Forrst Blog: How we deploy new features on Forrst - <AUTHOR> http://blog.forrst.com/post/782356699/how-we-deploy-new-features-on-forrst

<comment><USER2> I really don't see Flickr's (or Forrst's) approach a "trick" or feature. I think most deployment techniques come out of a desire NOT to deploy like Flickr(or Forrst).

</comment><comment><USER3> This idea is also well explained here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1463751>

</comment><comment><USER4> Where can I get an invite? I applied on the site but haven't heard anything and I can't wait any more!!!!!

<comment><USER5> e-mail me mjhunter [at] gmail

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How do you modify the buckets? Do you have to tweak a config file and push it out to your servers?

<comment><USER7> Right now, yes. Deploys happen frequently enough and are sufficiently fast that I can get something disabled globally in under 30 seconds. The next iteration of this stuff I'm building now; goals are standalone library, more DRY, and some kind of simple web UI where I can do the global enable/disable actions. I'll likely stick to manipulating buckets in config files for the foreseeable future; it's being able to mass-enable/disable that I need to refine.

<comment><USER6> I've started using Redis key/set operations for things like this at GitHub. The nice thing is that these techniques are all simple, and it's easy to modify to fit your evolving needs.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I definitely considered using Redis too; I'd be able to leverage web UI for even stuff like adding/removing users from buckets. How are you handling with persistence? I presume backing up the dump.rdb file frequently? I'd be a shame to lose any of the data (though I'm probably being overly paranoid)

<comment><USER8> Using a combo of the append-only file[1] and a redis slave[2] you'll get about the best durability one can ask for in today's world (assuming you're aware of the gotchas with regard to expiring keys — an edge case).

[1] <http://code.google.com/p/redis/wiki/AppendOnlyFileHowto> [2] <http://code.google.com/p/redis/wiki/ReplicationHowto>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wouldn't this make debugging and (manual) testing so much more difficult?

<comment><USER10> Feature flags are essentially identical to operating A/B tests in this respect, right? I have a magic button which logs me in as a target user, and it reproduces _exactly_ what they would see, including the results of A/B tests. This helps to reproduce unanticipated interactions between tests. (This has only happened maybe twice, but they were doozies.)</comment></comment>


Programming just got commoditized. - <AUTHOR> http://www.hire-a-php-programmer.com/custom-web-development-advance-level.html Yet another example of: differentiate your programming skills and set yourself apart or be eaten alive by an offshore shop.<p>The fact that the programmer is being sold as a commodity doesn't augur quite well for an average programmer in the US. <comment><USER2> That's nothing new. Check out Elance.

</comment><comment><USER3> Flagged, spam.</comment>


Finance novice beats hedge fund pros, winning $100k in Quantopian contest - <AUTHOR> http://pando.com/2015/03/05/finance-novice-beats-hedge-fund-pros-wins-100k-in-inqugural-quantopian-trading-contest/ <comment><USER2> At the risk of being overly cynical:

Week 1: Take 512 people. Mail half of them a letter that says "the market will go down this week". Mail the other half a letter claiming it will go up.

Week 2: Take the half who received a correct prediction, split into 2 groups, repeat.

Week 3: Repeat.

Week 4: Repeat.

Week 5: "I've predicted market movements perfectly! To get on board with my foolproof strategy, send your investment check to..."

<comment><USER3> This seems to be the opposite.

Week 1: 512 participants. Half of them mail in "the market will go down this week". They lose.

Week 2: Of those who made a correct prediction, half make a correct prediction again. The rest lose.

Week 3-8. Etc

Week 9. We found a winner, one who could predict the market flawlessly!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cautionary observation: The same company that judges the contest also makes more money when this specific kind of contestant wins.

> "With the Quantopian platform, anyone with a bit of coding skill and a mind > for finance can start writing algorithms. The best ones win."

> The winning algorithm each month is deemed to be the one that, based on > Quantopian's analysis, offers the best combination of [...]

It is entirely possible that everything was aboveboard and honest, but there's still a latent conflict-of-interest since the company may have leeway choosing what constitutes the "best combination" of metrics.

<comment><USER5> We work very hard to make our interests aligned with our community members' interests. We don't literally make money from the algorithms in the contest. What we're doing is encouraging hundreds and thousands of new people to write algorithms. The best ones will be invited to join our hedge fund, we'll negotiate compensation with them, and we'll take investment from pension funds and endowments and the like. In that sense - yes, when our customers win, we win too.

As for the judging, I think you'll find it be very transparent. There are 6 return and risk metrics calculated for both the backtest and the paper trading. The 6 metrics are weighted equally to generate an overall score. You can see the metrics for every contestant and the combined score on the leaderboard. You can verify it all by downloading the CSV. [https://www.quantopian.com/leaderboard](https://www.quantopian.com/leaderboard)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Honestly, I don't understand why there's so much cynicism regarding Quantopian and their contest. I think it's great that there's a tool people can use to get started with automated system trading.

For all of you who are whining about stuff, do realize that no one is being forced to enter the contest. Did you get that? NOT REQUIRED.

On the other hand, for those of us who want to learn or try our hand, this is a great idea/product.

</comment><comment><USER7> Finding anything meaningful in results like this is a bit tough since everything is looking backwards. It would have been nice if they said (for example) "okay, here's the deadline, you can't make changes to your algorithm after this date, and then we'll test it over the next six months of data."

Also, I wonder whether they're taking costs into account since any strategies that involve making lots of trades will quickly see their profitability drop due to fees.

<comment><USER5> It's both forward-testing and backward testing. The algos have been locked since submission - some were submitted as early as 1/15, all were submitted by 2/2\. That makes it both an in-sample and out-of-sample test.

Yes, the Quantopian platform includes default commissions. It also includes default slippage. No model is perfect, of course, but this is a tool that's had a lot of development.

(I work at Quantopian)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The algorithm you need to win a contest is the highest risk algorithm you can get away with.

<comment><USER9> Here's how I think about our contest: If you only had backtesting, you could win by fitting. If you only had 1 month of paper trading, you could win by luck (taking excessive risks).

But our contest is 2 years of backtesting + live trading for a month. I don't think it is likely you can both overfit and be lucky with one strategy.

<comment><USER3> Assuming you blackbox test the algorithms, you could include some signatures of past data. If those signatures are detected, you know the future and can trade optimally. If they are not detected, go for blind luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was really hoping to enter that contest with an entry that just used rand to flip a coin and invest. Never had the time unfortunately, but would still love to see how a completely random strategy compares to some of the algorithms.

<comment><USER6> It really depends how you're using the random coin tossing. Are you going through a list of securities then tossing a coin and if it's heads you'll buy it, if it's tails, you'll sell? How will you allocate your capital? If it's heads you'll put commit 10% or your balance and if it's tails, 20%? Will you use coin tosses for your exit parameters as well?

While coin tossing in and of itself is random, the manner in which you use it is not. So at the end of the day, your 'completely random strategy' may not actually be all that random... Just something to think about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it possible for others to see the source code of the submitted algorithms or is that reserved only for the Quantopian employees?

If you have a good algorithm, why would you share it with anyone? A good one would be worth more than $100k.

<comment><USER12> A good algorithm is useless unless you have enough capital to work with. You might have to spend years just building up enough capital to make a decent income off your trading; or, lack of capital might well induce you to trade at high levels of risk, and lose the little capital that you have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Too much noise - this means nothing. This is exactly the reason why serious investors give fund managers money not just based on performance, but on process.

<comment><USER14> Or invest in an index with no active risk.

I have trouble taking seriously any "serious investor" that invests in a fund and expects to beat the market. It's been researched to death and it's a losing proposition that doesn't acknowledge the rules of the system.

You can beat the return of a broad market index just not by paying someone else to do it.

<comment><USER6> I take it neither of you have ever read "What Works on Wall Street"? crack it open, and tell me it's impossible to beat the market. Just because lazy people advocate buying index funds doesn't mean it's automatically the best choice. If you're just satisfied with mediocrity, then fine, do it. However one trait of successful humans is that they seek to improve upon the status quo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's such a shame that we have the lives of such smart people being sucked up by such a vacuous, socially value-less and damaging industry.

<comment><USER9> Investing is planning for the future. It is a critical tool for society. Everyone from individuals to important institutions like universities and pensions need to invest. It is a need of the many, not a diversion for the few.

Because of HFT, it has become popular to blindly condemn investing.

I went to college because an endowment was able to provide me with a scholarship. Investing has a huge effect on society and on people.</comment></comment>


The Sound of the Economy - <AUTHOR> https://www.foreignaffairs.com/audios/2015-07-22/sound-economy

<comment><USER2> A slight tangent: another non-standard way of communicating high-dimensional data visually is to render it as human faces.

