Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

No, I’m using Google rhetorically. Sure you could be more specific and say the Google Chrome team, or whoever is actually discretionary responsible for this, and the chain of command that authorizes them with that power within the org… but I think, bothering with such specifics would make the message less effective so I didn’t.

Also, I don’t think it’s necessary. Google is responsible for whatever its parts are doing; a corporate entity. And people are right to expect that if they get something from Google then it’s caused by Google.

Also, I think it’s wrong and too early to be diluting or shielding Google behind the pedantic hairsplitting that, “oh you see it’s not actually google at fault here, um, it was probably some guy that works in a basement somewhere, you know, his views not reflected by ours and so on…” it’s not necessary to provide them that shield or confusion at this stage.

He may work at google, you may work at Google, I may work at google; we don’t know. And it’s not important. What’s important is that Google is at fault here. (I don’t btw)

Magnitude of the malfeasance is so great they deserve to be held to account for it, and a simple label of Google is sufficient.

Also, Occam’s razor? I think it’s unnecessary to invoke the preposterously exaggerated strawman of some ghastly and convoluted conspiracy here, when their actions directly align with, and can be efficiently implemented by, their business. It’s a simple thesis: Google is at fault and they meant to do it. They know it’s bad and therefore are selling it deceptively.

It’s neither convoluted nor complex in any way. In fact, if they’d tried to engage with this technically in a way that accounted for acknowledged and respected the fears and concerns people raised in response, then I think they would’ve ended up with a solution that is more convoluted, and complex. In this we have the curse of simple evil.

I think it’s drinking the gaslit Kool-Aid to pretend “oh no, it’s an accident, it’s incompetence, they didn’t mean to.” This is directly (if harmfully and unethically) supporting their business interests. They meant to do it. That’s the simplest explanation. That’s Occam’s razor.



Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: