listmaking

Sorry that this conversation is going in circles. At first, I was talking about the culture of migrating to a new system when it supports ~75% of the features (by importance) of the old, rather than closer to 100%. I would find it reasonable for some team to judge that RSS support is not in the crucial 75% (and its lack would not constitute production breakage); clearly you disagree. That's fine.

As for the rest, I was just explaining the general idea of a production freeze. If you're going to stop trying to make changes by a certain date "to be safe"; then that's the freeze date. Equivalently: people keep trying (and sometimes rushing) to do things until the actual freeze date. The date is early enough (quite a bit earlier than Dec 24) so that there's still enough time and people left to fix things or roll back, if there are genuine emergencies. This replaces the risk of production breakage with the risk of embarrassment/questions from asking for approval for an emergency fix during the freeze period, so people will still only do things they're fairly confident will be safe. Anyway, none of this is relevant unless lack of RSS support is considered a production breakage, which is the very point of disagreement here.

Sorry about the "few weeks / months" comment; I was editing it out while you were posting your comment. But yes, when deciding whether something is a blocker, it's safer to assume that it can take indefinitely long (until it actually exists), even if you think (or have been promised) that it will be quick. It's the difference between taking the mean versus the 95th percentile of the distribution of time estimates.

The freeze "until after the new year" is just the end-of-year freeze to avoid production breakage when a lot of people are on vacation: it's an extension of the principle of not deploying on Friday evenings / weekends; lots of companies have such a freeze. Once you've decided a couple of months earlier to do a migration, doing it "before the freeze" is also a natural deadline to pick, for migrating to the new infrastructure, and for people working on the old infrastructure to complete the migration and move to other projects. I'm not on the team but these all seem like logical choices.

And yes, in the decision between "keep maintaining a custom infrastructure" and "switch to a common infrastructure", someone must have decided that RSS support is not an essential feature whose lack should block (or indefinitely postpone) the migration; this seems reasonable and what my previous post was about, including the "probably just not a big factor" bit you quoted above. It looks like they're planning to add this support though.

Not the GP but I think that blog post https://web.dev/blog/webdev-migration you linked explains it pretty clearly?

• The people working on web.dev decided to migrate to a common Google site platform, so that they could focus on content rather than maintaining an ad-hoc infrastructure,

• That platform happens not to support RSS (yet), so they've done the best they can in the meantime, filing a bug with the platform, creating the https://developer.chrome.com/feeds info page acknowledging the issue, and even creating unofficial feeds.

You could phrase this as “someone in Google management who decided that RSS could be broken”, but relative to the big decision of whether to spend effort maintaining your own custom infrastructure or just focus on the content, the presence or absence of RSS support is probably just not a big factor.

[One could imagine a culture of "never migrate to a new system unless it fully supports every single functionality of the old system", but that (just like "never launch a product/feature unless you're confident you're going to support it forever") is simply not in Google's culture, where there are always ongoing migrations between "the old system that is deprecated and the new system that is not ready yet" — but that is "just" a cultural problem rather than anyone consciously deciding that RSS could be broken.]

Well it's all gradual and diffuse; for that matter there are still pockets of the "old Google" around today. My point here was just about, in a big company, different teams having their own domains that you don't/can't interfere in, rather than a free-for-all where everyone feels part of the same whole and can just jump in. (Which was probably never going to work anyway, so maybe encouraging such a culture in the first place is what Google did wrong.)

This is actually ironic in light of popular HN sentiment in Google-related articles, where many seem to imagine Google acting as a single whole, rather than different teams working in their own interests and not thinking of the big picture. E.g. people in this thread imagining that "Google" thought about RSS support and made a decision based on advertising revenue (or whatever imaginative reason), when in fact the team working on the "DevSite" infrastructure probably barely thought about RSS at all. Maybe they should have, but the reality that RSS (unfortunately) doesn't matter much seems harder to swallow for many, than theories about maliciously breaking it.

This is hilarious big-company shit, that engineer on Chrome devrel team finds it easier to actually just write his own unofficial RSS feed-generator and make it public [1] — the feed for this blog is at [2] — than for the "Internal issues have been filed with the DevSite team" to get worked on [3]. And who knows when this will rise to a priority for that team?

In the old Google, it would have been easier for anyone to just fix this internally.

(Disclaimer: work at Google but not on anything related to this; all my information comes from links in this HN thread. Which is ironic / symptom of the same problem.)

