- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@beehaw.org
Edward Zitron has been reading all of google’s internal emails that have been released as evidence in the DOJ’s antitrust case against google.
This is the story of how Google Search died, and the people responsible for killing it.
The story begins on February 5th 2019, when Ben Gomes, Google’s head of search, had a problem. Jerry Dischler, then the VP and General Manager of Ads at Google, and Shiv Venkataraman, then the VP of Engineering, Search and Ads on Google properties, had called a “code yellow” for search revenue due to, and I quote, “steady weakness in the daily numbers” and a likeliness that it would end the quarter significantly behind.
HackerNews thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40133976
MetaFilter thread: https://www.metafilter.com/203456/The-core-query-softness-continues-without-mitigation
Hunter S Thompson wrote a scathing eulogy for Richard Nixon, which I think is relevant here:
“Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism – which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.”
(Non paywalled link: https://web.archive.org/web/20150213034115/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/)
Sometimes, you need one or two journalists who are in a position to say “you know what? These people suck, and I’m sick of pretending they don’t”. It doesn’t need to be every journalist, and it probably shouldn’t be, but someone needs to say it.
Yeah, I mean that’s kinda of the whole conceit of Behind the Bastards, the host is explicitly and inherently calling everyone they cover a bastard by default, but if you listen to Ed Zirtron’s appearances, he always just immediately wants to boil them down to a bastard as the root cause of their actions, when the literal entire point of that show is to examine what factors and backgrounds turn someone into a bastard.
Or again, I just can’t understand why he would be flabbergasted by a company naming their alert system after an early engineers’ tank top colour. Does he think all quirkiness and whisky should be outlawed from the workplace?
Yes, there’s value in calling people bastards and scum and villains, but Ed Zirtron does it immediately, every time, which makes his judgement of them untrustworthy. There’s the old adage that “if everything hurts when you poke it your finger is broken”, in Ed’s case given that everyone is always a bastard or a hero, it seems more plausible to me that he has some pathological need to boil everything down to simple binary systems.
There’s quirkiness and [whimsy?], and there’s needless obfuscation. ‘Code Yellow’ meaning ‘Code Red’ is dumb. Like I get it, it probably started as an equivalent to ‘Code Wayne’ and subverting expectations is funny, but it’s a punchline from an old adult swim show more than anything. I get that Google HQ isn’t a Hospital or the military, but sometimes clarity is important. More now because they’re actively doing contracts for governments and militaries, not a scrappy startup. They became a trusted resource and are now cannibalizing themselves for short term gains.
Whimsy at the top of a company while their workers are protesting their actions isn’t great.
If someone at a company tells you “code yellow” do you stop what you’re doing and follow your drilled into memory code yellow training from school, or do you say “hey, what does code yellow mean?”. They’re not obfuscating anything, they’ve just got a company procedure with a quirky name.
Shitting on that just shows that you are looking for things to shit on them for, rather than being a thoughtful critic pointing out valid flaws.
I feel Iike the correct application of this analogy here is “if everyone you examine is a bastard, you’re the bastard.”