1. 13

      Even if the FTC and the DOJ don’t proactively do anything about this, I can’t imagine there not being lawsuits over it.

      I don’t understand why people give Google so much leeway when it comes to being a crappy company. Their behavior is worse than anything Microsoft’s ever done, but they get always get a free pass.

      1. [Comment removed by author]

        1. 9

          I’ve been using DuckDuckGo for about two years now, and I still miss the doodles. They were the only thing I ever missed, really.

        2. 5

          What are some examples of bad behavior that Google has done that is worse than Microsofts?

          1. [Comment removed by author]

            1. 7

              I don’t get this at all.

              All of these are actively better than the status quo. iOS is most definitely not open source (nor was , Chromium works well and is also OSS. Auto-updating Chrome has made browser support sooo much nicer. Dev tools. YouTube has made it so people can make some money off of their content without having to run their own ad sales, a boon for smaller video producers.

              I have complaints about all of these (namely Android’s current move to be more Google-centric), but it’s possible to acknowledge these and acknowledge that they were still a good move forward. And the OSS nature means that there is almost always a way out.

              EDIT: not much defense on some of the anti-competitive behavior on their part though.

              1. [Comment removed by author]

                1. 1

                  I hear your issues with Android and Chrome (and mostly agree), but I don’t grasp your YouTube complaint.

                  Their monetization strategy hasn’t worked for years. YouTubers these days partner with 3rd party “networks” such as Machinima, Maker Studios, Wonderly, etc.

                  I have to admit ignorance on the monetization side of YouTube other than knowing generally that it is always losing money. But what are the “3rd party networks” and what makes them better? Or rather, what are the alternatives that they are better than?

                  The entire structure of the website promotes this shitty self-promoting garbage to be churned out day in and day out, with people constantly yelling “LIKE COMMENT SUBSCRIBE” over and over again.

                  My sense here is the exact opposite. On the user side I finally actually feel like I’m enjoying YouTube! In just the last 8-or-so months. For the first time, I am actively using YouTube to discover long-form content, rather than my previous interactions with it, which were mostly a 90-second clip someone would link me to over [insert name of other medium here], or finding long-form content linking to YouTube from other aggregation points (e.g. Confreaks). I finally subscribed to a channel for the first time last year! In that time I’ve subscribed to 6 or 7 more, and although YouTube’s own recommendations can occasionally be crap, but the few channels I follow have some new content every-other day or so, which is nice.

                  As a minor point on the consumer/user side, I can almost appreciate that Google is probably still losing money on YouTube, and so I am (in theory) getting a better service at a cheaper cost than would be necessary were YouTube is a standalone company. Is your concern that this leads to a monopoly because other services can’t compete?

                  I would agree with the statement that a monopoly is not desirable, for all of the classic reasons. Is that your issue with YouTube? I could get behind that.

                  YouTube has bastardized online video publishing.

                  Maybe part of our difference in opinion lies here.
                  I don’t have any memory of “online video publishing” before YouTube.

                  Worded differently: the only things that come to mind as “online video” pre-2006 didn’t feel like they qualified for the term “publishing”. I remember flash video sites (a mix of actual flash animation and filmed video of variable quality), a few sites that were aggregating .avi or .mpeg files of non-flash content, and of course pirating movies overnight on 56k internet. Avast.

                  Now that I’m typing this, I realize I have used two “TV on Internet” services. I spent a few year streaming c-span.org, and also tried that website the TV broadcasters (iirc) set up to host their videos together and compete with YouTube and/or Piracy. Was that Hulu? I remember using that a few times when someone had linked me.

                  But back to my point: I have many, many fond memories of the older, less-centralized internet, its culture, how its culture inter-operated with the broader culture and so forth. Video is not especially present in any of those memories, unless you count the Numa Numa video. If YouTube bastardized anything, I either don’t know what it was, or I don’t miss it.

                  What about pre-YouTube online video publishing do I not know about, and what advantages did it have?

