HN user
Of course the NYT would publish a 1k word profile of a nobody as long as they're criticizing big bad tech companies.
Tech companies are only an issue for the newspaper business model they are a boon for the economy as a whole.
This unsubstantiated nonsense.
The current chrome tab design is iconic, I hope they took that into consideration.
Amazon undoubtedly benefited from google attracting the bulk of regulatory scrutiny which is in large part because they have the same business model as newspapers and they didn't much appreciate it.
I misunderstood your intentions.
That's because it's matching "African American Inventors".
I guess it's understandable how this became a rallying cry for racists but if you were to search for "US inventors" you'll find all the white faces you crave: https://www.google.com/search?q=us+inventors
It used to be that this author had a column that pushed back against the tech blaming but due to either weak demand or editorial decisions he pivoted to the mainstream of blaming internet companies for world's ails, and eventually he pulled a stunt and was caught in a lie:
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/farhad-manjoo-nyt-unplug.php
At any rate I yearn for the day when Google's provided comment is something like: "It's our damn site and we don't owe anyone visibly or traffic so stop wasting our time".
The US government is doing that?
Before he was president or even running for office he'd call into a fox news show and say something stupid and other news outlets would pick it up and I remember being annoyed and thinking "why is this news?!" now he's president and everything he says is news and it hurts my soul.
Anyway we live in a free country and the government can't dictate what kind of news a search engine should surface.
It's ironic though that newspapers are actually entertaining this nonsense and not outright debunking the notion and highlighting how dangerous it is.
I'm unemployed.
dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17817334
Also shell group sponsoring sham "research".
Swipe down from the top of the screen and tap the location tile and all location services will turn off.
There's a master switch it's just not what the AP decided it was.
It matters because the manner in which any "findings" are presented has a big role in shaping public opinion and in this case the opinion shapers are purpofuly distorting finding to attack an advesary.
See the WSJ's false report that google let's developers read user emails, it's technically true but that only happens after the user allows it via an explicit permission screen.
Or the AP's claim that google keeps track of user location ever after location history is turned off, which again is technically true but that is because location history is just a location feature and not the master switch for all location features.
In both cases other media outlets repeated the claims without further commentery of research and this cartel might be the reason.
It's interesting how the media cartel front thinks it's safe to drop all pretense and just post their opposition research like that.
http://digitalcontentnext.org/membership/members
http://digitalcontentnext.org/about/overview/
At the very least it reflects poorly on their member's coverage of FB/google.
Every article I read on this confused "location history" with "location services", if you are aware of the difference you shouldn't be surprised that location data is still being sent to their servers.
The Google experience is all about apps backed by the cloud, that's when their apps are at their max utility, I get why some people might not want that but that's no cause to ascribe malice to them.
Location history != location tracking no matter how much some people want it to be, it's a location feature not the master switch for all location features.
Google's pullout of China in the first place was their biggest corporate mistake and they should at least try to remedy that.
Their absence from China didn't liberate the Chinese people and their reentry won't either, they need to ignore the hypocrites and do what's best for the company and for the long term they should tweak company culture and make it clear that rank and file employees won't have a say in big picture corporate decisions and planning, they already cost the company dearly and it must not become a habit.
They would stand in the way of every layoff and changes they don't like, that's their mandate, unions are just another entity fighting for the status quo and another hoop a company needs to jump through.
If the costs for major expenditures were lower people will have more resources to climb the socioeconomic ladder, and we won't need to decrease the dynamism of the labor market and saddle corporations with more obligations to achieve that.
Oh and companies shouldn't pay for employee healthcare, that's a WW2 relic that only benefits health insurers by keeping costs high.
Companies should have all the flexibility to restructure in order to survive tough times or pivot to follow breakthroughs otherwise all these workers won't have a job.
The more money is spent on healthcare and housing the less people have for everything else thus exasperating inequality.
Labor unions hamper corporate options and flexibility and hopefully soon they will all be replaced by machines maybe that would finally make it clear to marxists how much of a commodity labor really is.
Google didn’t provide the information, the cops still found their suspect in the end.
Good.
the FBI’s remarkable attempt to force Google to assist in its investigation will likely worry all who were disturbed by an Associated Press investigation published on Monday that claimed Google continued to track people even when they turned location features off.
That's not true, location history is but one feature != all location features.
The costs of healthcare and housing are far and away the largest dampers on the economy and the cause of inequality.
Shareholder accountability might be something worth looking at but it also seems like a distraction for politicians who are incapable of tackling the real issues.
Dear leftist politicians: please don't attack successful companies and sectors and stop stoking the populist fervor of your hippy base and proto-socialist newcomers and tackle the real issues of healthcare and housing costs which have proven market based solutions.
Do newspapers have to start a privacy panic about every damn thing? there are other ways to frame these reports, it's like they won't be satisfied until everything done on an electronic device is outlawed.
You obviously dislike them and is willfully conflating a bunch of stuff but it's definitely not "the job of the press" to manufacture scandals.
This not very different from when the Wall Street Journal published a story a few weeks back about how: "GOOGLE IS LETTING PEOPLE READ YOUR EMAILS (provided you've given them the permission to do so)".
It would seem that news organizations are trying to entangle google in a cambridge analytica type of controversy, maybe thinking about the potential traffic going their way or maybe they just don't like it that the bulk of ad spending is going to Google/FB, or probably they just think it's worth publishing.
The reality is that the conflict of interest is hard to ignore and the publishing industry should consider adding disclaimers when reporting on their business rivals.
Doing business isn't the problem. The problem is that Google is creating a censored version of their search engine.
Search is their business and they won't be allowed to conduct it there without censorship.
The vast majority of search queries have little to do with the conduct of the Chinese government, and if you hadn't noticed Google's absence from china didn't liberate the Chinese people.
No need for silly hypotheticals, China is a WTO member that has been globally recognized and normalized, doing business there isn't taboo, at least not for everyone else.
Gotcha.