> 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)
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.
>... nowhere it says you have to receive threats first before requesting removal.
Oh come on now, this is taken directly from your link:
>Requirements to remove doxxing content
>For us to consider the content for removal, it must meet both of these requirements:
>1. Your contact info is present.
>2. There’s the presence of:
>- Explicit or implicit threats, or
>- Explicit or implicit calls to action for others to harm or harass.
So, yes. To remove doxxing content, you are required to show proof of explicit or implicit threats.
If you think about it, the way the requirements are set up are pretty damn backwards. Are you just requesting your personal info to be removed just for the sake of having it removed? Sure, as long as it's your CC/bank account/SSN/whatever else on that list, they'll remove it. But if you tell them you're being doxxed? Well fuck you, they won't just up and remove the data like they would've before, now you have to prove you're being targeted, too. It's like it'd be easier to have the doxxing content removed if you didn't tell them you're being doxxed.
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.
> 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)
You didn't read your articles very well. Google is investing in new york. The tax credits were for companies in a specific part of new york, in this case long island city.
Google is not in long island city or in an area eligible for these particular credits.
+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.
We are not supplied with a corp phone, they're only for people with a 'business need.' Been @ Google 7 years and never had one given to me other than holiday gift phones.
Now, some of the nooglers sitting near me seem to think they're entitled to one, so maybe the messaging has changed. but I just looked it up and the language is: "Full-time Googlers with a business need are eligible for one Google-paid mobile phone and SIM"
Many Googlers I know have Corp set up on their personal phone.
No one is going to give you anything. Have you ever asked your manager?
If you ever have had an on-call shift, or had to log in remotely to perform some work function? If so, then you qualify. You probably also qualify for them to pay for your home internet.
> Many Googlers I know have Corp set up on their personal phone.
That's stupid. Seems like a good way to get all of your data wiped off of your personal phone.
What is the company cost of the average engineer at google? It must be like...at least $300k or $400k/yr. They will pay another $600/yr for a phone and service for you if they think it will improve your productivity.
Tell your manager you wont check any work stuff on your personal devices anymore, because your worried about security, etc. The problem will either be resolved fairly quickly, or you will have better work life balance.
I never had a corp phone at Google and was never offered one. As far as I know they weren't available to me. It wasn't usually a problem but there were definitely cases where if I had a corp phone it would've made things easier - not like I was going to sync my personal phone up to corp and get it remote wiped.
They do hand out corp laptops like candy, which is great, but if you need to test software you're developing on a specific configuration, you basically have no choice but to use personal hardware. So let's say you're developing graphics code for Chrome, and there's a bug that only reproduces on a specific GPU - and you've got one at home. By doing that on your home PC have you now technically tainted it as a work machine even if you never checked out corp code onto it?
I guess alternately you just get your boss to expense a GPU and a PC and get all that set up and you can actually repro the bug like 4 weeks later once the purchases go through. Maybe corp purchasing is faster now than it used to be.
Couldn't you just buy the card yourself on amazon or whatever and expense it?
If you brought your own GPU in to do debugging for work, and you end up frying it(lets say from the bug), would you expect google to reimburse you for it?
With any company that I've experienced, there is pretty much never a need to use personal stuff for work reasons.
If corp purchasing is interfering with your ability to do your work, that's the corp's problem, not yours. If you choose to make it your problem and choose to solve that problem by using your own hardware, well, you made that choice.
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/