Google Fights Back (stratechery.com) 161
Ben Thompson, writing for Stratechery: For a company famed for its engineering culture, you wouldn't expect a video at Google's annual I/O developer conference to have such emotional resonance. And yet, just watch (I have included the context around the video in question, which starts at the 2:33 mark): "I liked that very much." This was the most direct statement of what was a clear theme from Google's entire keynote: "Technology, particularly Google's technology, is a good thing, and we are going to remind you why you like it."
As he opened the keynote, CEO Sundar Pichai, as he always does, repeated Google's mission statements: "It all begins with our mission to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful, and today, our mission feels as relevant as ever." Pichai, though, quickly pivoted to something rather different than simply organizing and presenting information: "The way we approach it is constantly evolving. We are moving from a company that helps you find answers to a company that helps you get things done... We want our products to work harder for you in the context of your job, your home, and your life, and they all share a single goal: to be helpful, so we can be there for you in moments big and small over the course of your day."
In short, the mission statement may be the same, but what that means for Google and its products has shifted: "Our goal is to build a more helpful Google for everyone. And when we say helpful, we mean giving you the tools to increase your knowledge, success, health, and happiness. We feel so privileged to be developing products for billions of users, and with that scale comes a deep sense of responsibility to create things that improve people's lives. By focusing on these fundamental attributes, we can empower individuals and benefit society as a whole." This set the stage for the rest of the keynote, including the video above: Google spent most of the keynote demonstrating -- both with actual products, and whole bunch of vaporware -- how Google could take a much more proactive role in its users' lives in ways they ought appreciate. Further reading: Sundar Pichai's op-ed on the New York Times. A NYT columnist adds: "Someone asked me today why Google gets less privacy flak than Facebook despite collecting more (+ more intimate) data. My theory is that Google takes people's data in exchange for useful things (maps! docs! mail!) while FB exchanges data for things that make them sad and angry."
As he opened the keynote, CEO Sundar Pichai, as he always does, repeated Google's mission statements: "It all begins with our mission to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful, and today, our mission feels as relevant as ever." Pichai, though, quickly pivoted to something rather different than simply organizing and presenting information: "The way we approach it is constantly evolving. We are moving from a company that helps you find answers to a company that helps you get things done... We want our products to work harder for you in the context of your job, your home, and your life, and they all share a single goal: to be helpful, so we can be there for you in moments big and small over the course of your day."
In short, the mission statement may be the same, but what that means for Google and its products has shifted: "Our goal is to build a more helpful Google for everyone. And when we say helpful, we mean giving you the tools to increase your knowledge, success, health, and happiness. We feel so privileged to be developing products for billions of users, and with that scale comes a deep sense of responsibility to create things that improve people's lives. By focusing on these fundamental attributes, we can empower individuals and benefit society as a whole." This set the stage for the rest of the keynote, including the video above: Google spent most of the keynote demonstrating -- both with actual products, and whole bunch of vaporware -- how Google could take a much more proactive role in its users' lives in ways they ought appreciate. Further reading: Sundar Pichai's op-ed on the New York Times. A NYT columnist adds: "Someone asked me today why Google gets less privacy flak than Facebook despite collecting more (+ more intimate) data. My theory is that Google takes people's data in exchange for useful things (maps! docs! mail!) while FB exchanges data for things that make them sad and angry."
Re: (Score:1)
Its the opposite of Progress.... CONGRESS!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
^ This is still why Republicans aren't allowed to be rappers...
Google fights back. ...against? (Score:5, Funny)
...Our brains cognitive ability?
Re: (Score:2)
WTF does "fight back" have to do with that, let's say it, bland and boring article?
Re: (Score:2)
Google's fighting the number 42.
Re: (Score:2)
...Our brains cognitive ability?
Yes.
"Technology, particularly Google's technology, is a good thing, and we are going to remind you why you like it."
Exactly that.
Re: (Score:1)
I can actually stop Google from saving all this information. I can opt out of them saving my searches, I can opt out of them tracking me, etc.
You idiots upmodded this guy insightful when it should be downmodded ignorant and naive
if they really mean it.. (Score:1)
If they're being legit, then:
- bring back the + symbol to mean "this word MUST appear just as typed"
- make verbatim 'sticky', such as 'people can go https://actual.things.I.search.for.google.com' url, and it's always verbatim
- stop breaking verbatim all the time (I've had "Jonathon" show up for "jon" when using verbatim)...
