectors, who were unwilling to ignore the fact that the walls in the workplace were cracking. I heard the working conditions improved a little bit after that.
> one thing i just went through: should i pick up the contract from a slightly less "good" org, or let 2 1099ers go, whose families will go without income for some period of time?
Depends on the "slightly". If slightly enough, can you reject the contract and help these 1099ers find another contract, by e.g. referring them? I don't know the details of your situation and I'm not going to judge you either way.
I've been on the receiving end of a similar situation in that my boss once told me that there are troubles and he's looking for projects, and one potential contract that would be a good fit for my skills involved work on gambling machines. I refused on ethical grounds, and he later told me he was very happy that I did, because it didn't sit well with him either. Unfortunately, this ended up folding the company. Fortunately, he helped me move to another job and he got a job in a large shop himself, and from what I can tell, this ended up beneficial to everyone involved.
Besides these borderline situations, there's plenty in business world that's happening on the "bad" side. Like, does the grocery store next to my parents' house have to wash spoiling meat with a dish cleaner and sell it as fresh? Does the boss of a certain large secondhand book store in Poland have to mentally abuse his workers, exploiting the fact that he employs people from small towns who may have trouble finding a new job? Does he have to bribe local government inspector so that this doesn't get out[0]? Do restaurants have to offer "grilled" meat which really is microwaved meat with grill marks added with a sandwitch grill?
These are examples of clearly bad behavior. Whenever I befriend people working in any industry, I get to hear new stories like these. Companies doing that may get away with it on an open market, but these things do breed contempt. And come economic turmoil, people with pitchforks won't be checking if you were the (perceivably) rare entrepreneur that was good and honest.
As for what's the good choice in general, I think this is always incremental and case-by-case, but a guiding principle I could offer would be the Golden Rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Always strive to turn everything into win-win. Don't exploit people.
-
[0] - Allegation I have on good authority, but the party telling me this doesn't want to pursue it or have anything to do with their former boss. Fortunately, the guy got a kick in the butt from the building safety inspectors, who were unwilling to ignore the fact that the walls in the workplace were cracking. I heard the working conditions improved a little bit after that.
competitive pressure is why i noted you won't earn billions.
i say it like that because what 'good' is is subjective. you are right though, the more good there are, whatever that is ^^...., the easier it will be. but to get to that point, people need to personally take that stance, not wait for others to do it.
A lot of inaccuracies and mixing up of categorically different things, one sentence it’s talking about, from an implied early realization that search data could used for machine learning and then implying it has something to do with the Page Rank Algorithm. I think Rank Brain was one of the first uses of ML as a signal for Google Search and that didn’t happen until 2015, 18 years later.
It sort of reads as something trying to invent a top down narrative for what was in reality a haphazard and unplanned for slow evolution of many pivots over nearly two decades.
It sort of reads as something trying to invent a top down narrative for what was in reality a haphazard and unplanned for slow evolution of many pivots over nearly two decades.
> The Aware Home, like many other visionary projects, imagined a digital future that empowers individuals to lead more-effective lives. What is most critical is that in the year 2000 this vision naturally assumed an unwavering commitment to the privacy of individual experience.
We used to have fairly decent home automation products back then (wow, 20 years ago!) Even the cheap consumer X10 stuff at least worked and could even be used without a LAN, let alone Internet. Since then, the products have actually gotten worse in many ways. Sure, sensors are a little smaller now, and some of the designs look less dorky. On the other hand, it seems everything phones home (or elsewhere) now, stops working without Internet, exposes you to a massively increased computer security risk, and/or is stuffed with ads.
Look for a decent home security camera that doesn't 1. Store video in the cloud, 2. Send opaque binary data back to some server in China, 3. Require an internet connection to set up, administer, or use, 4. Come with a giant EULA, Terms of Use & Privacy Policy. They exist but you need to dig a bit to find them.