[1]: https://front-end.social/@bramus/111448166340277056 and https://github.com/bramus/web-dev-rss / https://github.com/bramus/chrome-for-developers-rss

[2]: https://chrome-for-developers-rss.bramus.workers.dev/blog

[3]: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/314910854#comment2

That's the same as the link I was responding to, and that's why I wrote “relative to” — the Ads team pushing on Chrome for revenue shows Google in a poor light relative to an imagined world where Chrome never cares about Google revenue, but a good light relative to an imagined world where everything that Chrome does is for revenue or some short-term profit to Google, rather than what's good for users.

Well, it's a line I've heard a few times over the years, and it's also being stated externally (https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297 says “The organic (IE: non-sponsored) results you see in Search are not affected by our ads systems.”) so I'm fairly sure it's still true.

That email thread you linked is between the Ads and Chrome (not Search) teams, is about the number of search queries (not the results of search queries), and “ranking tweaks” there refers to the ranking that Chrome uses to show the suggestions in the omnibox (address bar). (To get a sense of these “ranking tweaks”, try this experiment in a (new?) Chrome profile with default settings: type "flowers" in the Chrome address bar and don't hit Enter, and look at the suggestions: what mix of search suggestions, entities, and bookmarks/history do you see? Try again with other commercial queries like “insurance” and “mortgage”, and also some less commercial queries like, I don't know, “Minnesota” or “economics”.)

(And FWIW, I think that whole email thread actually shows Google in a “good” light relative to the popular impression here on HN as a company whose every action is some Machiavellian scheme to increase ads revenue: it shows that Chrome actually launched something to production before its negative impact on revenue became a concern, that Ads leads had to work hard to persuade them to either roll back or find some other way to undo the decrease in search query volume, that starting to include search query volume as a launch criterion would be a “cultural shift” for Chrome, etc: that Ads having an influence on Chrome is a rare occurrence.)

More precisely, the slide shows, for an advertiser who is bidding on the keywords “+kids +clothing” and has this sort of broad match enabled, three columns of examples of searches that would also match:

1. (because of [kids → children]) ads with keywords “+kids +clothing” would also match searches like “clothing for young child” and “newborn children's clothing”

2. (because of [kids clothing → kidswear]) ads with keywords “+kids +clothing” would also match searches like ”nikolai kidswear” and “kidswear outlet”

3. (because of [clothing → apparel / outlet]) ads with keywords “+kids +clothing” would also match searches like “creative apparel for kids” and “kids outfits”

That is what the slide's title (“Advertisers benefit via closing recall gaps”) refers to: the gaps in recall (matching) are being closed, by being broader.

The WIRED article misunderstood the slide, and was entirely based on the premise that if you searched for “children’s clothing” you'd get results for “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear” which is not true (and would indeed have been “startling”, not to mention obvious, if it were true). In fact, the organic (non-ads) part of the search results in Google are always completely independent of anything in ads, something that the Search team in Google have maintained for several decades as a fundamental principle.

> a Disneyland for nerds

Another side of “for nerds” is that early Google managed to attract employees from academia. I remember the buzz in the academic world when a professor (Matt Welsh) gave up tenure at Harvard to join Google: some others followed. Even more, it attracted top students who otherwise had their heart set on academia: within the (delusional) world of students who consider being a professor as the highest ideal, I remember hearing the opinion that if you can't get a tenure-track job, Google is a pretty good second choice because it's “just like a university”: you had (so the story went) freedom to do whatever you wanted, smart peers, “talks at Google” from the best speakers, … and there were perks (free food, laundry, etc) that appealed to students.

I myself ended up joining Google when my academic path was interrupted, despite thinking I'd never do that. Google employees were already complaining in the early 2010s about the changing culture, but there was still enough of it left, and by all accounts, early Google was a magical place.

Many of these articles/complaints don't compare Google Search to alternatives (Bing / DuckDuckGo / ...), so it's not clear whether web search itself is getting "worse" (in the ways mentioned), or whether the issues are with Google Search specifically.

(For example, the article proposes the explanation that "The long answer is that most of the web has become too inauthentic to trust", which is about the web itself, not specific to Google.)

The link above, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/category%3Apurchase... is just a search of your Gmail inbox for "category:purchases". You get exactly the same results by opening Gmail and entering "category:purchases" in the search box. Each of the results is an email that was delivered to your Gmail address, i.e. an email actually in your Gmail inbox or archive. So if you're saying you're seeing someone else's purchases, it means email meant for them was delivered to you (and you didn't notice it at the time for some reason). You can click through to each individual email to see when it was sent and by whom etc. So if it's a bug, it's a bug with Gmail delivery itself; it's not a bug with the purchase categorization specifically.