- actually respond to search terms with preferential treatment to words-as-you-type, eg "Tom != Thomas, debian != ubuntu, fedora != redhat" and on and on in searches
- allow people to mix
Re: (Score:1)
Remember when search engines used to support boolean queries? You could use and, or, not, and parenthetical groupings.
Of course like so much, that too was sacrificed on the alter of idiocracy.
Re: if they really mean it.. (Score:2)
Yes, I too remember when Google search was actually good at searching the web.
The silver lining of Google's descent into overt evil is just this: they have in the process lost their core competency.
Re: (Score:2)
A global "do not track me you invasive vermin" setting would be nice.
Re: (Score:2)
You might as well ask: "Google, if you're listening, if you could find the 6 years of missing tax returns, I'm sure our media would reward you greatly!"
I, for one, dislike most Google deeply. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's creepy. It's arrogant. It treats its users as shovelware.
There are /some/ good points for Google. But not many.
I avoid them as much as I can.
(So. This was emotional too, although I'm a techie. But it was deeply felt, as well)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: I, for one, dislike most Google deeply. (Score:2)
Re: I, for one, dislike most Google deeply. (Score:2)
I've long suspected the overwhelming majority of spam is (indirectly) bankrolled by Big Brother Google and other players in the mass surveillance industry. Spam is a great way to force people onto a handful of centralized, surveiled platforms that can properly filter the spam.
Remember when - before the sudden great deluge of spam - it was possible to run one's own mail server with very modest compute resources and administrative effort? I remember.
Against what? (Score:2)
Google fights back... against what?
Beware of geeks bearing gifts.
Re: (Score:1)
Google fights back... against what?
Dissent.
Beware of geeks bearing gifts.
There's a good chance it contains an undocumented microphone.
Re: Against what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google & China - not "a good thing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Since when was facilitating censorship by the government of China "a good thing"?
https://theintercept.com/2019/... [theintercept.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It's a messy choice either way. The gov't there is going to hire/allow somebody there to fulfill that role. If it's not Google it will be somebody else who may be even more of a jerk than Google. (Yes, such level of jerkativity is possible.)
Re:Google & China - not "a good thing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That's an exaggeration. Apples to watermelons.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a messy choice either way. The gov't there is going to hire/allow somebody there to fulfill that role. If it's not Google it will be somebody else who may be even more of a jerk than Google. (Yes, such level of jerkativity is possible.)
You're literally invoking Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
It could be a bigger jerk than google, it could even be somebody like you!
But it could also be somebody better. So there is that.
Re: (Score:1)
And if not, it would probably be too late to change. The devil you know...
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not Google it will be somebody else who may be even more of a jerk than Google. (Yes, such level of jerkativity is possible.)
Its name is Baidu.
Re: (Score:2)
In a land that is already censored, introducing an ever increasing number of players effectively makes that censorship more difficult. That is a "good thing".
Re: Google & China - not "a good thing" (Score:2)
Google has been censoring search results in America for years & years. Why is anyone surprised when they adapt their censorship product for sale to other repressive governments?
"mission to organize the world's information" (Score:1)
does not require collecting and aggregating data on the worlds' citizens that make all the spies and political wingnuts drool in envy.
Google vs China (Score:3)
The thing I don't get is Google vs China. On the one hand they don't directly do any business there and claim to not want to cave in to that government. But try to download offline Google Maps for anywhere in China and it's blocked due to some unexplained reason. But if you're in China and have a VPN, Google Maps works great.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't do business in China, they have to buy the map data from some 3rd party instead of collecting it themselves and there are probably messy licensing issues with downloading it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Works great" is a bit of an exaggeration. The maps available are not very detailed and often just wrong.
The download thing is also disabled elsewhere, it depends on the who provided the mapping data and if Google's contract with them allows offline use.
Well, you have to admit (Score:5, Insightful)
"To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" does sound better than "we collect as much of your information as possible to more effectively provide services to advertisers".
But seriously, Mr. Pichai, which of those statements more accurately reflects how your company earns its money?
Re: (Score:2)
we collect as much of your information as possible to more effectively provide services to advertisers
On the way home today I quickly became alerted by an increase in time to destination and was advised to take an alternative road. Since Google knows how quickly my house heats up it was also less than 1deg off by the time I got home.
TIL: I am actually an "advertiser" since clearly that is a prerequisite to using a Google service.