I used to only think about keeping people out of my home LAN, limiting/blocking incoming connections, preventing infiltration, having an “Internet only” guest VLAN. Now it’s just as important to block outgoing connections and prevent data exfiltration. You need a “no Internet” VLAN to isolate your “smart” devices. I used to be terrified to see all the failed login attempts on my internet-addressable SSH server. Now I’m terrified to see all the outgoing connection attempts from all my various devices and proprietary software.
A lightbulb shouldn’t need a Privacy Policy. We stopped improving the Aware Home and instead added the Connected Home. Bad exchange.
We used to have fairly decent home automation products back then (wow, 20 years ago!) Even the cheap consumer X10 stuff at least worked and could even be used without a LAN, let alone Internet. Since then, the products have actually gotten worse in many ways. Sure, sensors are a little smaller now, and some of the designs look less dorky. On the other hand, it seems everything phones home (or elsewhere) now, stops working without Internet, exposes you to a massively increased computer security risk, and/or is stuffed with ads.
Look for a decent home security camera that doesn't 1. Store video in the cloud, 2. Send opaque binary data back to some server in China, 3. Require an internet connection to set up, administer, or use, 4. Come with a giant EULA, Terms of Use & Privacy Policy. They exist but you need to dig a bit to find them.
I used to only think about keeping people out of my home LAN, limiting/blocking incoming connections, preventing infiltration, having an “Internet only” guest VLAN. Now it’s just as important to block outgoing connections and prevent data exfiltration. You need a “no Internet” VLAN to isolate your “smart” devices. I used to be terrified to see all the failed login attempts on my internet-addressable SSH server. Now I’m terrified to see all the outgoing connection attempts from all my various devices and proprietary software.
A lightbulb shouldn’t need a Privacy Policy. We stopped improving the Aware Home and instead added the Connected Home. Bad exchange.
Agreed -- but that tech still exists.
Funny story, last week I was telling a coworker about how I had fully automated my home back around 1995. He was genuinely surprised that this was possible before "the internet of things".
I had to inform him that the only difference between the tech of today and the tech then is that today's tech is smaller and cheaper, and the only difference between "automation" and "internet of things" is that the latter involves being subjected to surveillance. But he's a young sprout and has no living memory of the state of things back then.
Funny story, last week I was telling a coworker about how I had fully automated my home back around 1995. He was genuinely surprised that this was possible before "the internet of things".
I had to inform him that the only difference between the tech of today and the tech then is that today's tech is smaller and cheaper, and the only difference between "automation" and "internet of things" is that the latter involves being subjected to surveillance. But he's a young sprout and has no living memory of the state of things back then.
The goal used to be academic and early innovators trying to improve the home.
The goal posts have changed. It's not about making huge companies lots of money and helping them gain power and influence.
This isn't a technological shift as much as it's a goal shift.
The goal posts have changed. It's not about making huge companies lots of money and helping them gain power and influence.
This isn't a technological shift as much as it's a goal shift.
It's a good reason to reject those companies and encourage everyone else we know to reject them too.
There are still technologies that work like X10 did today, a lot more reliably. Insteon and Z-Wave are both still very solid RF-based home automation platforms. Plenty of IP cameras come without the default assumption of cloud use, though it's ideal to VLAN off anything that you aren't super confident in the security of.
I just finished the book; it's uneven, but incredible. Some of her conclusions and how she frames the problem are arguable, but her presentation of the facts and her underlying hypotheses about how the situation has arisen are fascinating.
This passage, and really her whole summary of the history of Google, (which goes beyond just this excerpt) are particularly compelling.
This passage, and really her whole summary of the history of Google, (which goes beyond just this excerpt) are particularly compelling.
If you want to help do something about Internet surveillance, donate to the Electronic Privacy Information Center
https://epic.org/
If you cannot donate, subscribing to their newsletter is free, and I highly recommend it.
https://epic.org/
If you cannot donate, subscribing to their newsletter is free, and I highly recommend it.
I like how Google has been slowly making street names harder to see in maps, which I presume is a behavioral nudge to make you rely more and more on their turn by turn directions, which allows them increasingly direct control over the motion of the physical world.