Peter Watts mentions the idea in his novel "Blindsight" [0], but amusingly enough it is based on actual research:

> those [faces] used near the end of the book represent a very real form of > statistical analysis: Chernoff Faces[1], which are more effective than the > usual graphs and statistical tables at conveying the essential > characteristics of a data set[2].

Here's a passage from the novel:

> He nodded, turning his attention to a woman with no eyes. "Skull diameter > scales to total mass. Mandible length scales to EM transparency at one > Angstrom. One hundred thirteen facial dimensions, each presenting a > different variable. Principle-component combinations present as multifeature > aspect ratios." He turned to face me, his naked gleaming eyes just slightly > sidecast. "You'd be surprised how much gray matter is dedicated to the > analysis of facial imagery. Shame to waste it on anything > as—counterintuitive as residual plots or contingency tables."

[0] [http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm](http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm)

[1] Chernoff, H. 1973. Using faces to represent points in k-dimensional space graphically. Journal of the Americal Statistical Association 68:361-368.

[2] Wilkinson, L. 1982. An experimental evaluation of multivariate graphical point representations. Human Factors in Computer Systems: Proceedings. Gaithersberg, MD, 202-209.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sound as one representation channel for data is an interesting idea. I'd love to hear the sun's magnetosphere once, or radiation bursts from a quasar.

However, the article author seems to imply that there's a difference between "pitch" and "frequency". I wonder what that might be.</comment>


Intel funds series B of startup building vehicle platooining platform - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-05/peloton-technology-raises-cash-for-automated-truck-convoy-technology <comment><AUTHOR> With all the focus on autonomous systems, I haven't seen one dedicated to coordination between two or more vehicles like this. Interesting idea to take advantage of drafting for trucks.</comment>


Someone stole my website - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mirohristov.com/web/someone-stole-my-website/ <comment><USER2> It's not a dickhead move to send a C&D since they didn't bother to ask you if they could rip you off. It's not like it was 'inspired' by. They took it.

</comment><comment><USER3> If they put it in a programming/design portfolio I'd be pissed otherwise it's not such a big deal. But they should leave your credits in instead of stripping them out...

I hope employers are aware of this stuff though. Would be sad to hire someone based on a site portfolio that was actually a bunch of ripoffs. I guess that's the employer's loss then though, & they need to learn how to be better at vetting candidates.

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow. What a shame. Seems another webpage was totally ripped off. Here's another example on the same website: Original: [http://www.kiterungame.com/](http://www.kiterungame.com/) Clone: [http://www.aranya13.com/aranya/app/index.html](http://www.aranya13.com/aranya/app/index.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow indeed! Thanks for the links.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Page not found anymore? Guess they got the heat and took it down.

Edit: that link above the image (ie [http://blog.mirohristov.com/www.aranya13.com/aranya/](http://blog.mirohristov.com/www.aranya13.com/aranya/)) is what's broken..

And seriously... that music?

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Absolutely. I would say shame them. These are college kids, who are learning ethics. This should not under radar. 10 kids ripping your website and claiming their own. It is your hard work.

<comment><AUTHOR> True! Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Good thing they included that super awesome streaming audio widget so I would have something to listen to while I looked at the website. I wonder whose music they stole?

</comment><comment><USER8> Ok, but why the masked computer criminal stock photo? I know the adage "all posts should have an image", but that image always make me cringe.

</comment><comment><USER9> looking at the about page, seems like some Indian college kids cloned it for their festival</comment>


Ask HN: Which is the most suitable day to launch my startup publicly? - <AUTHOR>

I am about to launch my product officially and was wondering which can be the best day since I want to avoid weekends and monday may be too busy for everyone. Any suggestions ? <comment><USER2> The single announcement you make isn't statistically likely to make a difference in your product's success. You're better off just getting something out the door and iterating based on actual user feedback.

"The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second-best time is now." \- An old proverb

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I certainly understand that, since we only launch it once, I want to make sure I get the timing right.

<comment><USER2> My point is that the timing doesn't matter as much as you probably think it does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Now.

<comment><USER4> What zindlerb said. There is no right day. Also not sure what you mean by "launch". Read this for what I mean by my question: [http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/03/dont- launch.htm...](http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/03/dont-launch.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yesterday.

</comment><comment><USER6> Tuesday morning @ 7:30am -- bright & early, invite folks for strong primo coffee!

<comment><AUTHOR> I was thinking the same. So Tuesday Morning it is.</comment></comment>


Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google? - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/is-facebook-really-scarier-than-google <comment><USER2> Your ISP tracking your every move is scarier than all of them after the ISP privacy bill passed.

At least Facebook and Google give you something for it and you can route around them if you desire. No routing around ISPs unless you use a VPN but even then they are blocking those.

Broadband/cable/telcos capture everything you do and can now sell that information and do[1]. That bill was the pre-cursor to removing net neutrality by taking privacy and policy from the FCC to the FTC.

Part of Jeff Flakes argument for getting rid of the privacy protections were so that ISPs can compete with Facebook and Google and sell your data/offer ads to you. Yet Facebook and Google at least built products you wanted that you willingly gave up privacy to use and at least got something for it [2][3].

ISPs you have to pay to use and they still take your data as if you are the product. ISPs could have built products people wanted to get that data but they instead bribed 'representatives' to get it via legislation with their local monopolies. Noone wanted this bill but ISPs.

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things- you...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp- could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections)

[2] [https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op- ed-f...](https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-ed-for-the- wall-street-journal)

[3] [https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/flake-i...](https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/flake- introduces-resolution-to-protect-consumers-from-overreaching-internet- regulation)

<comment><USER3> Uh, Google and Mozilla and a handful of organizations are converting all web traffic to HTTPS through subtle manipulation of standards and user interface. They even proxy mobile traffic from their search engine. ISPs can't even see what IP you're visiting because it's all fronted by CloudFlare. Even your DNS is being hidden by an HTTPS tunnel in the browser.

Your ISP soon won't be able to see anything you do online. But Google will see it all.

<comment><USER4> There's still SNI in TLS. Hopefully that changes in 1.3, but I don't know how prevalent that is yet.

<comment><USER5> Wait. Wait a minute.

I was planning literally this month to figure out how to implement domain traffic analytics on my LAN by using SNI via libpcap or similar (something tiny).

Will I have to configure a root cert and build a full DPI proxy to make this futureproof? >_<

<comment><USER4> It'll be coming, and yes you will. On the bright side, nobody else without a root cert on your box can do it.

<comment><USER5> Argh. But thanks for the honest headsup.

Time to go learn how to do DPI...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I know Google is profiling me and harvesting my data. But it's not using me to harvest my friends information.

I know Google is targeting ads at me - and they maybe AB tested. But those ads are from real companies or organisations - they aren't fake bots or astroturf groups algorithmically designed to tell me what I want to hear.

I'm sceptically watchful of Google, I feel I have a social contract with them where they use me and I use them. I think Facebook has way overstepped that mark.

<comment><USER7> I sure as hell don't think my Grandma or Dad would have realized that Google's dark pattern[1] "opt-out" dialogs asking if they want to "make Android better" actually were asking for permission to send their location on a minute-by- minute basis to Google. How do you think Google populates their "Popular Times" card on search results?[2] Do you believe that even a simple majority of people going to a hospital, say, for some embarassing infection or a psych eval realize that the fact that they are there is going to be stored permanently on a Google server?

Google for me is the company that epitomizes the idea of false consent justifying near-unlimited data collection and permanent retention. If the man on the street is not aware of what he's agreeing to when he buys an Android phone in a meaningful sense, it is not consent in any meaningful sense.

We as people in tech might be aware. We might even be fashionably cynical in trying to rationalize our awareness of Google's tricks as a "social contract." But with knowledge comes responsibility.

[1]: [https://darkpatterns.org/](https://darkpatterns.org/) [2]: Seems to appear/not appear based on opaque conditions.

<comment><USER8> I can't see anything wrong with the opt-out screen during Android setup [1]

The option you refer to says, "Help improve your Android experience by automatically sending diagnostic and usage data to Google."

There is a separate option which says in part, "Anonymous location data will be sent to Google, even when no apps are running".

That seems pretty clear to me - I can't see any dark pattern.

[1] [https://fscl01.fonpit.de/userfiles/6473479/image/Nexus_5_mar...](https://fscl01.fonpit.de/userfiles/6473479/image/Nexus_5_marshmallow/androidpit- setup-screen-5-w782.jpeg)

<comment><USER9> C'mon... Google maps will ask me turn my GPS every damn time I use it; no way "to remember this choice", but if I activated it, it is super happy to remember it.