Re: Well, you have to admit (Score:2)
"we collect as much of your information as possible to sell it to repressive governments"
FTFY
Happened to catch a tidbit on NPR (Score:3)
On my way to work, NPR played a tidbit from the Google conference, and it happened to be the part where the presenter was trying to show off their AI assistant. The person asked the AI to play some jazz music. The assistant answered with:
Sure, check out this jazz music station on YouTube Music
Note it didn't simply play music, it gave a long-winded, unnecessary diatribe about something which wasn't asked. Imagine having to listen to this every single time you ask it to do something.
I would hope Google has a way to disable this, otherwise having to be bombarded with gibberish will get old very quickly, not to mention frustrating. If I had an Android phone (fortunately I don't), I would want it to do what I tell it, immediately. Just do it (to use an old phrase). No backtalk, no sales pitch, no anything else. Just do what I tell it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now when I open Google Maps, the bottom half of my map is an "Explore nearby" tab. Why would I want that? 99.9% of the time, I'm opening Maps near my home or work and am already familiar with my surroundings - far more familiar than the Maps app is. It is a nuisance and a timewaster, no different from the diatribe you describe.
In both cases, I believe we are starting to see Google really flexing their advertising muscles. For Maps, they are starting to try to redirect motorists towards paid advertisers. The
Re: Happened to catch a tidbit on NPR (Score:2)
Isn't it awesome? They just can't help themselves. Driven on by pure contempt for their users, Google has now begun to ruin Maps. It was their last surviving truly great product.
Soon enough "Google" will be synonymous with "barely works".
IF he wanted to be ethical... (Score:1)
If he wanted to be ethical, he would shut Google down forthwith and delete the massive troves of data they have collected on virtually every technology-using person in the world. (Even on those who have tried to stay away from Google).
Then the entire Google upper management would self-report to prison.
Read Between the Lines (Score:1)
so we can be there for you in moments big and small over the course of your day
In other words...
"So we can monitor and monetize every digital aspect of your life on a daily basis"
The goal... (Score:2)
is to sell more ads.
Everything else is just a smokescreen.
Re: The goal... (Score:2)
Ads are a smokescreen.
The goal is inescapable, ubiquitous mass surveillance.
How about?? (Score:2)
Strategy Credit (Score:2)
Love Google (or Apple) or not, one of the most important insights I think Thompson has is this idea of a strategy credit. Something that you can claim as a deep philosophical underpinning for your company that's really just borne out of a particular situation that you're in. For Apple, Privacy is a strategy credit because they don't and have never needed your data. They can take the high ground not necessarily because they love privacy so much (though they might), but because your information is kind of irr
Re:Completely wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
The NYT commentator is missing something too. It's not just that people get useful tools in exchange for personal information, it's that Google guards it very carefully.
Facebook makes money by giving others access to your personal data. It sells it off, and does little to prevent it being abused.
Google keeps your personal data to itself and carefully controls how it is used. It is also fairly transparent about what it has and lets you delete it. So people trust Google with that information.
Re:Completely wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a good point. Facebook is an incurable cancer, while Google is a cancer that you might recover from with extensive chemo and radiation.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is a mild flu with aspirations of becoming cancer if only they still had any talent. If I have to pick one of them, I'll go with Microsoft's proven ineptness. Sadly, that only helps for web mail.
Until a real alternative to YouTube emerges, I'm stuck with just a little cancer. Not ideal. But at least I've purged Google from the rest of my life (and social media is just psychologically harmful, and best avoided in all its forms).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe people are just more rational about the situation than you give them credit for.
I like having a smartphone, and carry it almost everywhere. The phone company knows my approximate location and is required by law to log it for two years, and hand it over to the police/government when asked. Of course I don't carry it when I visit my drug dealer.
So then I have to decide if I want to turn on location history on my Google account. I decided to have it deleted after 3 months. After all, it's not making the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
your trust is misplaced. Targeted advertising is their business and you will be treated accordingly whether you know it or not. And if you think that Google is affected by your decision to delete location data after 3 months... you are naive. All you accomplish with that is making sure your significant other cannot see where you were 4 months ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Regularly delete your cookies.
In any case, the Analystics profile can't contain any personal data without your opt-in permission in GDPR countries, so at most it's an ID number and not tied to anything that can identify you.
Or as you say, just use an ad blocker.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, the Analystics profile can't contain any personal data without your opt-in permission in GDPR countries,
"This website uses cookies blah blah blah ...
Click OK to continue to our site".
That's what an "opt-in" looks like. No one reads past "cookie".
Re: (Score:2)
And since it's an opt-in, I just block the banner with my adblocker, and I never see it again on that site. Not my problem if some people see "cookie" and go "Yum, cookie! OK!!"