I dunno, I think Maps has gotten progressively worse in most ways over the past decade (with a particularly precipitous drop after whatever refactor they released in 2014 or so.
Google maps is
* Much, much slower
* Harder to read/understand, especially street names
* Much worse text parsing e.g. I can no longer loosely type something like "10th and grove to Jim's Hardware" and get directions. In fact most of the time I can't even type in a major intersection and have them understand
* Obnoxiously spammy: they push new "features" on me all the time that I don't want to use (including a recent popup mid-directions when I turned on location tracking because I was lost on a busy, complicated highway intersection, which felt dangerous), and the phone version asks me to turn on location tracking EVERY SINGLE TIME I OPEN THE APP
* Addresses seem to be getting replaced by some weird google maps-designed address format in Colombia (maybe other countries?) that are useless to humans
Even if a little can be explained by a desire to control the world, I think most is just the traditional corporate rot that happens to any successful company.
Like Steve Jobs describes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuZ6ypueK8M
Google maps is
* Much, much slower
* Harder to read/understand, especially street names
* Much worse text parsing e.g. I can no longer loosely type something like "10th and grove to Jim's Hardware" and get directions. In fact most of the time I can't even type in a major intersection and have them understand
* Obnoxiously spammy: they push new "features" on me all the time that I don't want to use (including a recent popup mid-directions when I turned on location tracking because I was lost on a busy, complicated highway intersection, which felt dangerous), and the phone version asks me to turn on location tracking EVERY SINGLE TIME I OPEN THE APP
* Addresses seem to be getting replaced by some weird google maps-designed address format in Colombia (maybe other countries?) that are useless to humans
Even if a little can be explained by a desire to control the world, I think most is just the traditional corporate rot that happens to any successful company.
Like Steve Jobs describes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuZ6ypueK8M
Surveillance capitalism is a misnomer, a knee jerk reaction. At a glance, online advertising generates somewhere between $83.0 billion in 2017 and $220.38 billion in 2019, the exact number does not matter because it pales in comparison with other industries. Even if we removed all targeting online advertising would not disappear, so not all the worth is due to surveillance. Online surveillance is bad, but it does not define the type of Capitalism we live in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...
Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Facebook, Berkshire Hathaway, Alibaba Group, Tencent, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase.
6 surveillance corporations in top 10, 4 american and 2 chinese. If 6 out of largest corporations in the world were oil companies, we'd call it oil capitalism. If they were banks, we'd call it financial capitalism. It so happens that our age is the age of surveillance capitalism.
Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Facebook, Berkshire Hathaway, Alibaba Group, Tencent, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase.
6 surveillance corporations in top 10, 4 american and 2 chinese. If 6 out of largest corporations in the world were oil companies, we'd call it oil capitalism. If they were banks, we'd call it financial capitalism. It so happens that our age is the age of surveillance capitalism.
Amazon makes most of their money from retail and cloud. Microsoft arguably makes most of their money from sales of Windows, Office, and Azure.
If any form of advertising, even internal tracking and advertising, at all denotes you as surveillance company, then Apple's iAd, and Store optimization algorithms to try and maximize app sales would count.
Likewise, JPMorgan Chase, which probably knows a good deal more about your personal finances than any of the tech companies, is also a surveillance company.
We live in an era where defense contractors have caused the deaths of millions of people, and Purdue farmer just made $30 billion hooking people on opioids and reducing American life expectancy for the first time since 1918, where gun manufacturers are feeding small arms violence all over the world, especially in developing countries, and even hooking kids on smoking nicotine -- Juul -- is back.
And we're discussing how on HN horrible target advertising is, over and over again. There's actually people's lives and healthy being literally destroyed by regular old capitalism all around the world.
If any form of advertising, even internal tracking and advertising, at all denotes you as surveillance company, then Apple's iAd, and Store optimization algorithms to try and maximize app sales would count.
