No, I’m using Google rhetorically. Sure you could be more specific and say the Google Chrome team, or whoever is actually discretionary responsible for this, and the chain of command that authorizes them with that power within the org… but I think, bothering with such specifics would make the message less effective so I didn’t.

Also, I don’t think it’s necessary. Google is responsible for whatever its parts are doing; a corporate entity. And people are right to expect that if they get something from Google then it’s caused by Google.

Also, I think it’s wrong and too early to be diluting or shielding Google behind the pedantic hairsplitting that, “oh you see it’s not actually google at fault here, um, it was probably some guy that works in a basement somewhere, you know, his views not reflected by ours and so on…” it’s not necessary to provide them that shield or confusion at this stage.

He may work at google, you may work at Google, I may work at google; we don’t know. And it’s not important. What’s important is that Google is at fault here. (I don’t btw)

Magnitude of the malfeasance is so great they deserve to be held to account for it, and a simple label of Google is sufficient.

Also, Occam’s razor? I think it’s unnecessary to invoke the preposterously exaggerated strawman of some ghastly and convoluted conspiracy here, when their actions directly align with, and can be efficiently implemented by, their business. It’s a simple thesis: Google is at fault and they meant to do it. They know it’s bad and therefore are selling it deceptively.

It’s neither convoluted nor complex in any way. In fact, if they’d tried to engage with this technically in a way that accounted for acknowledged and respected the fears and concerns people raised in response, then I think they would’ve ended up with a solution that is more convoluted, and complex. In this we have the curse of simple evil.

I think it’s drinking the gaslit Kool-Aid to pretend “oh no, it’s an accident, it’s incompetence, they didn’t mean to.” This is directly (if harmfully and unethically) supporting their business interests. They meant to do it. That’s the simplest explanation. That’s Occam’s razor.

> You seem to be assuming Google is an extremely well connected organism with vast coherency: each limb knows what the others are doing, they are working together in close fashion, & doing things for ulterior motives.

Nah dog, you're overcomplicating it. All it requires is a person or two in a management chain to recognize the hint of long term business potential in a technical change. It doesn't have to be a sure thing, or a big thing, the bare minimum is that they just notice a business model that could be enabled, and choose to explore it. Then once the company takes on the initiative, some combination of communication and intuition spread the understanding of what they're doing across some of the buisness. For the wider scale, all the rank and file need to do is play dumb, or be legit unaware, about the obvious incentive they're working towards.

That's not a vast complicated conspiracy. That's every single business' outward-facing messaging strategy.

When parent poster talks about the "size, scope and sophistication of Google," the point doesn't have to be that they're meticulously coordinating. The point can simply be: there's no fucking way they're not playing dumb.

This is my problem with people using Occam's Razor to understand business decisions. They often assume the idea that someone could be employed in business development and spend months championing and refining an idea is a level of complexity that must fail to a more simplistic explanation. But we know that shit happens all the time.