The terms of service and privacy policy (https://policies.google.com/privacy) are the contract. And my rough understanding (not based on reading the contract, something said internally at Google a while ago about what is in them) is:

- Your "content" (data in Gmail, Docs, Photos, etc) won't be used for advertising. (Only for personalization, like the Gmail smart compose, asking Assistant about the status of your order, etc.) - Your "activity" (your searches, etc -- what you can see at https://myactivity.google.com/item roughly) can be used for advertising, though you can turn it off (see https://adssettings.google.com) or delete it. (IIUC, you have more granular privacy controls as a logged-in user as you can delete individual items….)

https://neeva.com/ ("Get 3 months free, then just $4.95 per month.")

(Haven't tried it so I don't know how good it is.)

(They have many posts under https://neeva.com/learn that seem to be anti-Google in slant while being well-informed, as they come from people very familiar with the ad industry and Google's ad business.)

Those are different settings:

- the settings for what data about your Google activity is retained are at https://myaccount.google.com/data-and-personalization — in particular, "Web & App Activity" at https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity (for new accounts, it defaults to all activity being deleted after 18 months).

- the setting for whether your Google activity is used for ad targeting is at https://adssettings.google.com (the checkbox under "Advanced", if you're signed in).

- For non-Google activity, the setting for turning off Google ad cookies on random ad-carrying websites is to block third-party cookies in your browser. For Chrome, it is at chrome://settings/cookies

Just to be clear, this is about the "Report Abuse" button. This page lists categories of things that, if someone clicks on "Report Abuse", Google may decide is indeed abuse, and take action. So this does not apply to private files, but to files for which someone with access to the file decided to complain. Note the page title, and that it says:

> After we are notified of a potential policy violation, we may review the content and take action…

There are a lot of comments here. Many may indeed hold the opinion that even when someone clicks on "Report Abuse" for a file being distributed via Google Drive on the grounds of "misleading content", then Google shouldn't take action like "restricting access to the content, removing the content, and limiting or terminating a user’s access to Google products". That's a valid position, and legitimately a criticism one can hold, and this discussion makes sense. But there are also quite a few comments imagining this to be about Google proactively scanning everyone's private files, so just making this clear. (The submitter probably understands the distinction as they put "distribution" in the title, but clearly, some comments do not.)

(Disclaimer: I work at Google but just posting as myself; have no special information here but this is just my obvious reading of the page.)

Actually, this is not even about distribution exactly, but about the "Report Abuse" button: what this page lists are categories of things that, if someone with access to the file clicks on "Report Abuse", whoever is acting on those flags may decide is a violation. Note that the page says:

> After we are notified of a potential policy violation, we may review the content and take action…

So (1) it's not about Google proactively scanning all your files (even public ones: though I guess with sufficiently public files, sooner or later someone will click on "Report Abuse", perhaps even by accident), and (2) I imagine it could happen with files you shared with just your friend, if your "friend" decides to "Report Abuse".

(Disclaimer: I work at Google but not on Google Drive or anything related to these policies.)

I'd like to comment about this part from the Google blog:

> By ensuring that the ecosystem can support their businesses […] we can all ensure that free access to content continues.

Internally, Google believes that with Ads they are doing good to the world: the mission of Google Ads literally starts with "power the open and free internet…" (you can find it online). The idea is that for every site online that carries ads on it ("publishers"), it's the website that has chosen to put ads there, to make money. So the assumption is that if websites couldn't make money from ads (or if they made significantly less money, because of worse ads) they'd either stop hosting the website or put it behind a paywall, and users wouldn't get "free access to content".

Of course this applies only to those sites on the internet that have ads at all (doesn't apply to HN, Wikipedia, government/academic websites etc), but then again, ad-tech third-party cookies are also only present on such sites anyway.

-----

(I work at Google in Ads but not on anything related to any of this; this is all my own opinion posted from an alternate account. I find ads annoying and use an adblocker personally, so I was surprised to encounter this point of view.)

-----

Rather than "Google's consumer privacy strategy is all smoke and show", the sense I get internally is that Google is serious about "as much privacy as possible without seriously affecting our revenue". A couple of examples:

- [Edit: Added this point later.] In 2019 most (all I think? It's hard to tell) of "what Google knows about you" was consolidated into a single "My Activity" page (https://myactivity.google.com/), with user controls for turning things off or individual items. This was a lot of effort (Sundar at TGIF spoke proudly of it; see also the blog post https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/putting-you-i...), and personally as a user I feel better having control and visibility over what exactly what Google knows about me, but I don't remember much media coverage or discussion of this; maybe not everyone finds this exciting. :-)

- In 2020, they changed the default for new users to auto-delete this "Web and App Activity" after 18 months. Probably, this doesn't hurt Google's revenue much because data older than this is not very useful for Ads anyway, but it is still an increase in privacy compared to Google remembering everything about you forever (just not as good for privacy as defaulting to Off).