Likewise, JPMorgan Chase, which probably knows a good deal more about your personal finances than any of the tech companies, is also a surveillance company.
We live in an era where defense contractors have caused the deaths of millions of people, and Purdue farmer just made $30 billion hooking people on opioids and reducing American life expectancy for the first time since 1918, where gun manufacturers are feeding small arms violence all over the world, especially in developing countries, and even hooking kids on smoking nicotine -- Juul -- is back.
And we're discussing how on HN horrible target advertising is, over and over again. There's actually people's lives and healthy being literally destroyed by regular old capitalism all around the world.
> If any form of advertising, even internal tracking and advertising, at all denotes you as surveillance company
I don't think it does. What makes you a surveillance company is if you incorporate surveillance into your business model. By that measure, Google, Facebook, and so forth are certainly surveillance companies.
You can do advertising without spying on people. Ad companies that behave this way are not "surveillance companies", they're just ad companies.
I don't think it does. What makes you a surveillance company is if you incorporate surveillance into your business model. By that measure, Google, Facebook, and so forth are certainly surveillance companies.
You can do advertising without spying on people. Ad companies that behave this way are not "surveillance companies", they're just ad companies.
Then why are Amazon and Microsoft counted among the 4 surveillance companies the OP?
Also it is arguable if behavioral targeting meaningful increases revenue over day, keyword targeting.
Are there any studies?
Also it is arguable if behavioral targeting meaningful increases revenue over day, keyword targeting.
Are there any studies?
> Then why are Amazon and Microsoft counted among the 4 surveillance companies the OP?
Perhaps because they both have surveillance as part of their business models?
> Also it is arguable if behavioral targeting meaningful increases revenue over day, keyword targeting.
I never made any comment about the revenue impact of various forms of advertising. I was merely stating the plain fact that advertising can be done without spying on people, and an ad company that works this way would not count as a "surveillance company".
Perhaps because they both have surveillance as part of their business models?
> Also it is arguable if behavioral targeting meaningful increases revenue over day, keyword targeting.
I never made any comment about the revenue impact of various forms of advertising. I was merely stating the plain fact that advertising can be done without spying on people, and an ad company that works this way would not count as a "surveillance company".
> Perhaps because they both have surveillance as part of their business models?
The majority of Microsoft and Amazon's revenue doesn't come from advertising. That was my point about Apple, which is, although their primary market is HW, they are getting into services, and they did have iAds, and they are exploring ads on the App Store.
Again, in MS's revenue breakdown, advertising is a rounding error. And Amazon purchaser of ads.
The majority of Microsoft and Amazon's revenue doesn't come from advertising. That was my point about Apple, which is, although their primary market is HW, they are getting into services, and they did have iAds, and they are exploring ads on the App Store.
Again, in MS's revenue breakdown, advertising is a rounding error. And Amazon purchaser of ads.
> The majority of Microsoft and Amazon's revenue doesn't come from advertising.
I was talking about surveillance, not advertising specifically. Surveillance is embedded deeply into both company's business models even if we ignore the advertising side of their businesses.
Advertising and surveillance are two different things, and each can exist without the other.
I was talking about surveillance, not advertising specifically. Surveillance is embedded deeply into both company's business models even if we ignore the advertising side of their businesses.
Advertising and surveillance are two different things, and each can exist without the other.
Why is surveillance embedded into MS's business model? For the vast majority of Microsoft's existence, their products were sold even without a network connection. Microsoft's business model is not based on data collection about users.
Here's a breakdown from their last filing:
$15.0 billion revenues, 16.0% of the total, from the D&C Licensing segment.
$10.2 billion revenues, 10.9% of the total, from the Computing and Gaming Hardware segment.
$7.5 billion revenues, 8.0% of the total, from the Phone Hardware segment.
$8.8 billion revenues, 9.4% of the total, from the D&C Other segment.
$41.0 billion revenues, 43.9% of the total, from the Commercial Licensing segment.
$10.8 billion revenues, 11.6% of the total, from the Commercial Other segment.
