I keep my lines of communication open with #Google, and I still know lots of great people there. But I am unconvinced that their current march toward the dark side is likely to be reversed, and I've grown a bit tired of smashing my head into a brick wall trying to help them without positive results.
I understand what's driving their actions -- the political, regulatory, and competitive landscape is rapidly shifting beneath their feet -- but that doesn't change the equation.
Still, they know how to reach me. But I won't be holding my breath.
***** What most depresses me about the #Google situation *****
In #Google's early days, I was widely known as one of their strongest critics. I objected to various of their early practices related to privacy and data retention and other issues. Media would call me for quotes for negative stories about Google.
This began to change after my first direct contact with Google, when many years ago I was invited to give a talk at Google's (then very new) Los Angeles offices. I believe mine was the first talk they recorded, and there wasn't even a podium yet. I sat on the edge of a table.
And after my talk, which was fairly critical but laden with what I hoped were useful suggestions, I hung around for some hours chatting with Googlers and learning that many of them thought my views were on target.
Over the years, Google changed enormously in positive ways. The nightmarish "move fast and break things" sensibilities of the era faded significantly into the background, and Google became a world class example of best practices in many areas including privacy, security, and an array of others.
Also over time, I came into contact with and met many more Googlers (Google employees) and during two intervals worked inside the firm myself, working with them directly.
I (almost) never met a Googler I didn't like, and my view of internal processes greatly increased my confidence that they'd do the right thing. When Google Haters would spout nonsense, I'd refute it.
So now as I've had to be so critical of Google's recent desperate moves toward the dark side, it's depressing to find so many Googlers I know agreeing with me.
Sometimes you really want to be wrong. But I fear that when it comes to what's happening at Google now, and how it could negatively impact the rest of the Internet, I could turn out to be correct.
And what that could mean for the Net going forward is beyond depressing to contemplate. -L
***** Yes, #Google could destroy the best of the Internet *****
In an apparently leaked recording of an internal meeting now making the rounds, their CEO is saying "users don't want blue links", they just want answers.
But where does Google get the data to formulate those Generative AI answers?
MAINLY FROM WEBSITES! Websites that have freely permitted Google to scan their sites in exchange for the links and views and visitors who click those links. That's the bargain.
Google is now pushing to end that bargain. They want to take the data from sites and effectively give nothing in return -- unless perhaps you pay for ads, assuming you have a site that's actually selling something.
But even purely informational sites could be bled dry by Google's new approach. Why should anyone bother to visit the sites if Google just grabbed the data and bundled it up into an answer? It doesn't even matter if Google provides source links -- hardly anyone will bother to
click them.
Google could very easily kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, the best of the Internet itself.
You can't imagine how much it disturbs me and how sad it makes me to write this. -L
Google is reportedly cancelling their AR project Iris. I REALLY HOPE Iris was their mixed reality ski goggle headset, and not the simpler glasses shown here demoing real time translation. https://youtu.be/lj0bFX9HXeE
I owned the Focals by North glasses, and I can't tell you how transformative that experience was. It was NOT any kind of real AR. It was a simple heads up display, with a UI like a smartwatch, but at eye level. It was amazing.
I truly believe we're skipping an INCREDIBLY important step trying to race to magic sci-fi AR. So many interactions with our technology would be wonderfully streamlined with a simple graphic or text at eye level.
Give us a share and come join the chat! https://www.twitch.tv/somegadgetguy #SGGQA 304: Facebook Wont Pay for News, More Twitter Fines, Apple Union Busting, YouTube to Replace Stadia?
I, personally, use no less than 5 email providers that aren’t Google: Zoho, Proton, Outlook, Mailgun, and Mailchimp.
Clearly, there’s a lot of email being sent without Google being involved. But don’t take my word for it. According to this report, Google only accounts for 18% of email sent.
Now is it hard to set up your own mailserver? Yes, it’s rough. It always has been rough—though it’s probably worse nowadays.
But that has nothing to do with Google. That has to do with a 50-year-old protocol with a whole lot of legacy that needs lots and lots of maintenance—all the more compounded by spam.
And yeah, Google is overzealous regarding spam. But so is Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft is worse.
No one doubts email has problems, but by no means did Google kill email. I still use email every day. And it’s probably the most popular social media tech on the planet even now.
I'm as excited about the rumors of improved desktop modes and video out support for the Pixel 8 as the next guy, but we've fielded these kinds of rumors before.
Currently the only phone I have that can run an Android 14 beta, AND has video out, just did this using the desktop mode in Android dev settings.
Which is even more broken than the A13 desktop mode, which was already almost nonfunctional from the A12 mode.
I really WANT Google to give us a Pixel 8 with a proper desktop or tablet large screen mode, but I'm not getting my hopes up until we see the phone in action.
If you want a better example of #Google trying to “embrace, extend, extinguish” (#EEE) the open web, it’s not Chromium. It’s #AMP.
With AMP, Google promised to load mobile webpages faster.
How did this work? By hosting those pages themselves. That’s right, Google made it “faster” by telling content creators that, if only they would give up their content, everything would perform better.
So what was the catch?
As it turns out, Google decided to privilege AMP articles over others. And when you wanted to show up to a website from search, you wouldn’t receive content from the original source, but instead AMP.
After awhile, people began to see AMP for what it was: a ruse to take over more of the web.
Twitter stopped supporting AMP. DuckDuckGo and Brave Browser bypassed AMP. Seeing the writing on the wall, Google stopped privileging AMP over other webpages.