- FLOC is their answer to "how can we have the same level of user-targeting in ads, with more privacy?" The idea is that to decide whether to show me ads about shoes it doesn't need to know every site I've ever visited; it just needs to know roughly what kind of person I am. The old model is that every site carrying ads by Google would have a third-party Google cookie that would record your visit; the new FLOC model is that your browser privately builds up a profile about you and just reveals which bucket you fall into. Obviously your browser tracking you isn't as much privacy as no tracking at all, but if you start with the assumption that well-targeted ads ought to exist and try to maximize privacy under that constraint, then FLOC is a reasonably good answer to that question. (I know some smart privacy/crypto engineers—not from the Ads org—who've worked hard on developing/analyzing it…)

- [Edit: Added this point later.] You can see this Chrome blog post https://blog.google/products/chrome/privacy-sustainability-a... where they say "Overall, we felt that blocking third-party cookies outright without viable alternatives for the ecosystem was irresponsible, and even harmful, to the free and open web we all enjoy" — this is something Apple can afford to do because they make money from users using Apple products and iOS apps; they don't benefit from content existing on the web. (See below.)

A couple of other points:

- Google makes a significant chunk of its revenue from ads on its own sites (Google Search, YouTube, etc), where third-party cookies or FLOC are irrelevant. So all this is only about ads on other websites, where Google keeps a fraction of the advertiser money and the rest goes to the "publisher", i.e. the website (I've seen a number like 68% somewhere, not sure whether it applies to all websites). So if all users suddenly started blocking third-party cookies today, the (ad-carrying) websites will together lose more money than Google does, and (for many of them) a greater fraction of their revenue.

- Well targeted ads ("show my ads to people who are likely to buy my product") are worth a lot more (as in, advertisers pay more, as they can measure more conversions) than ads based on nothing more than, say, the content of the web page/site you're visiting (or even worse, completely generic ads: remember "punch the monkey"?). So if ads stopped being personalized, each website would have to carry even more ads to continue making the same amount of money. (Though frankly… there are some websites that seem to have hit physical limits by filling every inch of space with ads, those cannot possibly get worse I imagine.)

- Google stands to profit if there's more content on the web. If every ad-supported site chose to (shut down or) move its content to (say) apps instead, Apple would be ok. Google benefits from content staying on the web because those websites will carry Google (and other) ads, but also indirectly because the web itself becomes more useful and people will continue to use Google Search rather than expect content not to exist on the web (and ads on Search make even more money for Google than ads on other websites). In fact, one thing common to many of Google's products is that they increase the value of the web: Search makes the web more useful; Gmail was the start of web mail being a significant alternative to Outlook etc; similarly Maps; Chrome when it first appeared pioneered tab-isolation and seemed to cause fewer frustrations from browser crashes (remember the comic? https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/); even the much-hated AMP was intended to fix the problem of websites being too slow on mobile (the popular consensus on HN seems to be that it made things worse).

So while it indeed seems true that Apple can afford to pursue the user-privacy angle in Safari harder than Chrome can (Apple doesn't have publishers and advertisers among its constituents), it's also arguable that Google's approach helps keep content on the web and is aligned with user interests that way. (Though personally as a user, I wonder: how many ad-supported websites are really useful to me anyway? I'd be fine and possibly happier if most of the ad-supported websites disappeared and only non-commercial content remained on the web… may not be true for many people though.)

----

Edit: Also, note that (as the article says) this delay is because the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority forced it. (Their page is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-investigate-google... — my understanding is that they thought blocking third-party cookies would make it harder for other ad-tech companies.) Left to itself, Google would like to charge ahead with replacing third-party cookies with FLOC.

As data, here is a list of each year's top-ranked student in the IIT "joint entrance exam" (JEE) since 1979, and what they're doing now: https://dev.studentgiri.com/last-38-years-iit-jee-toppers/

I know a couple of them personally, and a fair number of other IIT graduates besides, and while many of them did work hard, all of them did/do have hobbies and all that, not quite fitting the "No life, no hobbies, burnout, lost childhood" headline or the rest of the picture painted here.