Still don't see anything wrong?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Disclaimer: I work for Google and these views are only my opinion, etc.

From my perspective, Google's goals are aligned with improving the world by offering information services. Search, Gmail, Maps, Translate, basically all of the Other Bets, etc.--it's easy to imagine that the people behind them are more concerned with impact on the world than on generating profit or consolidating Google's power.

To me, Facebook has no such world-improving aspirations. The extent to which I'm aware of Facebook's attempt to improve the world was the initiative to bring free internet to India, which was perceived as a play to lock more people into Facebook. Plus, I keep seeing studies of how increased Facebook usage correlates negatively with peoples' moods, so Zuckerberg's evident goal of "get everyone on Earth on Facebook" feels gross.

Things obviously aren't just this black and white, and both companies collect user data in order to generate buckets of advertising wealth (which, if you find disagreeable, probably biases you against both companies), but from a personal perspective, I'm quite happy working for Google while I don't think you could pay me enough to work for Facebook.

<comment><USER11> A lot of people seem to default to a really cynical view of tech businesses. I share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life easier. This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many people hold is getting kinda old.

Giving them your data is the price you pay for their service. If this doesn't seem fair to you then find an alternative. Enough of this scary business.

Maybe with the Equifax and Cambridge analytica incidents the broader public will start thinking about privacy more seriously. And in turn companies may start pushing privacy assurances as selling points. (Just reaching for a bit of optimism in these unnerving circumstances, I don't like it either)

<comment> wu-ikkyu >I share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life easier.

I've never understood how people can have such a religious-like faith in a corporation they have never seen the inside of and in which they know not a single person who works there. Gullibility perhaps?

>This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many people hold is getting kinda old.

Do you care at all about security? Because that is the fundamental assumption behind taking any security precaution whatsoever in life, whether it's putting a lock on your door or not trusting a faceless corporation with billions of the most detailed psychological profiles in history.

<comment><USER12> .

<comment> wu-ikkyu How is it a strawman?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What is scary is the unregulated way in which massive amounts of data can be used to sway public opinion so easily. What is even scarier than this is the way in which those in power can use massive amounts of data to sway public opinion without oversight. The very notion of a republican form of government may end up needing to be reanalyzed.

Forget concentrating on Google or Facebook. There is a larger concern. If multi-national company A collects massive amounts of data and sells it to company B to use to influence elections in country C then in what way are C's people in control of their government? Especially if A and B are based in another country.

<comment><USER14> The framing of the situation is kind of twisted imo.

If we talking about politics, it seems entirely reasonable that a politician would want know what their constituents were thinking about, would tell their constituents what the constituents wanted to here and go to Washington and do what they promised. That's democracy - obviously, this democracy isn't in very good shape. But it's hard claim to that having a very fined-grained understanding of a constituency's wants is the thing that is destroying American democracy. I would lie it's more simply "lies and demagoguery". Now, it seems like Trump undoubtedly used data to fine-tune his demagoguery but I think we have to look elsewhere that data-access to explain the problem. Or - the problem with American democracy isn't groups have fragmented to many, many sub-constituencies but that significant portion of these have palpably irrational views (anti-vaxers, pizza-gate, etc).

That's problem for our democratic system. That degredation of education might be to blame. The destruction of the safety net might be to blame. Or the willingness of mainstream media to engage in propagandistic approaches equally as manipulative as the extreme right might be to blame - and that bring the point that complaints about Cambridge Analytica in a broader context seem entirely in this propagandistic stream, shifting the focus of attention and packaging a vague threat rather than giving any coherent analysis.

<comment><USER13> I'd agree with the degradation of education system you brought up but even well educated people are prone to being nudged. In the past there was a diversity of competing news reporting. In the U.S. there has been massive consolidation in ownership of media. The sources of information are becoming fewer and the targeting of information is causing people to exist in news bubbles.

As you point out we have anit-vaxers, pizza-gate, etc. and I think this is the result of people existing in news bubbles. Curated content designed to maximize dopamine, anger, fear, etc. This makes it easier to manipulate. Think of all the people who got angry, fearful when Obama suggested having talks with Kim Jon Un and who now are happy that Trump has suggested holding talks with Kim Jon Un. People are prone to this sort of hypocrisy. They most likely aren't even aware of it.

I'm not opposed to gaining a fine-grained understanding of constituent needs as such. What I do oppose is a fine grained understanding of constituent needs so that a message can be crafted to increase the chance that a policy gets enacted when that policy has nothing to do with constituent needs. The information does not appear to being used for the good but rather for the enrichment, empowerment of well connected people.

The public at large is an informational battleground in which the victor achieves power. We are pawns in a game and the purpose is not the public good. This is dangerous if people don't realize this.

<comment><USER15> Actually, as an owner of the specialized website, I can tell you that blatant invasion of privacy actually destroys publishers. Regional newspaper literary competes with YouTube and apps for advertising dollars, and Google could care less for existence of this regional newspaper, because it can show local ads on the apps. See more what we wrote here: [https://medgadget.com/google](https://medgadget.com/google)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If FB goes down for one day it is a minor inconvenience.

If Google goes down for one day, I am literally at a standstill. No Maps, no Search, no GMail, no YouTube, no Photos! I don't know how I will get through the day without these services :(

As such, with Google, I am more than ok them using my data to target me ads since it does feel a mutually beneficial relationship.

<comment><USER17> > No Maps

Here Maps or OpenStreetMap

> No Search

I've switched to a mix of Qwant and DuckDuckGo, depending on question

> No GMail

I've been self-hosting all my mail for 4 years now, works fine thanks to simple solutions such as this tutorial [https://workaround.org/ispmail](https://workaround.org/ispmail)

> No YouTube

This is the largest issue, but most of what I consume is either music or streams, and most of the streams are also on twitch, and the music is also available for sale on CD, or on Spotify.

> No Photos

I use seafile with automated upload and a custom-built photos UI frontend to provide a photo gallery for me, and to allow me to share photos. I use the tensorflow pre-trained example model for object classification to tag the images, it's good enough.

For sharing other images, I'm building a custom imgur clone (GPLv3) [https://git.kuschku.de/justJanne/imghost](https://git.kuschku.de/justJanne/imghost) and [https://git.kuschku.de/justJanne/imghost- frontend](https://git.kuschku.de/justJanne/imghost-frontend), example: [https://i.k8r.eu/i/cXqmnQ](https://i.k8r.eu/i/cXqmnQ)

For most normal people, living without Google services may be complicated. But this is HN, we're basically all software engineers capable of building our own solutions, and they don't have to handle nearly as many edge cases. I don't need to translate my image host into 108 languages, just english is fine (even if it's not my native language). For people like us, it's not that complicated to free ourselves of Google, and, in the long term, even self-host everything.

<comment><USER18> Yes, I can live without Google Map, Google Search, GMail, Photos, but Youtube is unavoidable. For me, Youtube is more than just music or cute videos. I learn programming, mathematics, physics a lot from Youtube. :(

<comment><USER19> It's still not getting completely away from Google, and they could probably still track you through IP, but I've been really happy with the NewPipe client for Android; it's attempting to provide all the features of browsing without falling back on any official API and certainly without needing an account. There are a few features that aren't out yet (most notably comments, notifications, and YT-user playlists, though it can play the latter if you get the link through another browser) but it gives you an offline subscription list and in my opinion is more comfortable to use than the official app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Forget scary. Let's talk about utility. Facebook gives you distraction but Google gives you information (YouTube, Google Search, GMail, Maps, Voice, Fiber, Project Fi, etc) and is more restrictive about how it lets partners use its platform to interact with users.

<comment><USER21> This 100%

Google build genuinely useful products, and use the knowledge it gains about you to show (generally somewhat useful) ads, and generally stays out of your way.

Facebook on the other hand desperately tries to manipulate you into consuming as much time as possible on their platform at almost any cost, using lowest common denominator tricks.

<comment><USER22> It's just kind of a false choice. I use FB to keep in touch and chat with friends, find out about local events, follow various interesting people, etc. google tried to do the same thing with Google Plus and failed. But I certainly don't feel manipulated by FB, I feel they are providing me with a useful service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you use FB, you have to be logged in and actively engaged by you providing your identity to use it.

Google _can_ be used without logging in or tracking.

That is the critical difference for me - to use Facebook you have to actively be part of the social graph and share your identity. Google wants you to sign in, but you don't have to (apart from Gmail etc)

To block tracking from most people you can:

* Block third party cookies in your browser.

* Use DuckDuckGo.