Looking at AMP right now, it’s clearly dying. AMP has clearly damaged Google’s reputation as a guardian of the open web, and less people trust them.
Once again, #EEE has failed. The open web lives another day.
Folks who believe #EEE narratives often say that #Google killed #Usenet. This is not the case. In fact, Google had little to do with the so-called "death" of Usenet. Let me explain exactly what happened.
The most important thing to know about Usenet is that it uses a protocol called Network News Transfer Protocol (#NNTP). This is not a web protocol. In fact, Usenet itself predates the Web.
Why is this important? Because NNTP uses a different TCP port than the Web's protocol, HTTP. While NNTP uses port 119, HTTP uses port 80.
By the mid-90s, overzealous security policies at many corporations (and some ISPs) blocked all TCP ports except port 80. Which forced most people to only access Internet services through web browsers.
This meant that most people could only access Usenet through the web instead of a dedicated newsreader.
(Sidenote: blocking all TCP ports except port 80 is also why webmail became popular.)
Well, what website did most people gravitate to in order to access Usenet? A site called DejaNews. From DejaNews, not only could you read and post to Usenet, it also had a powerful search engine that most newsreaders didn't have.
So DejaNews became the default source of Usenet.
Thing is that DejaNews also had a problem. They had difficulty monetizing their service. They tried to offer private Internet forums, not connected to Usenet, to businesses. This didn't work out.
DejaNews (now named Deja) decided to pivot. So in 1999, they stopped focusing on Usenet. Instead, they did what so many Web 1.0 ventures did and decided to become... a shopping site.
This obviously failed. One year later, Deja sold itself to eBay. And in 2001, Deja's search service shut down permanently.
But that wasn't the end.
After Deja shuttered, Google acquired Deja's Usenet archive. They integrated it into Google Groups. And to this day, you can search Usenet through Google Groups.
Through all this, it's important to understand that Usenet is not dead. It's still very much active. If your ISP allows it, you can use a mail client like Thunderbird to read recent messages posted to Usenet. Even now, Usenet has proven persistent, and it has outlived many proprietary competitors.
Even so, the failure of DejaNews isn't the sole reason Usenet is no longer as relatively popular as it once was.
Remember when I said that most TCP ports except for port 80 were blocked by corporations and ISPs?
Well, that meant that web forums such as phpBB began to overtake Usenet in terms of popularity. Web forums meant that if you had a certain niche interest that wasn't covered by Usenet, you could be up and running much faster than it would take to request a newsgroup devoted to the topic. They also tended to be better moderated than Usenet, and consequently, less overwhelmed by spam.
To be sure, better moderation and less spam was a very big reason so many people opted for web forums over Usenet.
Of course, just because web forums overtook Usenet in terms of conversation doesn't mean Usenet's popular usage was done. Between the late 2000s and early 2010s, Usenet became a popular destination for piracy. In many ways, it was competitive with BitTorrent and Gnutella.
Unfortunately, Usenet being a destination for piracy may have also been the reason that the remaining ISPs that still supported it finally pulled the plug on access. Nowadays, the only way most people can access Usenet is through specific providers like Easynews.
Google didn't kill Usenet. It's still very much alive, though not as popular anymore. Nevertheless, don't blame Google for its loss in popularity.
Blame overzealous security policies, ISPs, DejaNews, web forums, and piracy.
A thing @ploum wrote about corporations wrecking and killing decentralized things (in this case, Google and XMPP) -- and why it's essential to learn from history to resist further corporate destruction:
On Monday morning we (Mozilla) detected a very large crash spike affecting #Firefox users on Linux, specifically on an older version of a Debian-based distribution.
It turned out to be an interesting bug involving the #Linux kernel and #Google JavaScript code so let me tell you about it.
Who are you using for your domain registrar? Looking to move from Google domains since they're being sold off to squarespace. Just curious if I do decide to jump ship. Thanks!
Neue Bilder für Google Street View: Die Rückkehr der Kamera-Autos
Nach 13 Jahren erneuert Google sein Bildmaterial für Street View in Deutschland. Damals hatte es wegen des Datenschutzes eine massive Welle an Widerspruch gegeben. Was sich seitdem geändert hat - und was nicht. Von Till Bücker.
hi i'm a smug piece of shit here to explain to you that blocking #Meta is useless and impossible and wrong actually. let me tell you how #ActivityPub is a sieve and #Facebook is very large.
you know i know what i'm talking about because i currently work for #Google and/or used to work for #Twitter and proudly have that in my bio. that's probably where i internalized the futility of trying anything ever.
if i'm queer, female, and/or a racial minority, i'm insulated from most problems because of my wealth. if i'm not, i have no idea what those problems are other than something about bathrooms? i have several expensive hobbies and have never donated to a mutual aid fundraiser in my life because someone might scam me.
i have no idea what collective action is, but i'm sure it can't work because, as i have mentioned, Facebook is very large. i have an all or nothing idea of success and cannot fathom the concept of making something slightly less shitty.
Starting July 19th, #Google's Album Archive will no longer be available.
Album Archive lets you view and manage album content from some Google products within Album Archive.
However, some content that’s only available in Album Archive will be deleted starting July 19 including
1.Rare cases like small thumbnail photos and album comments or likes
2.Some Google Hangouts data from Album Archive
3.Background images uploaded in the Gmail theme picker prior to 2018. #Photos