The vast majority of their revenues, that is, their primary business model, is licensing Windows and Office, running Azure, selling XBox. Bing, and other online services that rely on "surveillance" are not a major part of their bottom line.
If you're trying to claim they observe their customers and use it to optimize their products, e.g. how Amazon displays results to you when you search for something, well, Apple does that too. They track your App Store installs, i.e. Surveil them, and use it to for what to show in the App Store.
As they shift to services, this behavior will only increase.
I mean, you can claim Google and Facebook are primarily based on data, but Microsoft is quite obviously, a company whose entire history is mostly consumer licensed OS, and enterprise/small business software, and most of their products ran offline.
I don't have any love for Microsoft, but you seem to be deliberately trying to make their business model about data, and it currently, is not.
Here's a breakdown from their last filing:
$15.0 billion revenues, 16.0% of the total, from the D&C Licensing segment.
$10.2 billion revenues, 10.9% of the total, from the Computing and Gaming Hardware segment.
$7.5 billion revenues, 8.0% of the total, from the Phone Hardware segment.
$8.8 billion revenues, 9.4% of the total, from the D&C Other segment.
$41.0 billion revenues, 43.9% of the total, from the Commercial Licensing segment.
$10.8 billion revenues, 11.6% of the total, from the Commercial Other segment.
The vast majority of their revenues, that is, their primary business model, is licensing Windows and Office, running Azure, selling XBox. Bing, and other online services that rely on "surveillance" are not a major part of their bottom line.
If you're trying to claim they observe their customers and use it to optimize their products, e.g. how Amazon displays results to you when you search for something, well, Apple does that too. They track your App Store installs, i.e. Surveil them, and use it to for what to show in the App Store.
As they shift to services, this behavior will only increase.
I mean, you can claim Google and Facebook are primarily based on data, but Microsoft is quite obviously, a company whose entire history is mostly consumer licensed OS, and enterprise/small business software, and most of their products ran offline.
I don't have any love for Microsoft, but you seem to be deliberately trying to make their business model about data, and it currently, is not.
True. Microsoft used to be a company built around building and selling software. I used to respect that company. Since Windows 10 telemetry, plus targeted ads as part of the core OS, plus Cortana, the business model has changed for the worse.
Capitalism delivers the best targeted ads systems money can buy. Targeted ads systems are more efficient if they are measuring the effect of each ad on each individual, short and long term. The best way to measure such effects is by implementing 24/7 surveillance of every human, in cyberspace and real life. While Microsoft may be playing catch-up with Google and Facebook, it is firmly set to build a surveillance network of its own, with the first elements already here.
Capitalism delivers the best targeted ads systems money can buy. Targeted ads systems are more efficient if they are measuring the effect of each ad on each individual, short and long term. The best way to measure such effects is by implementing 24/7 surveillance of every human, in cyberspace and real life. While Microsoft may be playing catch-up with Google and Facebook, it is firmly set to build a surveillance network of its own, with the first elements already here.
> Why is surveillance embedded into MS's business model?
You'd have to ask Microsoft. I suspect it's mostly to reduce production costs.
> If you're trying to claim they observe their customers
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The problem with their behavior on this score is that you can't make them stop without engaging in fairly extreme measures.
> Apple does that too
Yes, so?
> you seem to be deliberately trying to make their business model about data, and it currently, is not.
If it's not, then why are they so aggressive about collecting data about me and my use of my machines? Why not let me stop that?
The only reason that makes any sense is because doing so is a core aspect of their business model.
You'd have to ask Microsoft. I suspect it's mostly to reduce production costs.
> If you're trying to claim they observe their customers
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The problem with their behavior on this score is that you can't make them stop without engaging in fairly extreme measures.
> Apple does that too
Yes, so?
> you seem to be deliberately trying to make their business model about data, and it currently, is not.
If it's not, then why are they so aggressive about collecting data about me and my use of my machines? Why not let me stop that?
The only reason that makes any sense is because doing so is a core aspect of their business model.
