See the entire conversation

RT πŸ”’ (with permission): "Ok so, I just read through all 173 pages of the unredacted Google antitrust filing and I have to say that either Google is screwed or society is screwed, we'll find out which. Unordered list of fun things I learned:"
106 replies and sub-replies as of Oct 24 2021

πŸ”’"google has a secret deal with facebook called "Jedi Blue" that they knew was so illegal that it has a whole section describing how they'll cover for each other if anyone finds out - google appears to have a team called gTrade that is wholly dedicated to ad market manipulation"
πŸ”’"- Google had a plan called "Project NERA" to turn the web into a walled garden they called "Not Owned But Operated". A core component of this was the forced logins to the chrome browser you've probably experienced (surprise!)"
πŸ”’"- Google is willing to do almost everything to prevent people from circumventing their ad exchanges - This is what AMP is about - Google habitually insider trades on their ad exchanges in every way you can think of and every way you can't. Too many ways to list here."
πŸ”’"- The exchanges are also rigged so that google wins on bids where they aren't the highest bidder. - A large amount of people inside google are aware of all of this - If Google ever tells you some change will increase your ad yield, run. In fact anything they tell you is a lie"
πŸ”’"- Google has worked with Facebook and Microsoft to discourage them from increasing user privacy, lamenting occasions where they prioritized their reputation over their collective business interest"
You can read the full unredacted document for yourself here:…
More highlights re AMP performance claims:
(For clarity: a locked account gave me permission to republish their thread. You don't need my permission to retweet it.)
Google manipulating bids behind advertisers' backs:
Re: forced Chrome logins Don't need cookies if you own the browser!
Don't be evil. RIP.
Can you point to the part about Chrome logins?
:) Oh well that’s pretty circular. At the same time a pretty boneheaded move even if their intentions were actually pure.
It starts on page 94:
Download firefox, it's free, it works, and nobody is taking your data.
For a while in the middle of the Chrome login fiasco, I had a good chance of being logged out of Google properties in that way just by using Firefox, so everyone except Google was still losing.
Re: forced Chrome logins Don't need cookies if you own the browser!
I guess we know exactly why they got rid of "Don't Be Evil".
Same thing happened to me few weeks back someone on here recommend @legittoolz he help me recover my locked account In 30mins. His an expert
Go inbox @Trox_Code He is tested and trusted i recommend he once recovered my hacked instagram account successfully i trust him he can help you too
Mind DM’ing the account? They seem awesome and I’d like to follow.
I asked, they're not looking for new followers at this time!
Thanks for asking!
Dm @legittoolz ASAP he help me solved my problem when I have similar issue with my locked account. His good and fast.
AMP is clearly faster. So what if there's a rare instance where a page could be slower.
The median. So, ignoring outliers, pages load faster?
God, I hate AMP so much and I KNEW it couldn’t just be about performance.
They missed the best part.
Um, my Chrome refuses to open the link. 🀨
Thanks for sharing the full document, too.
Wow, and to think I believed the BS that AMP was for better performance and less shitty ads on mobile. To be honest, so many sites now feel broken due to the cookie banner and godawful ads/UX.
as someone who worked in the media: I fucking knew amp was a scam and it was so infuriating having google try to gaslight us into thinking it wasn't
Which is why I'm still pissed Mozilla decided to trash mobile extensions *after* the switch to webextensions, the forcably redirect away from AMP to normal fucking web pages extension is still broken.
This makes me glad i shut chrome, reinstalled firefox and never looked back. maybe in a small way market pressure had an influence
Hope she sees this dude
… I have no expectation of an answer at all, let alone something comprehensible, but I have to ask: Why?
Given that they retweeted a large part of the thread, and quote tweeted the thread with "#Google", In assuming it's just an honest misunderstanding of how tagging/hashtags/mentions work on Twitter.
May I ask where could I read the whole thing?
Ditto here
Thanks !
I missed the link in the thread, I feel dumb 😐
You asked before that post was made, don't beat yourself up! :D
Yup! I asked for the source on your behalf, added it for everyone to see, and mentioned you too make sure you saw it!
Lotta people who kept telling us this was no big deal, lmao. Looking at a lot of my Google friends just a tiny bit differently after this. (After factoring for coercion of living conditions and all that, o'course.)
I didn’t see it at the time, but there’s reporting on Jedi Blue from January. Damningly, it “allowed the companies to terminate the deal ‘in the event of certain government investigations of the agreement’”.
