But basically all of those actions would be things that would generate negative headlines. Would any of the following Hacker News stories surprise you?
* Google Shut Down British Teen's YouTube Account, Kid Loses Access to GMail
* Google Giving Out User Information to Companies Without Court Order or Protest
* Google Is Sharing GMail User Information with Game Publishers Out For DMCA Revenge
Every step along the way, there'd be an article and 100 Hacker News comments talking about how evil Google is and talking up how Duck Duck Go really isn't so bad as long as you remember the shortcuts that make it use Google.
Resisting requests from big companies demanding that they give out user information is a good thing. Changing their mind when they had clear evidence that the user was up to no good is a good thing. Not immediately shutting down someone's GMail account because they're doing something that upsets YouTube is a good thing.
The thing that's missing in all those headlines is context. Google has context and I like to imagine Hacker News readers would understand the context too (or at least find a top comment talking about the context). So Google refusing to do anything or make life extremely hard when they're the ones with all the data is really frustrating.
Now I don't know the details of those stories but I can tell you the comments are what you'd think. There's never context when someone feels wronged and wants to show the world.
Google like many companies doesn't comment in detail on these types of situations so what we would get is the kind of headlines the parent made up.
> Google like many companies doesn't comment in detail on these types of situations.
I think the best statement from Google would say:
"We have more information which gives additional context to our actions here. We have asked for permission from the account holder to publish this information, but so far that permission hasn't been granted".
This isn't really a great example of the point, however. This wasn't a story about a large company that cut corners for the sake of speed and efficiency just because there was context could have justified it.
Otherwise we’d be astonished at “Bungie sues long time gamer for 7.6m”. Obviously we can investigate further, it’s not that complicated a matter.
I neither believe negative publicity would have occurred, nor that this is a justification for a cover-up.
A trivial headline would be “Google suspends account of DMCA troll.” -
I doubt it would even generate any clicks.
It just sounds like Google weren’t looking into the matter sufficiently (there are humans there afterall.)
This 100x. I feel the Gel-Mann effect so hard on HN sometimes. 99 times out of 100 I think “wow the discussion on HN is so good”. The other 1 it’s about something I’m an expert in and the comments are so wrong it hurts. But I simply ignore that and continue thinking HN comments are great. That’s how the cycle goes.
But if Google is deciding that avoiding those potential headlines is of higher priority than protecting its users from getting abused by the unfair system they put in place, we are justified to attach a derogative label to the company.
And it's cumulative, with all the other ones. The labels, I mean.
I just hope people will not forget them in 20 years after they make a giant PR campaign to become the good guys again, like with Microsoft.
* Google Shut Down British Teen's YouTube Account, Kid Loses Access to GMail
* Google Giving Out User Information to Companies Without Court Order or Protest
* Google Is Sharing GMail User Information with Game Publishers Out For DMCA Revenge
Every step along the way, there'd be an article and 100 Hacker News comments talking about how evil Google is and talking up how Duck Duck Go really isn't so bad as long as you remember the shortcuts that make it use Google.
Resisting requests from big companies demanding that they give out user information is a good thing. Changing their mind when they had clear evidence that the user was up to no good is a good thing. Not immediately shutting down someone's GMail account because they're doing something that upsets YouTube is a good thing.