* Block ads.

* Use a VPN (to get differing IP addresses).

This will neuter 99% of tracking approaches that rely on cookies, IP matching, purchase history, or being logged in. For Google and others too. Some will use more exotic approaches to tracking (e.g. canvas fingerprints) but there is a browser extension arms race to handle that.

The first 3 of those things take 90 seconds to do once then forget about and never deal with again. It's not hard. VPNs are more commitment and come with their own problems, but add some extra obfuscation. If you don't want to use android then obviously you can get another phone. Firefox is viable again these days.

There are fewer and fewer excuses for this attitude - Google is not inescapable IMO, but you cannot escape Facebook _if you want to use it_.

It just comes down to how much you care and how much you value their services - you might need to ask yourself some hard questions about what you really value and what you are prepared to go without before complaining about how these companies are run in order to offer you free services.

(views are my own opinion)

edit: perhaps I wasn't clear: ad blockers and/or disallowing third party cookies will prevent Facebook like buttons (or tracking pixels from other parties) from tracking you as effectively, especially if you cycle your IP addresses with a VPN. You just look like a totally different user each time.

<comment><USER24> Facebook tracks everyone that comes across a page with a like button.

They also purchase data from 3rd parties [https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/30/facebook-buys-data-on- us...](https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/30/facebook-buys-data-on-users- offline-habits-for-better-ads/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I find it amazing that Chollet even tries to argue "There's only one company where the product is an opaque algorithmic newsfeed, that has been running large-scale mood/opinion manipulation experiments..." when Google's ranking algorithm is so infamously fickle, and especially when its per-user bubbling is an open secret and even obliquely touted as a feature.

</comment><comment><USER25> Google has a profile of my voice solid enough that they're comfortable making it an authentication option in Android. They have microphones in millions of homes and millions more on people's pockets, which are by the way also tracking live location and a myriad of other data.

Yikes.

</comment><comment><USER26> Not at all; Google is every bit as scary. Together the two companies have sucked all the profit out of publishing.

</comment><comment><USER27> You can also dump it and not miss a beat. Much harder to do with Google. Facebook is thoroughly non-essential.

<comment><USER7> Tell that to people with Android phones. Google Play Services is an opaque blob that cannot be uninstalled and is necessary for nearly all Android apps. And it is constantly uploading your location minute-by-minute to Google for use in things like their "Popular Times" card on search results and who knows what else.

<comment><USER28> When you set up an Android phone you have the option of not using Google Services. Secondly, you can disable Google Play Services anytime you want. You can also turn off location history and tracking anytime you want so I'm not sure where you get the idea that none of these services or apps can be turned off or disabled.

<comment><USER7> I am not sure what comment you think you are replying to. Google Play Services cannot be uninstalled on a stock Android phone, like I said, only disabled; and disabling it means the vast majority of Android apps won't work, like I said. These are facts that anyone can verify for themselves; you merely claiming otherwise doesn't change this.

You also seem to be confusing Google's various services with Google Play Services specifically.

<comment><USER29> You can, however, disable the location tracking across your device pretty easily, or even just disable location history if you want other tools to be able to use your location.

Yes, disabling core features of your device results in a worse user experience, this should not come as a surprise.

<comment><USER30> The point is that there is no reason those features need to be dependent on Google Play Services in the first place

<comment><USER29> I believe there are power and compute related reasons that you actually do need there to be a central service that manages location data.

And I guess at that point you could say "but then there should be a single tool that does location management for apps and location tracking should be entirely separate", but I'm not sure why that's any better than "there's one app but you can toggle off the objectionable parts in a really straightforward way".

Or perhaps you mean that they could just provide raw GPS data and the app developers could handle everything else, but that too runs into power and usability issues. Android handles geocoding and reverse geocoding in relatively energy efficient (and reliable!) ways. If every app had to do its own geocoding, you'd have disparate experiences in apps. (Note that Apple does almost the same thing: there are builtin geocoder objects provided by the OS that convert from GPS to address over the network). You could make that a separate thing, but then you'd get people complaining that "none of my location based apps work even though I have GPS enabled".

So I guess I'm curious what your suggestion on what they should do instead is.

<comment><USER30> > I believe there are power and compute related reasons that you actually do > need there to be a central service that manages location data.

That may be, but they could open up that service for me to run on my own server, rather than through them.

> And I guess at that point you could say "but then there should be a single > tool that does location management for apps and location tracking should be > entirely separate", but I'm not sure why that's any better than "there's one > app but you can toggle off the objectionable parts in a really > straightforward way".

I'm not following what you mean by this. Can you expand?

> If every app had to do its own geocoding, you'd have disparate experiences > in apps.

And? I already have disparate experiences in apps for tons of reasons.

<comment><USER29> >And? I already have disparate experiences in apps for tons of reasons.

So because some things are a bad experience, we should make more things a bad experience? I don't follow. Or do you mean that you as an end user, not an app developer, should be able to configure the server used to look up the mapping of gps coordinates to street addresses used system wide, as though that isn't a giant security vulnerability? (as in, if I were Uber or Lyft, I wouldn't want to deploy my app on a platform where another app with root privileges could, for example, change the GPS lookup location to something adversarial whenever uber was in the foreground, leading to bad end user experiences).

As far as I know, apps can already do their own geocoding (no one could really stop them), they just don't because the built in ones are better and give consistent experiences.

>I'm not following what you mean by this. Can you expand?

I guess I'm not clear on what the problem with "I get my location through google play services" is. Like I understand why one might take issue with "the only way to get location data is to opt in to Google having my location history". But that's not what happens, since you can turn that off. So I'm unclear on why Play Services being the source of location data, as opposed to something else.

<comment><USER30> > So because some things are a bad experience, we should make more things a > bad experience?

I don't see how disparate experiences are bad experiences. Those are two entirely different things.

> if I were Uber or Lyft, I wouldn't want to deploy my app on a platform where > another app with root privileges could, for example, change the GPS lookup > location to something adversarial whenever uber was in the foreground, > leading to bad end user experiences

Is there any reason this can't be done today? I already have root on my platform, and, afaik, I can spoof my gps coordinates. Besides, if you don't like how a platform has set up its permissions, then don't develop for that platform.

> But that's not what happens, since you can turn that off

You can flag a button, that tells you that it is turned off. There's no way of knowing whether or not they actually keep my data.

<comment><USER29> >I don't see how disparate experiences are bad experiences. Those are two entirely different things

Inconsistent experiences is perhaps the single biggest complaint about Android as a platform. This is on comparison to iOS which has much stricter controls on how things can look and what you can do. Unified interfaces are better experiences. Predictability is a part of good ux.

>Is there any reason this can't be done today? I already have root on my platform, and, afaik, I can spoof my gps coordinates. Besides, if you don't like how a platform has set up its permissions, then don't develop for that platform

I'm honestly not 100% sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's the kind of thing that only possible via BusyBox or whatever.

As for the second part of your comment: losing Uber for a feature that will be used by 6 people is not a reasonable trade-off for a platform to make.

>There's no way of knowing whether or not they actually keep my data.

Well yes there is. You can see all the data Google has one you via takeout. For location specifically, there's timeline.

Unless you mean that you think they are lying and secretly storing your data in which case there's a plethora of legal reasons they can't do that. You're veering off into conspiracy territory.

(I work at Google but these opinions are mine alone)

<comment><USER30> > losing Uber for a feature that will be used by 6 people is not a reasonable > trade-off for a platform to make.

Than it stands that Google values money more than they value designing a system with their user's best interests in mind.

> Unless you mean that you think they are lying and secretly storing your data > in which case there's a plethora of legal reasons they can't do that.

Yeah, because Google _never_ lies about what they do with data, or how they collect it. /sarcasm

I have no direct evidence of them doing it this time, but fool me once...

The point is that they _could_ make it work without being dependent on Google Play Services, but they choose not to.

<comment><USER29> >Than it stands that Google values money more than they value designing a system with their user's best interests in mind.

No, they value their average user over you specifically. If the average user will gain more from Uber than from the feature you suggest, it is in Google's users' best interest to not implement that feature.

>Yeah, because Google never lies about what they do with data, or how they collect it. /sarcasm

Then you can certainly name all the other times? There are a number of complaints about Google that I've heard, but being secretive about what data they collect is a new one.

<comment><USER30> > No, they value their average user over you specifically. If the average user > will gain more from Uber than from the feature you suggest, it is in > Google's users' best interest to not implement that feature.

No, they don't. They could make this an optional feature, and they choose not to. And I can't think of any way that preventing users from controlling there own data could be good for users.

> Then you can certainly name all the other times?

