Fark NotNewsletter: Google farked us over (opens in new tab)

It's free market, isn't it? Take it or leave it - nobody forces you to use Google ad network. ;). /s

At this point I'm convinced that nothing but regulation can make those big companies - on which our digital lives are more and more dependent - to provide even a modicum of customer support. Right now they don't care, because they simply don't have to - a HN headline every other week doesn't create measurable losses, because users don't have comparable alternatives (and the Internet, paradoxically, has very short memory). On the other hand, having customer support costs real money...

EDIT: Added a sarcasm tag next to the winkie, just in case someone mistakes my comment for a defense of Google.

Google lost a lawsuit in Germany a few years ago. Evidently German law says that if a customer reaches out to a corporation, that corporation must have a human respond.

It's not good enough (as google argued) to use an email auto-responder.

Not the best summaries but here is more information:

http://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/downloads/google-vzbv... http://www.computerworld.com/article/2497169/search/consumer...

Google has long since passed the point of critical mass and a self-sustaining reaction. These days an individual publisher needs Google much more than Google needs an individual publisher. So why should Google spend resources on customer care when, as years of HN and other sites' threads demonstrate, it doesn't matter? The individual publisher can be relied on to claw at the rock at his own expense to attempt resolution.

Google is doing very well, and lack of support hasn't harmed them. It's not just that customer care is done algorithmically; my guess is that the meta-decision on whether or how much customer care is needed is also algorithmic.

I have complex feelings about this. As a libertarian type I say one forces you to use Google (yes, I know they're by far the most effective ad network). I don't feel like their natural monopoly in search has hurt me much. Normally I would not see any reason for the US to get involved in GOOG's business.

On the other hand, I have seen Google do its very best to pervert the free market. Their name appears well over 300 times in the Obama White House guestbook and they support tons of liberal causes while slipping into bed with the three-lettered branches of federal government whenever it suits them. Diversity is every bit as important as Google preaches it. So where are their Filipinos, Samoans, Latinos, African Americans, and other persons of color?

Their contempt for paying customers like Fark is legendary. I have heard many, many stories like Fark's over the years. I personally know people put out of business this way. And I suspect Google puts their political thumb on many search results.

Because of this detestable level of hypocrisy, I say regulate the hell out them. Unlike Lavabit, they welcomed the government with open arms in lobbying efforts, committed gross violations of their customers' privacy, and have chosen to sequester tens of billions of dollars in taxes over three continents in a way that small businesses like mine never could.

Google loves the Feds so much? Throw them to the antitrust wolves.

We always try to tell people to not put all their eggs in one basket. The problem here is that there is almost no other basket besides Google anymore. Or the ones that are there, are not even close because of Google's power over the online advertising industry.

I think that it's becoming the same way with email. and i'm worried that it's that way with what small businesses. The default for so many is "oh, just use Google Apps." What's the alternative? It's usually just Microsoft.

Woah, Fark still exists and looks almost exactly how I remember it 15 years ago

I think this is from the culture at Google. To be clear, I think its perfectly fine to use AI or whatever other innovation - if it works. But to me, so many of their projects seem to be perpetually stuck in alpha/beta release mode and never seem to have all the features and polish to handle all the edge cases (which would require a TON more work).

> Due to the way Fark was built, we are invisible to both SEO and Social Media traffic.

What does this mean? Clearly, they can't block anyone from sharing fark links on facebook and also, this: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Afark.com

Hubris combined with the amount of power Google has is a recipe for disaster.

Isn't there enough competition within the ad industry to just switch to a different provider?

It's disturbing that many companies don't have humans to respond soon enough or don't have humans to reach out to at all. Machines can learn and get better at analyzing and classifying information, but it'll be a long time before a machine can pick up the phone to answer a customer's call with a proper conversation (with understanding and decisions based on arguments) or truly read and understand an email conversation back and forth and understand the entire context and allow for exceptions and more "appropriate" decisions like humans could (depending on the situation and the background).

Not related to the topic at hand, but I wish this site had an About page. I read this whole article and felt the author was very passionate about the online community he hosts, so I thought maybe I could hang around there a bit, but couldn't find out what Fark is about. I don't mean to be negative by the way, in fact I liked the way the author is passionate about the site.

Who decides what is bannable images and what are not?

Do they use machine learning or people? Does someone just flag it or something? Was Fark given the chance to remove the link or file an appeal?

I don't know if I can applaud any harder given the way Fark treated its userbase around the whole SJW/GamerGate beginnings. Karma is one trifling bastard.

>Our ads were turned off for almost five weeks - completely and totally their mistake

Who is running your campaigns that they can be disabled for more than a month without anyone noticing?!