                  1. [Comment removed by author]

              2. 6

                Massive amounts of anticompetitive behavior (Chrome advertising on Google; Google Docs and YouTube broken on non-Chrome browsers); massive privacy violations (StreetView cars picking up passwords). The behavior is so bad Google is the subject of multiple EU investigations.

            2. 3

              I don’t understand why people give Google so much leeway when it comes to being a crappy company.

              It is also strange that so many good hackers, even prominent FLOSS hackers want to work for them. Building a big spy machine is apparently ok when you have cool perks and a big salary. Whatever happened to ethics?

              1. 2

                Most people there are not building a “big spy machine”.

                1. 4

                  Most people at the NSA are not building a “big spy machine,” either.

            1. 16

              Reading the review, it sounds like you can probably go through Google’s cache or an Internet Archive for the affected pages, and find random (private) HTTPS sessions in the public caches.

              I’m finding private messages from major dating sites, full messages from a well-known chat service, online password manager data, frames from adult video sites, hotel bookings. We’re talking full https requests, client IP addresses, full responses, cookies, passwords, keys, data, everything.

              Unbelievable.

              1. 1

                I believe they waited until major search engines had purged this data from the cache, to make this public. So you could, but can’t anymore.

                1. 13

                  Google is actively purging data, but at the time of publication there was still secret data readily discoverable. To say nothing of all the other “not major” search engines which can also have caches. Nobody knows who or where this data has been cached.

                  1. 4

                    Nope. Read Tavis’s summary in the Google report, also there have been reports on Twitter of data being found in search engine caches

                    1. 4

                      All search engines and other services that caches things like Yandex, Baidu, NSA and lots of others are probably not so eager to purge their caches/loot.

                  1. 4

                    “Sites that only support Flash are exempted, as are the top 10 sites on the web for a year: YouTube.com, Facebook.com, Yahoo.com, VK.com, Live.com, Yandex.ru, OK.ru, Twitch.tv, Amazon.com, and Mail.ru”

                    Ok, so they didn’t really change anything for the majority of browsing. They really just “turned on the youtube html5 beta but for all websites for all users”, ie. it will prefer html5, but sites can still veto it and do whatever they feel like. I thought they could have done this step years ago and at this point they should be treating flash and flash video as a “ do you want to enable flash for this site, just this once, always?” banner.

                    1. 20

                      According to Peter Kasting (a Chrome dev) all the news sites are getting it wrong: https://plus.google.com/+PeterKasting/posts/5ioK3cbucKz?sfc=true

                      1. 3

                        Exempting the top 10 websites seems pretty silly too; they’re allowed to have shitty security and the rest of us aren’t?

                        1. 3

                          Breaking the top sites is just going to drive users to another browser

                          1. 5

                            In my experience, it drives users to other websites. Bear in mind the fact that the ‘average’ user doesn’t know the difference between Google, Google Chrome and the Internet.

                            If over 50% of web users couldn’t use their sites, I’m sure the big websites would come up with an html5 player very quickly.

                            1. 3

                              For what it’s worth, twitch took about a year to develop a HTML5 player. It’s in general availability now, but it took a long time to fully develop it.

                              Relevant links: https://blog.twitch.tv/html5-player-turbo-beta-starts-today-135d1b7baa65#.95js7ln4u https://help.twitch.tv/customer/portal/articles/2477288

                              1. 3

                                Yeah, html5 playback wasn’t a massive priority at that time. I understand that development can take some time, but we’ve known about the demise of flash for a long time now. And users having to click a button to activate flash isn’t a huge deal, the site is still usable.

                              2. 1

                                I’m sure in reality it’s a mix, and Google are hedging their risks.

                                1. 1

                                  Depends on the website.

                                  I’d use something else instead of youtube/amazon - there’s always somewhere else to get entertainment/shop, but there isn’t an alternative to facebook - it’s what too many social groups use, and if you want to keep being included in those groups you have to use it.

                                  1. 3

                                    I use facebook too, sans flash, and it works fine! :-)