> The only reason that makes any sense is because doing so is a core aspect of their business model.
No, it's not the only reason to collect analytics. They are often used to QA, product improvement, and knowing where to invest your time and effort in your product.
Microsoft Word, for example, has become a super-bloated featuritis packed product. If Word tracked how many times people used each feature for example, they'd have a pretty good map of what they could deprecate or prune to create a streamlined version for example.
Game companies use analytics often to figure out what game mechanics were fun or interesting for people, and what features were wasted. Imagine you put a lot of effort into a 'mini-game' mechanism inside of a game, and found that people spent one minute in it and never touched it again.
Now, you could argue they could collect this data with differential privacy techniques, and they should, but there's a difference between using data as part of your business model, by selling a service that leverages said data (e.g. ads), and using data to make better decisions.
Prior to "tech", companies still collected information on their customers as much as they could to improve their business, they just did it the old fashion way with annoying surveys that no one likes to fill out and which are inaccurate.
No, it's not the only reason to collect analytics. They are often used to QA, product improvement, and knowing where to invest your time and effort in your product.
Microsoft Word, for example, has become a super-bloated featuritis packed product. If Word tracked how many times people used each feature for example, they'd have a pretty good map of what they could deprecate or prune to create a streamlined version for example.
Game companies use analytics often to figure out what game mechanics were fun or interesting for people, and what features were wasted. Imagine you put a lot of effort into a 'mini-game' mechanism inside of a game, and found that people spent one minute in it and never touched it again.
Now, you could argue they could collect this data with differential privacy techniques, and they should, but there's a difference between using data as part of your business model, by selling a service that leverages said data (e.g. ads), and using data to make better decisions.
Prior to "tech", companies still collected information on their customers as much as they could to improve their business, they just did it the old fashion way with annoying surveys that no one likes to fill out and which are inaccurate.
> They are often used to QA, product improvement, and knowing where to invest your time and effort in your product.
Ah, I see where our disconnect is happening: all of those uses count as being part of the business model to me.
In any case, I fully understand why telemetry is used. My objection is when it's not possible to opt out of telemetry (having to opt in would be much better, of course).
If someone is gathering data about me or my use of my machines without my informed consent, that counts as spying. What purpose the data is being put to is irrelevant (although it would be relevant to my decision about whether or not I'm going to consent).
Ah, I see where our disconnect is happening: all of those uses count as being part of the business model to me.
In any case, I fully understand why telemetry is used. My objection is when it's not possible to opt out of telemetry (having to opt in would be much better, of course).
If someone is gathering data about me or my use of my machines without my informed consent, that counts as spying. What purpose the data is being put to is irrelevant (although it would be relevant to my decision about whether or not I'm going to consent).
It took basically until now for the bloom to come off the rose. Think about that. For 20 years Google has been supposedly hiring the smartest guys in the room and all it took was free food, some ball pits and slides, contributing some tech to open source, and working on a handful of "moonshots" that haven't gone anywhere to keep the sheen of innovation going. And it worked. For 20 years.
People have been saying Google is the new Microsoft for a few years but it basically took until now for that to become consensus. Microsoft, who's been on the back foot until recently, has recast themselves as the new Open Source Champion, basically using the Google playbook from 20 years ago. And it's working!
If you think about it Apple is the only company that hasn't changed. There's never been a bait and switch. It's always been proprietary. It's always been confident, others would say arrogant about its products. They've never tried to cloak themselves with the mantle of open source. The only reason the tech industry uses their products is because of its inherent qualities. No one had to be tricked into liking them. And they've always been honest about this.
All the "privacy cranks" were right about Google. But from 2000 to about 2015 they were casually dismissed as fringe. People really bought the "Don't be evil" slogan externally (and I'm sure internally as well). Before Facebook, they mastered the art of doing something bad then walking it back with an apology and some opt-out privacy setting that they knew no one would enable. Privacy was always an afterthought (read Steven Levy's book about Google).
I'm glad everyone is seeing the light finally.