throwaway0220

Imagine for a moment if FB and Google took all their developers and resources...

It's a nice thought exercise, but of course not realistic. FAANGs wouldn't be able to attract or retain the talent if they were purely in scientific medical research (where do you think those fancy offices and fat paychecks comes from?).

Having said that, it doesn't have to be either/or. I strongly believe that companies can be successful in balancing between thriving commercial businesses and using its profits to advance research that can benefit the society at large. Case in point: Google's DeepMind has for years published groundbreaking work in various areas including breast cancer research [1], protein folding [2], energy savings and climate change [3], and more. Also Calico [4], or its investments in health startups via GV, and of course all the well known services to users.

What I'd like to see is more companies following a path where a portion of its profits is used to fund research in areas that can cause societal change for the better (which, in its turn, may eventually became new sources of revenue down the road - e.g. protein folding, self-driving cars).

(disclaimer: Googler here, but no relationship with any of the projects mentioned)

[1] https://www.deepmind.com/publications/international-evaluati...

[2] https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/22/1029973/deepmind...

[3] https://www.deepmind.com/blog/real-world-challenges-for-agi

[4] https://www.calicolabs.com/

Isn't it a tautology? When you're doxxed, your personal identifiable information was revealed to threat or shame you, so yes, you were explicitly or implicitly threatened.

The other part of the form allows you to require removal just by stating that it has your "personally identifiable information". For example, the many sites offering background checks, your address history, etc.

I agree the form is confusing and should be simplified (i.e., the whole doxxing section seems redundant to me, and should be sub-bullets of the PII section), but OP's comment that you can only request removal after receiving threats is factually incorrect.

"...unless I have evidence of explicit or implicit threats."

It seems you're misreading the policy. See my comment above [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31210455

Why is this dependant on receiving threats?

It is not.

From the form [1]: "...that has POTENTIAL to create significant risks of identity theft, financial fraud, harmful direct contact, or other specific harms..." (emphasis mine).

The requirements section states that you may request removal due to the page having "personally identifiable info" OR doxxing content "used in implicit or explicit threats".

Now, there's exceptions to this (e.g. public records, newsworthy content), but nowhere it says you have to receive threats first before requesting removal.

disclaimer: Googler, but no relationship with the team, and have no other knowledge of this policy other reading the public blog post.

[1] https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/9673730

$181M, not B.

Google needs an entirely separate brand/entity to launch these things.

From the very first paragraph: "Google’s Area 120 team, an internal incubator that creates experimental apps and services, has launched Keen..."

In a way this is exactly what you're suggesting: an entirely separate identity [1] to launch these experiments, and avoid direct association with Google's core products. Keen's site[2] only mention Google in the footer.

Of course, "Google launches a Pinterest-rival" makes it sound more juicy than "Area 120 launches an experimental product"...

(disclaimer: Googler, but no affiliation with A120 or the product. I'm hearing for the first time here)

[1] https://area120.google.com/

[2] https://staykeen.com/home

Yeah. Who would think that almost half would share their data with... Samsung.

If google creates jobs in long island city, they would get the same handout though.

Nops [1][2].

[1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/google-to-invest-usd1...

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-large-new-york-cit...

(Disclaimer: Googler here)

+1. Google gives you a corp phone and computer (even multiple ones, if needed); why the heck you'd want to use your personal devices? Plus using a personal device is strongly discouraged.

Also, all the companies I've worked before had similar clauses, and would always push iOS or Android certificates into your phone, so they can remote wipe the device when you leave company.

Seems fairly standard thing to me: no company would want their confidential information lying around in a bunch of personal devices. Calling it "Personal surveillance" seems ridiculous.