I can't name _all_ the other times, but they misuse our data so often, they publish statistics about it:

[https://transparencyreport.google.com/user- data/overview?use...](https://transparencyreport.google.com/user- data/overview?user_requests_report_period=authority:US)

<comment><USER29> >No, they don't. They could make this an optional feature, and they choose not to.

If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You are not the user" rings true here.

To put this another way, if your "feature" harms the ecosystem, it is not, in fact, a feature.

I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about responding to legally binding government requests.

While you may feel that handing data over to the government is a misuse, Google is not secretive about this. They're very straightforward about the fact that they will obey lawful requests, and they're transparent both with affected users, and the general public, about when and how they comply with those requests, as evidenced by the report you just linked.

So I'll try this again: since you accused Google of lying about collecting data or lying about what they do with it, can you substantiate that accusation, by giving examples of Google lying about what data it collects, or lying about what it does with that data?

<comment><USER30> > If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android > platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You > are not the user" rings true here.

That's a big if. I highly suspect that Uber wouldn't want to leave one of the biggest platforms just because of a simple option that might already exist. What if Uber demanded to be able to have root on Android phones? Would Google be willing to bow to that because losing them would be a "net loss to Android users"?

I'd have to ask you to point out why giving user's more ways to manage their data "harms the ecosystem".

> I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the > accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about > responding to legally binding government requests.

Yeah. I did. It doens't matter _why_ they lie, it matters _that_ they lie. Especially If they are willing to lie to me about how they use my data, they why wouldn't they be willing to lie to me about how they collect my data? And I fully admit that I have no direct proof of them lying about how they collect data, but I don't see why you would trust a company that regularly lies to it's users about what it does with that data.

<comment><USER29> You haven't actually shown an example of them lying though. Are you saying that complying with lawful requests for data, as Google explicitly stares it will do and then publicly announcing the ways it complied, as well as when lawful, announcing to the affected users, is lying? I find that difficult to believe.

<comment><USER30> > Are you saying that complying with lawful requests for data, as Google > explicitly stares it will do and then publicly announcing the ways it > complied, as well as when lawful, announcing to the affected users, is > lying?

By not notifying their users that their data was breached they aren't being honest about how how data is being used. They could also set up the system in such a way that their user's data couldn't be mishandled, but they choose not to.

Not exactly the actions of a company that I would consider trustworthy.

<comment><USER29> >By not notifying their users that their data was breached they aren't being honest about how how data is being used.

But they do notify the user unless doing so is illegal (and then, they do so when it becomes legal). You still haven't substantiated this claim of lying, unless you are claiming that "obeying the law" is lying about how data is being used. But again, Google is clear that they will obey court orders.

> They could also set up the system in such a way that their user's data > couldn't be mishandled, but they choose not to.

This is also one of those things that appeals to a small group of privacy enthusiasts, but isn't actually a good thing for the average user. The same set of changes that make it impossible to as you describe it "mishandle" data, also make it impossible to recover data in the case of user error. If you're willing to make that tradeoff that's fine, but for most people, the looming spectre of a court order is a much less worrying issue than forgetting one's password.

That may not be the case for you, and that's fine. But to say that not doing that is unethical is a stretch. See this thread[1], where a number of security professionals who to my knowledge aren't Google-affiliated (and me, who is neither a security professional, nor independent) discuss this.

It comes down to the average user's threat model not involving state level actors. Designing a broadly appealing service to respond to that threat is a disservice to the average user, because it comes at the cost of other features.

You personally may have a different threat model, and that's ok. But to claim that anyone who does not follow your exact threat model is lying or mishandling data is disingenuous and potentially harmful.

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853477](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853477)

<comment><USER30> Im sorry, but I cant take any of what you are saying seriously. You can ignore the facts all you want, but an uncomfortable truth is still true.

<comment><USER29> I'm not ignoring any facts. You haven't substantiated any of your accusations. You're the one who is transforming "transparently obeying lawful warrants as they disclose they will" into "lying about data usage", or at least that's the best interpretation of what you're saying I can come up with.

If you want me to engage with facts, please provide some first! I can't ignore what isn't there.

<comment><USER30> > I'm not ignoring any facts.

You most certainly are.

Fact: They are willing to lie to me, and are unwilling to set up their systems in such a way that they don't have to lie to me.

Fact: They could also set up the system in such a way that their user's data couldn't be mishandled, but they choose not to.

Bonus Fact: They say that they store our data securely, but it's clear that they don't, if they _can_ comply with a NSL.

You keep making up excuses for them, but those don't matter. The facts matter. If I'm wrong, then it would be easy to prove, and I'd ask you to do so.

> You're the one who is transforming "transparently obeying lawful warrants as > they disclose they will" into "lying about data usage", or at least that's > the best interpretation of what you're saying I can come up with.

And what is factually wrong about that? If I ask them if my data is being mishandled, they'll tell me it isn't. And by not notifying me of breaches of my data, they are lying about the quality of the security of their system.

<comment><USER29> >And what is factually wrong about that?

Because Google states that it will comply with such orders. That means that they do not lie to you about complying with court orders. They tell you in advance that they will comply with them. This isn't a case of Google saying "we will never give your data to the government" and then walking back on that. That would be lying. But they don't do that, they say

> We will share personal information with companies, organizations or > individuals outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access, > use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary > to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable > governmental request

(edited for formatting from [1])

So again, what is the lie?

I already explained why 'designing a system so you can't comply with an NSL' is a nonstarter. The design requirements to do that make such a system untenable for most clients, for example most corporate clients need data recovery features that are _impossible_ in a system designed to meet your requirements.

[1]: [https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/](https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/)

<comment><USER30> > Because Google states that it will comply with such orders.

So Google saying that it will lie to me means that they aren't going lying to me? OK

> I already explained why 'designing a system so you can't comply with an NSL' > is a nonstarter.

No, you gave a poor excuse as to why Google won't do it. That doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, _many_ other organizations do it all the time. Google simply chooses not to.

<comment><USER29> Sharing your data in exactly the way they describe in their privacy policy is not lying. You may disagree with the policy, but that doesn't let you redefine words.

And yes there are providers that claim to offer such security. I've already explained why such offerings are unappealing to a large swath of consumers. There are mutually exclusive features that are more appealing to a wider group of consumers.

Are you saying that Google is wrong to respond to consumer demand?

<comment><USER30> > Sharing your data in exactly the way they describe in their privacy policy > is not lying.

But they refuse to tell me when my data has been compromised. They also say that my data is stored securely, when it is not. That is lying.

> Are you saying that Google is wrong to respond to consumer demand?

Not at all. I'm saying that Google could build their systems in such a way that they can't comply with an NSL. The reasons why they choose not to are irrelevant. It matters that they made that choice. Additionally, there is no reason that they couldn't make it optional.

<comment><USER29> >But they refuse to tell me when my data has been compromised.

Yes, they will not share when your data is requested under an NSL until that NSL is lifted. This is stated clearly. Every other service provider is exactly the same way. _No matter who your service provider is, they will act in the same way: possibly attempt to fight the order, turn the data over, and not tell you about it until the order is lifted._ The only difference is that with certain end to end encrypted services, the data they hand over may not be useful (or it may be, metadata is often valuable and often can't be secured the same way). In other words, your super secure e2e encrypted mail service is still going to have to give user logs to the NSA, and they still won't tell you about it.

So if that's what you consider lying, then literally every company in the US government's jurisdiction will lie to you about when certain data about you has been compromised. In other words, such a definition of "lying" is vacuous, and I'd ask you to give an example of a company either real or theoretical that does what you ask.

>They also say that my data is stored securely, when it is not. That is lying.

This, once again, comes down to your definition of securely. Your threat model is different than the average users'. To the average user, their data is stored securely. (Note: I'm also not sure where this claim is made, feel free to cite the place you're thinking of, I expect that Google is quite explicit in what they mean by "secure").

>Additionally, there is no reason that they couldn't make it optional.

Elsewhere you stated that you believe Google has backdoored your device via Gapps and is secretly transferring your data to their servers despite your having opted out.

In this thread you've stated that you believe that Google " lies about what they do with data, or how they collect it", despite having no evidence of them either lying about what they do with data (as I've demonstrated at this point, they are crystal clear about what they do with data, you just have ideological disagreements with those things), nor any evidence of them lying about what data they collect (you haven't even provided supposed examples of this).

Am I supposed to believe that if Google did provide such a feature, we wouldn't be having this exact same conversation, but with you stating that Google's secure option was secretly backdoored, and they had access to your data anyway?

<comment><USER30> To be frank, you are wasting my time by repeatedly ignoring the facts that I've outlined. Providing poor excuses for why these facts are, doesn't negate them as facts. If you'd like to continue discussing these facts, feel free to hit me up on the side, but I'm not going to engage in this thread any more.

Have a good one

<comment><USER29> At this point all I want to know is the companies who won't lie to you when given a national security letter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Well I mean Google seems to be a lot less eager to give detailed behavioral profiles and social graphs to random people who ask nicely.

</comment><comment><USER32> One of the few times a headline ends with a question mark the obvious answer is in fact: "yes"

Google is evil. Facebook is worse.

<comment><USER21> I know I have an unexplainable bias toward seeing google as inherently positive to society, so I'm keen to hear what makes you think google is evil?

<comment><USER30> They intentionally design their products in such a way that puts their user's privacy and security in danger, by not putting the user in control of their own data. By using Advertising as the basis for their business, they have encouraged a _huge_ race to the bottom for other online services. They also tie themselves unnecessarily into other parts of the web, and degrade the experience in efforts to consolidate power for themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> They are both equally scary but Facebook has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and now everyone is aware of it. Note , I am not claiming that Google will be caught doing this.

</comment><comment><USER34> I don't know the nuanced answer but overall Google seems less irritating, and less fake (because G+ failed)?

<comment><USER35> And they don't have Zuckerberg.

Seriously, though, I think some of it is that Google is a little more transparent. They ingest tremendous amounts of data about you, but for the most part it's while you do things you would otherwise do. Facebook is a destination, an environment unto itself, and it's impossible to ignore that it's addictive and sucking you in over and over. So you use it, but hate it all the same because it has too much power.

I've looked at the data Google collects on me, and it's probably more frightening than what FB has managed to gather. Google has all my search queries to look at, every place I've driven, etc. All without me really noticing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Google surely can draw a network of its ever-logged-in users just with their ad services alone:

1\. You visit a page with some Google ad at home.

2\. Someone else at home visits another page with some Google ad.

3\. Your browsers make the request through the same IP address, marking you as potential acquaintances.

With the frequency of this happening, they can put weights on the edges to mark how closely you are related to that other person. And since they _can_ , they _will_. Otherwise, it would be the loss of this great opportunity for them.

I don't see Google being any less manipulative than Facebook, with all the capable tools they have now. They are ever-present, can track you almost regardless where you visit (ads and analytics), they can gather information about your profile/network, and most importantly, they curate the information presented to you (search and ads).

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm a little concerned with this type of posts. I understand there are other companies just as bad or maybe even worse than Facebook, but shouldn't we focus on them one at a time?

This type of articles tend to have the tone of "hey everyone does this, so maybe what FB is doing isn't so bad?"

That's a mistake and it's misleading. There is a reason The Guardian published Snowden's stories one at a time. People can't get mad at everything all at once. They get into analysis paralysis. Let's fix the issue with Facebook. Then once that's done, we can move on to Google. And then once that's done we can move on to the ISPs, and so on.

But if we throw this "the whole world is terrible and every company is bad" story at people, they aren't going to do anything.

</comment><comment><USER38> They are both scary enough to limit both of them. I don't think we should choose one or the other.

</comment><comment><USER39> Isn't this rhetoric getting tiresome at some point?

<comment><USER40> This has been a long time coming.

[https://twitter.com/georgesoros/status/964471195793068032](https://twitter.com/georgesoros/status/964471195793068032)

I posted about it here, but was heavily downvoted because mentioning this man automatically brands you as a conspiracy theorist.

It's really naive to think he doesn't know the news before it's news.

<comment><USER41> It's really naive to think that this only became news in 2018.

It's rather obvious that both Facebook and Google are conglomerates that know way more then they should about us.

That has been the case since at least 2012. There's nothing newsworthy about that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I was expecting some more points on how Google actually does scary things, too. I can recount more points off the top of my head than this article lists and the headline seems to suggest that this would be the main-point of the article. Instead, it's mostly just a platform for this François Chollet's opinion, which is even biased into quite the opposite direction.

</comment><comment><USER43> Depends on what scares you.

If you are worried about your privacy, Google is way scarier. If you don't use Facebook as a social networking site, the data it will have to you is minimal. Can be made even smaller with a couple of extensions available on all browsers.

Now Google owns one of the largest ads network in existence, which means you're being tracked by Google every time you set foot on any site that runs ads. Plus, those that don't probably use Google Analytics, which is also tracking you. Plus, there's Youtube, Google office suite, GMail (even if you don't use it, half of your correspondents do, including many companies so you don't even know by domain name that you send data to Google). Plus, Google Drive, etc. Plus Android, plus Google Play, plus Google Maps, etc. The amount of your private data that is going to Google, if you have any online presence, is stunning. Google is clearly scarier.

Now, if you're worried about these data being used in partisan political battles, the picture is different. As we know by now, both US political tribes has been able to successfully collect and use Facebook social graph data for their purposes. Facebook management remains more or less neutral so far on this question - while the top management undoubtedly belongs to the blue tribe, and, as we've seen, has been glad to provide access to blue tribe campaigns, the red tribe has been able to use the data too. For Google, again, the company is managed by the blue tribe, and openly sides with it at every opportunity, but we don't know anything about how or whether the data is used for political purposes. If you are concerned about the red tribe gaining the same access to private data and control over mega-corporations as the blue one has been enjoying so far, Facebook would be scarier for you, while Google would look pretty safe - even though they have a lot of data, people with correct tribal affiliations are guarding it, so no need to worry there.

</comment><comment> gator-io If the DNS/cert leakage problem can be solved, the ISPs won't be able to see or inject anything with HTTPS usage rising:

[https://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?id=https](https://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?id=https)

LetsEncrypt.org now has wildcard certs. No site should be using HTTP anymore.

</comment><comment><USER44> Can't we agree that both are scary? You can live without both.

</comment><comment><USER45> Neither scares me in any way whatsoever. What does scare me are those who use Facebook as their source of information for how to run their lives.

</comment><comment><USER46> I personally prefer Google over FB. I haven't deleted my FB account because that's my contact list of some sort but I am not very active. I guess I prefer the Snapchat model where what you post doesn't stick around forever. I'm not fond of the aggressive, greedy bro attitude of FB in moving fast and breaking things. On the other hand I use Google services all the time.

Folks whining about data collection should realize Google hasn't decided to be an ad company, it's just they have succeeded monetizing it better than their more recent cloud offering and in future their hardware business. So it's not an ad company because it does everything top down based on what would make ad business succeed. It's just that the search product is popular and placing ads next to it pays well. If you're complaining about seeing ads and are not using the paid GSuite version or non google services for email for example, it means you don't care enough and perhaps should stop whining about a free service you've opted to use.

This is also somehow true about FB. they're trying to monetize their Oculus business but it doesn't pay as much as the ad business I guess.

IMO the solution to data collection isn't to completely stop it as it'll make the services less tailored to individuals and dumber. Instead I'd rather the data be collected but under full control of the individual. So I can decide who gets to access it and for how long.

<comment><USER7> > If you're complaining about seeing ads and are not using the paid GSuite > version or non google services for email for example, it means you don't > care enough and perhaps should stop whining about a free service you've > opted to use.

This and you characterizing people opposing Facebook and Google as "whining" does not contribute to the discussion. If you think not paying for a service revokes your right to complain about it, why are you even comparing Google and Facebook at all? Your comment is neither insightful nor consistent.

<comment><USER46> I didn't say those who don't pay for a service have no right to complain.

I'm opposing the constant characterization of what Google and Facebook do [successfully and other companies do too but less successfully] which is collecting behavior signals to tailor ads and services is inherently nefarious.

But again, if one opts to receive some service for free, they sure can complain but I don't think they are guaranteed any change to that service based on their complaint.

IMO what matters is that users have alternatives and are not locked in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I doubt all fault lies with Zuckerberg here. Because he is doing what the system rewards, maximizing investor wealth. And that means companies will do everything to profit, and only apologize if caught. Facebook won't have cared till 2025 if they were not caught. Same with Google may be what they are doing, and they are more careful than Google in getting caught.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm really confused by the whole anti Facebook thing. Agree they messed up on privacy, but calling them evil, useless, etc seems over the top. I like FB and find it useful and don't care if somebody has my public profile data, since its public already

<comment><USER48> What's even more shocking is google's PR team here claiming that google is working to "improve" the world. It's so disgusting and tacky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> The main difference from my point of view, as a Google and a non-Facebook user, is that Google actually provides useful services. From GMail, to Maps, Drive, etc. Facebook (as I see it at least) provides zero value. It creates toxic echo-chambers and countless studies have proven again and again that it makes people miserable.