Just because you can't handle your shit doesn't mean the rest of us can't handle ours.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what 90% of people do is irrelevant to your morality, as long as you're OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have plenty of criticisms of Google and YouTube. I just try to avoid every post becoming a novel and stick to the point I'm making.
Re: (Score:2)
You said: "Google keeps your personal data to itself and carefully controls how it is used. It is also fairly transparent about what it has and lets you delete it. So people trust Google with that information."
I don't think that is true, given reasonable definitions all those words. You address Google-Analytics in as an irrelevant aside, not connecting it back to the above claim you made. I would say that Google is not transparent and does not let you see what all t
Re: (Score:2)
"Reasonable definitions of all those words."
I'm not arguing with you over what you think I may have possibly meant based on your evaluation of the precise meaning of the words I chose.
Don't be disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not one of those soliptic dorks who says "prove yourself to me"; just thinking aloud. It's up to you to decide whether you ever want to alter your approach. You'd probably end up changing more minds if you did, but I'm not sure changing minds is something you're terribly concerned about.
Re: (Score:3)
Google is a completely benign tumor. Medically it's there, but the GP's point was that no one has been able to point to any major negative personal data leaks to 3rd party companies from Google, so calling them a cancer is a bit disingenuous.
Now zip up your fly, your bias is showing.
Re:Completely wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
OK. What happens if their board of directors decides to change direction? Is what you say something that is true in the continuous tense, or is it merely true right now, so far? Is it guaranteed?
Or could it actually metastasize quickly?
And what if their profitability went down? Would they be expected to continue using the same data retention policies, or could that change?
Your logic is way too flaccid to be waving it around and getting arrogant about your zipper.
Re: (Score:2)
O don't are that they don't sell that data: it sufficiently bad that they have it. 1 multinational bent on imposing their political views having all my data is 1 too many. And if the government comes knocking hard enough, Google will give them their "Muslim Database". They know who (almost) all the Muslims in the US are: just because they're not currently selling that info to the government means little when the government leans on them.
Re: (Score:3)
Dang, Slashcode did a number on that post. Well, maybe someone can make sense of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any links or info how to have Google delete all data it has on you?
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe this will help? [restoreprivacy.com]
Re: (Score:3)
If you have an account just delete your account. Or go into the account settings and selectively delete stuff you don't want.
If you don't have an account just delete their cookies.
If you are still worried send them a GDPR subject data deletion request, aka the right to be forgotten, asking them to delete everything they have about you.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't have an account just delete their cookies.
Oh, you make it seem so simple.
So enlighten me please: how would me deleting cookies on my computer help deleting the records of my offline credit card transactions [washingtonpost.com] from Google's servers? I surely didn't agree to Google getting [bloomberg.com] any of that. Google doesn't provide any mechanism for controlling this, even though - by their own words - they grab more than two thirds of [googleblog.com] of the average American's offline activity.
What the heck is with AmiMoJo's Google apologia? (Score:1, Flamebait)
I'm not rabidly anti-Google like some are but they are obviously in the game of tracking people pretty much any way they can [wikipedia.org]. This is a major revenue stream for them; they do token efforts to support "privacy" like all the big names do but that's about it. (The warn
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not anti-Google; I just highly doubt th
Re: Completely wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Google keeps your personal data to itself and carefully controls how it is used
And you're a goddamned moron for believing it... but that's hardly a fucking newsflash.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I assume you have some evidence to back up this claim. I will of course be passing it along to the Information Commissioner's Office, because if true Google is going to get fined billions of Euros.
Well there is another possibility. Maybe in the US they treat you like sheep. I understand it's legal over there.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Completely wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then Google works closely with the government to censor information but not showing certain things in search results.
Google is not different than Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
I said they were transparent about what they do with your data, not how they rank stuff on YouTube. They are quite clear and open that things like your watch history and search history, if enabled, is used to make recommendations, but of course keep the exact algorithm secret.
As for censorship, it's true that Google does censor... Just like every other company in the world and every site on the open internet. I'm fine with that, most of the time it's what I want from those services, and when it's not I know
Re: (Score:1)
Oh me oh my that's quite a hodgepodge of confused handwaving and whatabutt.
What the fuck does "demonitizing" have to do with data privacy? Oh, right, nothing at all.
Can you even tie your shoelaces?!?
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, I agree with all that.
OTOH, when he says, "...Google's technology, is a good thing, and we are going to remind you why you like it," then I get pissed off at him. Stop trying to tell me I like you, it makes me hate you.
Re:Completely wrong. (Score:4, Funny)
I agree, but is it as bad as windmill cancer? Cuz I hear that's on the rise.
Re: (Score:2)
Context is key.
We cannot get proper context without information.
Lets say I want a new car.
If Google knows nothing about me, then it would just give me the most popular car brands.
If Google knows I am interested in fuel efficiency, then I would get a different set of cars.
If Google also knows I wan't something that rides better then my current car, then I may get a an other set.
In general the more that Google knows about me, the better the results would be. While we say we don't want Ads however we as consu
Re:Completely wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately I think many of these ads that we have are trying to target the B2B market. So you are looking for a computer, so if you are doing this for work, you may be looking in getting 100 computers. Also the advertisers doesn't know that you bought a computer, but have went to a site to look at a computer. Before I bought my current computer, I spent some time, because I was a bit rusty on the specs. Checking what Apple Had, Asuse, Dell, HP, System 76, Acer, Lenovo... I was hitting a slew of tech
Re: Completely wrong. (Score:2)
"advertisers doesn't know that you bought a computer"
Why not? They know what time I took a shit yesterday, and how much toilet paper I used. So why isn't Big Brother Google selling them the one piece of mass surveillance data that might actually be relevant to "advertising"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The detail in which I commented is that the vast majority do not click on the ad, after all they would only click if they were intending to buy a product like what is being displayed in the ad.
Re: (Score:2)
You are using yourself as representative of the entire population, when actually you are the exception. Advertisers do it that way because it works.
Everybody thinks of themselves as being exceptional, everybody represents themselves to their peers as being exceptional.
The advertising industry knew that before anybody on slashdot was even born.
The stupider they make themselves look, the more dismissive viewers will be of their abilities, and the easier time they will have appealing to base instincts and generating sales.
Re: Completely wrong. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that advertising professionals never understand is ...
What people who repeat this never understand is that the advertising professionals are data-driven. They have statistics about exactly how likely you are to buy a computer, based on if you just already bought one.
The difference is that they know you think you're smarter than them, and they know it makes you unable to think logically. It makes you dismissive of their statistics, and it gives you a false sense of control.
Like the idiots who think they can be in the room with the advertisement playing on the T
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I know perfectly well the advertising method you described and I consider it to be at least dishonest (and sometimes
Re: (Score:3)
The thing that advertising professionals never understand is that advertising only works when you are intending to buy something.
Actually, the thing that advertising professionals know is that your statement is wrong... and they have lots and lots of data to prove it. The whole concept of "brand advertising" only makes sense because your statement is wrong, for example.
I'll grant that advertising is much more likely to be effective -- and even useful -- when you're looking to buy something, but that's not remotely the same as only working in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory. But if they fill the top slots with paid ads for those Toyotas and BMWs, you may never even see the search result for, say, the Peugeot you might like - even if Google 'knows' you might like it. I.e., Google's search algorithm is capable of showing you the most relevant info - but if it's influenced by who's paying for ads at the top, you could lose much of that benefit. Likewise, if the paid ads are not easily distinguished from plain search results...
Hopefully the above scenario isn't how it
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need advertisements for Honda Fit, and I don't need advertisements for a Porche. But perhaps for a upper range Toyota, or a low range BMW may fit my needs.
That's nice, but right now Porsche is paying to Google to show midrange-to-luxury car buyers who care about ride quality and fuel economy in your area an ad intended to convince them the Panamera's gas mileage isn't as terrible as you think, and Honda is paying to show the same people an ad that says the Fit's ride is just good as a BMW, so those are what you're going to see.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If Google also knows I wan't something that rides better then my current car, then I may get a an other set.
I wonder, if your spelling and grammar suck, do you get more expensive listings for the same car?
I do know this much: The search "I can haz good ride new car?" produces different results than just "good ride new car."
Re: (Score:2)
What a very rosy and optimistic scenario that is. That would work if those two conditions were true:
- first, Google would have to have a very good understanding of me, my current financial, family and social situation, my interests and my future plans
- second, Google would have to be a neutral provider of information, with no pecuniary interest in what I end up purchasing.
Unfortunately, neither of them is true.
For the first: they may, for example, infer I'm interested in fast cars from the f
Re: (Score:2)
Bu the spyware gives them money to look like a good company.
Just notice how many "traditional" *and* "social" news (/., HN) have a top post on their front page today with the exact same title "Google fights back". Money defines opinion today like never.