Google acknowledges it foresaw possibility of probe of 'Jedi Blue' advertising deal with Facebook
Google has acknowledged its advertising agreement with Facebook allowed the companies to terminate the deal “in the event of certain government investigations
This would feel like lazy screenwriting if it wasn't, you know, actually real
In case you didn't notice, the plaintiffs are all attorneys general from red or purple states. That cannot be a coincidence!
did a hundred people DM you for permission or something
Lol no. A locked account gave me permission to republish one of their threads. You don't need my permission to RT it further!
ohhhhh I. don't know how I never picked up on the meaning
I'm sure you weren't the only one wondering. On behalf of everyone else, thanks for asking!
You never need any additional permission to retweet, it is already granted under the Twitter T&Cs
Sometimes when people ask you nicely not to do something you don't, in spite of having no legal obligation to comply
Not a problem here, see last tweet of the thread
tbh I assumed it was in reply to this:
ohhhhh I. don't know how I never picked up on the meaning
Yeah. Twitter terms aside, it's common courtesy to ask /much smaller/ accounts before retweeting their threads, because it wreaks havoc on their mentions. I was well positioned to "take the heat" and happy to do so!
'smaller accounts' have the option to mute the conversation. Courtesy doesn't require you to ask cos by tweeting in the first place they have bought into the way it works. People who don't understand that need educating rather than having onerous false expectations on others.
I'm telling you what people who care about people usually do, use that information however you like.
Well I'm telling you I don't consent to be bound by your made up rules, use that information however you like. You don't have any moral high ground.
See, if I were for example to QT this very silly argument you're making, you might end up having a very bad day! And I don't want you to have a very bad day. Btw "just mute the thread" is extremely naive. If that option worked then yes, we wouldn't need these "made up rules"
Oh Ben that wasn't a threat, I was trying to sell on you on a little humanity. Too bad, farewell!
OHHHHH that's why they said manipulative. I honestly thought that was just throwing out "you're a mean person" words honestly I'm really confused why this person is so passionate about being able to RT whatever they want. what is there to lose by not RTing? genuinely confused
'if you don't agree with me then you don't have any humanity' - pretty manipulative. 'oh by the way, this threat isn't really a threat' - πŸ™„ FYI this isn't selling someone on humanity, it is dubious as hell
gonna be honest at this point you're just willingly misinterpreting things. I can absolutely see how you might've initially misinterpreted it as a threat to RT dunk if you didn't comply, but I genuinely don't think that was the intent. hope you find it in you to see that
oh yeah, I 'misinterpreted' that he has posted my name to his timeline inviting people to harass me
did he? am I missing something or are you just referring to replying to you, I don't see anywhere where he actually mentions you/this convo on his timeline, only buried 3+ replies deep in this thread are you referring to a previous incident? just trying to understand whats up
Some don't really care about a problem until it starts affecting them directly. Also, the public is generally poorly informed on just how quickly and how high online harassment escalates. Ben here seems to think we're snowflakes, I'm trying to avoid facilitating death threats 🀷
Avoiding facilitating death threats by manipulating people into harassing me? Biggest hypocrite
just don't consent to being harassed, problem solved
He deceptively made it seem I am only falling victim to what I was defending, but actually did something else entirely, and you walked into it. He didn't stay within the platform and RT, he screenshotted and reposted, breaching copyright and taking away my privacy options
I never defended that at all. Like I said, that individual is highly manipulative.
What I object to is people breaking the social contract, you want to participate freely on this platform but restrict others from doing the same. And if you don't agree people like this fasterthanlime loser will try to force you with bullying and manipulation. Nope. πŸ‘Ž
I'm not sure how "don't retweet things when explicitly asked not to" is anything but the definition of social contract though. like I guess in the general case I see where you're coming from, but are RTing whatever you want the hill to die on?
idk. having seen friends gotten piled on and harassed via unwanted RTs/QTs, I'm just not sure I see how your side helps against bullying in this specific case
So a bit harsh, but still I don't think "the ToS allows it" is really a reasonable answer even though I misunderstood what "RT πŸ”’" means, the implication is still "even if they didn't want you to RT it's fine because it's legal"
Agreed; I don’t retweet if someone explicitly asks me not to. Just saying that this was not the case here ;)
If they don't want you to RT then they shouldn't tweet it. Their choice is to participate or not, under the actual rules, not make up their own social contract and expect to bind people by it without their consent.
Holy... We need to "re-claim" the internet but the solution is definetly a societal one not a technological one.
First public save of this thread! πŸ† Readwise users: Like this reply to save fasterthanlime's thread to your account without cluttering their replies πŸ“š Stats: • 3 total saves of fasterthanlime's threads (ranked #6393)
Schmidt was his adviser and convenient
Now imagine what they're doing with Android.
Porque no los dos
I try so hard to limit the products I use to limit tracking … tho I suspect there’s never going to be enough vigilance & letting one’s guard down even once is enough to get the trackers tracking…
I "miss" search "engines"