<comment><USER50> Facebook provides a ton of a value to lots of people. In many cases its their entire social circle and how they communicate with them. Just because it doesn't create value for you or I doesn't mean it creates value.

<comment><USER49> I knew somebody would say that. And that's why my comment is sprinkled with "IMO", "from my point of view" etc.

Now, is it really a good service to help people manage their "social circle" in this manner? Not according to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Facebook is less trustworthy than Google.

Facebook has a very full history overflowing with deceit, misdirect, lies theft and not really giving a toss when getting found out.

Google has tripped up once or twice and actively tries to fix its problems.

I find Google a lot less scary than Facebook.

</comment><comment> xkcd-sucks Maybe, maybe not. But, it would be a wasted opportunity not to kill Facebook right now because the political will of the resist-trump crowd makes the attempt more likely to succeed.

<comment><USER25> Yet the argument could be made that without Facebook, the duopoly on online advertising could become a monopoly by Google.

They'd definitely hop in and try at a social network again too. They have your voice, your live location, your email, your texts, your photos including a model of your face, your search history, your youtube viewing preferences, and they wouldn't miss the chance to hop in for your social graph and "likes" too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Google edits its search results to achieve political agenda. This is worse than Facebook, which is just used by other political actors. Google does it without a profit incentive, and if its own accord.

Evidence: Search "European History" or "American Inventors" in google.com. Now go to www.google.es and search "gente europea historia" or "inventor americano".

</comment><comment><USER53> Google is scarier in terms of its capabilities, but it's starting from a more solid ethical foundation.

<comment><USER54> I feel like this is a piece that people elide pretty frequently. The Google founders have spoken about tons of things over the years, and consistently come across as being principled and passionate, even if your moral foundation is different from theirs. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, set the tone with the "dumb fucks" IM and has only recently gotten better at not projecting contempt for his users. I honestly couldn't even pin down what his ethical foundations are, given that they seem to swing with the tides of public opinion and what PR message is currently convenient ("connect the whole world! every interaction is a good one!" \--> the more recent "maybe some social interactions are bad, only 'good' ones from now on!").

It's of course entirely possible that this simply means that the Google guys are better at personal PR than Facebook is, but at the very least it helps explain why the perception of each is different.

<comment><USER25> Mark Zukerberg has a foundation with his wife, and they have vowed to donate 99% of their net worth to it [1]. This is Bill and Melinda Gates level; they also pledged to donate the vast majority of their wealth (95%).

Sergey cheated on his wife with a Google employee (who was like 20 years younger and dating another executive) and got a widely publicized divorce [2]. We don't have transcripts for Sergey and Page, but how do we know they didn't also think their users were "dumb fucks", or weren't nice people in college?

I am of the opinion that to become a billionaire you have to step on a lot of people; I am not one to think that Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are moral guides for anyone, and this very much applies to Page and Brin too.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Chan_(philanthropist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Chan_\(philanthropist\))

[2]: [http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/entertainment/life- aft...](http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/entertainment/life-after-a- cheating-google-tycoon-ex)

EDIT:

> I honestly couldn't even pin down what his ethical foundations are, given > that they seem to swing with the tides of public opinion and what PR message > is currently convenient

Two points on this:

1\. Google's mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". What's the "ethical foundation" behind that? Do we know this will make the world a better place? "Useful" for whom?

2\. Both Google and Facebook are advertising companies. They optimize to sell ads.

<comment><USER54> I'm making no claim as to how they are as people, but rather what they see as the philosophical center of their organizations. "Cheated on his wife" and "has a foundation" couldn't be less relevant. Bill Gates, as you mention, is practically the poster child for charity, and yet the idea that that implies much useful about the principles that animated Microsoft under his tenure is foolhardy.

My statement didn't say anythjng about who they are as fully-rounded human beings, and even further, spoke only about the _perception_ of what their company's philosophies (as embodied by their founders words) are. You're flattening the nuance of my statement into a simple-minded "Sergey good, Zuck bad" that I didn't come close to expressing.

The rest of your comment is pretty much a non sequitur and this is already a pretty long response, so forgive me for not addressing it (though I'm happy to if you think I'm being unfair to your point).

<comment><USER25> > I'm making no claim as to how they are as people

Well, sorry I thought you were, but when you say "consistently come across as being principled and passionate" and talk about who Zukerberg was as a person when he was 20 (when he made the "dumb fucks" comment) and his "his ethical foundations", it very much sounds you're making claims about them as people.

> spoke only about the _perception_ of what their company's philosophies

If you say "It's of course entirely possible that this simply means that the Google guys are better at personal", by personal I'm gonna assume you mean surrounding their person, not their companies, and personal PR _is_ very flat and all about "Sergey good" or "Zuck bad". My comment was meant to give the other side of the coin: it's evident you personally see Google's founders as better people ethically, and Zuck as lacking principles, so I gave you an example of the opposite to complement your point of view and hopefully give you a more rounded vision of them. They're all people, with their flaws and strengths; neither has it all figured out.

> The rest of your comment is pretty much a non sequitur and this is already a > pretty long response, so forgive me for not addressing it (though I'm happy > to if you think I'm being unfair to your point).

I don't mind long comments, feel free to address it. (:

<comment><USER54> > it very much sounds you're making claims about them as people.

That's not an unreasonable interpretation, but it isn't what I intended. Their personal PR about how they run the company matters because these are unusually founder-driven companies, and even more so in terms of perception. Just as most people think of the President as more of a king, most have an image of Facebook as Mark Zuckerberg's personal playground.

> it's evident you personally see Google's founders as better people > ethically, and Zuck as lacking principles

You have me wrong here. As I said, I was speaking about perceptions of them. As I said tho, that's not unreasonable, since in the name of succinctness, I presented the view and only afterwards indicated that I was focusing on perception.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Is Microsoft scarier than Google? Unlike Google, Microsoft tracks and profiles you online via their search engine and through all of the "telemetry" Windows sends back to them. Also, doesn't Microsoft operate their Azure cloud service in China that is run by a Chinese state run company?

<comment><USER7> > Unlike Google, Microsoft tracks and profiles you online via their search > engine

Citation seriously needed. "Unlike Google?" Who are you trying to kid?

<comment><USER28> Are you seriously suggesting that Bing doesn't track users? Who are you trying to kid.

 _Microsoft is able to recognize the same user across devices by using an anonymous identifier (MSID). The MSID is used to describe a persistent unique identifier used by Microsoft Advertising to deliver targeted ads and recognize the same user across devices and Microsoft services. Customers have a choice to opt out of targeted advertisements that use the MSID by visiting[http://choice.microsoft.com/en-us/opt- outand](http://choice.microsoft.com/en-us/opt-outand) turning off the control that says "Personalized Ads Wherever I use my Microsoft Account"_

[https://searchengineland.com/bing-ads-launches-universal- eve...](https://searchengineland.com/bing-ads-launches-universal-event- tracking-206467)

<comment><USER7> What on Earth? My comment takes issue with your claim that Bing is "unlike Google." Google's privacy policy explicitly allows them to use queries for advertising, _not_ "unlike Bing." Why are you trying to paint Microsoft as exceptional here?

> We use the information we collect from all of our services to provide, > maintain, protect and improve them, to develop new ones, and to protect > Google and our users. We also use this information to offer you tailored > content – like giving you more relevant search results and ads.

[https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/#infouse](https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/#infouse)

<comment><USER28> >Google's privacy policy explicitly allows them to use queries for advertising

So does Bing.

 _Finally, as described in the Display of Advertising section of this document, we may use search query data for the purpose of personalizing the ads we display to you as you use our services or those of our advertising partners._

[https://www.docracy.com/0fap0koedur/bing-com-privacy- policy-...](https://www.docracy.com/0fap0koedur/bing-com-privacy-policy-tos)

>Why are you trying to paint Microsoft as exceptional here?

Microsoft tracks their users using their Bing and Yahoo search engine.

Microsoft sends vast amounts of Windows telemetry back to their servers. The services sending this telemetry data cannot be turned off.

Microsoft has broken into the accounts of their users. [https://mashable.com/2014/03/28/microsoft-hotmail-email- priv...](https://mashable.com/2014/03/28/microsoft-hotmail-email- privacy/#6uTLAXq9qiqD)

Microsoft operates data centers in China that are run by Chinese state run companies that allow the Chinese government to examine any user data they want.

 _Microsoft Azure operated by 21Vianet (Azure China 21Vianet) is a physically separated instance of cloud services located in mainland China, independently operated and transacted by Shanghai Blue Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. ( "21Vianet"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Beijing 21Vianet Broadband Data Center Co., Ltd._

[https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/china/china- welcome](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/china/china-welcome)

<comment><USER7> Oh my God, why are you acting like you are disagreeing with me when you are now saying _exactly_ what my original comment said?

"Unlike Google, Microsoft tracks and profiles you online via their search engine and through all of the "telemetry" Windows sends back to them."

This is your original comment. Do you see how you are disagreeing with yourself now?

"So does Bing." "Google's privacy policy explicitly allows them to use queries for advertising, not "unlike Bing.""

The first quote is from your comment, the second is from mine. Where on Earth do you see disagreement?

<comment><USER28> Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying. My intent was to imply that if you're going to wrangle Google into the Facebook clusterfuck then you better put the spotlight on other companies that have done more nefarious shit than Google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> The one time Betteridge's Law fails us.

> Chollet bristled at this. "This is the laziest kind of thinking—just because > two things share some superficial similarity (they're large tech > [companies]) doesn't mean they're equivalent," he said.

But... the article is just a riff off of Chollet's tweets about working for Alphabet. Mostly about Facebook anyways.

<comment><USER56> I too had thoughts of Betteridge but in the opposite: it definitely applies and he article gives us a few examples.

But after a second read of the article I think the answer instead of being a flat "no", the answer would probably be more accurately answered with "depends on who you're asking"

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Its a bit like saying..

is getting smashed in the face with a brick really as scary as getting getting smashed in the face with a rock?

</comment><comment><USER58> It's a lot simpler to avoid Google though. I've been using DuckDuckGo for a while now and the switch was simple.

There's no network effect like with Facebook, hence less ennui about it.

<comment><USER59> I feel like this is at least slightly disingenuous.

Sure, your friends keep you hooked on FB but there are other methods of communication.. Even if they're FB owned (like whatsapp).

But google owns the most dominant browser right now, they're spidered into most websites using their analytics engine.

They handle more email than the next 5 providers combined, and they have the most dominant mobile OS on the market.

<comment><USER54> Does any part of that address his point though? Almost every single one of those things you mentioned is part of some federated system, which means you can be the only person in the world not using it and not have your usage affected too heavily.

Your friends can include you in text groups no matter what carrier and phone OS you use, they can include your email even if your mail server is located under your couch, you can visit websites even if you use Firefox or Safari or IE or Opera or Iceweasel or Edge or Dolphin or.... By contrast, you can't decide to be the only one in your friend group without a Facebook acct and still be included in eg event planning and photo sharing, unless your friends make th extra effort to keep a separate channel open for you. That's what the term network effects _means_.

(Yes, I'm entirely aware that the canned response to this is "they're not your real friends then" or "get better friends"; I personally don't use Facebook for anything but event planning/accepting and the occasional communication with an extended member of the family without having to go through a chain of getting people's numbers. But as to the people that don't recognize any potential benefit to a tool like FB for coordinating meaningful social events, I can't help but wonder if they just have very tiny social circles. This isn't a bad thing by any means, but it's bizarre to assume that that's how everyone socializes)

<comment><USER59> "everything here is federated" is not rebutting my point at all.

Sure, you can host your own website without GA, but then you're in a circle of 1.

Unless you don't email people with googlemail accounts, don't use GA websites, avoid android and anybody who uses it and disallow chrome browsers from accessing your content, then you're still kinda in googles reach.

Which is far more invasive than facebook, facebook at least requires you to actually be an active participant in a system that at its core is about telling people about yourself.

Google wants this data and is willing to "pay" for it with free services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I hear so many people talking about this like there's literally no way about going around these issues.

Is it that unimaginable to use an alternative search engine like DuckDuck go? To use tor? To use a VPN? To disable javascript? To block ads? To put some IPs in your /etc/hosts? To use OpenOffice instead of Google Docs and MS Office? To use Proton Mail instead of Gmail?

These products even have nice user interfaces these days! Privacy isn't that hard. These companies offer a service for free (mostly). If you can't do it, I think it's mostly because you just don't care.

<comment><USER61> Maybe because you're not convincing the average person to use those services anytime soon, and that is who matters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Facebook is ethically bankrupt, but their power is much more limited. Google is nothing less than the greatest threat to humanity. Trump, North Korea, militant Islam and Putin all pale in comparison to what Google is capable of. Only Xi's increasingly nationalist and modernized China is capable of remotely the same kind of threat, but Google has a huge lead in military robotics and will _probably_ reach the AI tipping point first.

They have been a beautifully gilded trojan horse, beloved in the beginning, but in the end most of humanity will likely regret having given away so much to Google.</comment>


How Brian Scudamore Fired Everyone and Saved 1-800-GOT-JUNK? - <AUTHOR> https://bench.co/blog/small-business-stories/brian-scudamore/ <comment><USER2> Good story.</comment>


There Must Be 860 Ways to Build a Lidar Sensor for Autonomous Vehicles - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/sabbirrangwala/2020/04/12/there-must-be-860-ways-to-build-an-av-lidarpart-1/ <comment><AUTHOR> this is part 2 [https://www.forbes.com/sites/sabbirrangwala/2020/05/16/there...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/sabbirrangwala/2020/05/16/there- must-be-860-ways-to-build-an-av-lidarpart-2/)

in some ways more interesting than part 1, here he focuses on areas of Lidar development that have not had strong focus.</comment>


David Attenborough calls for ban on deep sea mining - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/david-attenborough-calls-for-ban-on-devastating-deep-sea-mining <comment><USER2> I was curious how this would work, according to wikipedia:

> There are two predominant forms of mineral extraction being considered for > full-scale operations: continuous-line bucket system (CLB) and the hydraulic > suction system. The CLB system is the preferred method of nodule collection. > It operates much like a conveyor-belt, running from the sea floor to the > surface of the ocean where a ship or mining platform extracts the desired > minerals, and returns the tailings to the ocean. Hydraulic suction mining > lowers a pipe to the seafloor which transfers nodules up to the mining ship. > Another pipe from the ship to the seafloor returns the tailings to the area > of the mining site.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_mining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_mining)

<comment><USER3> I feel that if we proceed with this it will signal Nature to kill us off. We _just_ discovered these areas and we are already working to destroy them out of blind greed. Look at the pictures of these things and how they operate. Great big machines, juggernauts, ravaging the ocean floor. They're the embodiment of techno-industrial greed w/o regard for the consequences.

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Deep+sea+mining&atb=v110-1&ia=imag...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Deep+sea+mining&atb=v110-1&ia=images&iax=images)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My understanding of how undersea vents work is that they're constantly shifting with any given vent only lasting a few years before drying up while new vents are constantly forming. There are a lot of important ecological concerns around this, for instance if processing at sea surface dumps silt back into the water that could cover animals deep in the sea or interfere with krill eaters. But I'm not sure the destruction of the vents themselves is a huge issue provided we aren't too rapacious.

<comment><USER5> How long does any particular region of vents last? If these active geological phenomena are anything like volcanos, some of them might well last for millions of years, which is plenty long for biological evolution.

I'm not sure if this is the case, but it seems to me it _could_ be the case that some vent regions are isolated from others, such that life adapted to one cannot find it's way to another. This is certainly the case with many species of troglofauna (cave dwelling creatures.) Destroying one group of ocean vents may wipe out numerous species of life that exist nowhere else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Video interview here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EclnszfMdyQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EclnszfMdyQ)

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm pretty sure that there will be a considered approach with regards to the mining of resources in these almost pristine undersea areas that take into consideration the uniqueness of these ecosystems and that potential profit will be carefully weighted against the damage done by further loss of biodiversity.

Haha, just kidding. The mining companies will probably preemptively poison everything in range just to circumvent such a ban. Our predatory exploitation of the ecosystem knows no boundaries. As long as there's a dollar to be made, we'd cut our own air supply.

</comment><comment><USER8> Does Attenborough have any credibility when it comes to triaging climate change?

<comment><USER9> As Director of the organization that released the report, I believe he does.

[https://cms.fauna-flora.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/03/FFI_2...](https://cms.fauna-flora.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/03/FFI_2020_The-risks-impacts-deep-seabed- mining_Report.pdf)

Are you saying we should wait until we know the adverse effects of basically strip mining the ocean floor and how releasing millions of tons of tailings back into the sea might impact the ecosystem, thermal or carbon cycles that operate there?

<comment><USER10> Attenborough recently accepted criticism that he went too far in avoiding the topic of environmental damage (i.e. finding angles to imply pristine environments where they no longer exist.)

I would say that makes him a perfect person to raise these topics as his previous bias is to avoid problems until they are beyond grim.</comment></comment></comment>