He/She might have good reasons for anonymity. As long as the post contributes to the discussion I don't really care if the account is 10 years or 10 days old or if it has been posted 20 days ago.
Anonymous posting is one thing. Anonymous copy-pasting of generic mostly off-topic link lists to influence opinion is something else. The latter is, hopefully, not behavior HN wants.
It doesn't contribute to the discussion. It's a wall of noise hit list of entirely random quality, that draws absolute, nefarious conclusions from complex situations.
If someone hates Google, then sure, it's "contributing". If you're just looking for information it's just extremist nonsense.
Indeed, this very submission was already submitted a week ago (just as that hit list appeared before), and of course would have been blocked by HN as a dupe but made it through courtesy of the fun of querystrings.
Right, because on a comment thread about google's ever-increasing control over the web/etc, the following are irrelevant:
* A court case about breaching US federal privacy laws
* A court case about Google using it's relationship with device manufacturers to negatively impact a company with a competing service
* An article about how Google tracks mobile users and the disclosure/notification about said tracking, with input from the EFF
* An article about how Google was less than open and transparent about the handling of an employee who spied on/stalked four underage users of Google services
* Several articles about what are basically deceptive practices - paid inclusions, much less identifiable ads compared to organic search results and artificially increasing the search rank of it's own properties when a search mentions a specific competitor
* An article about Google's decision to refuse any interaction with a news agency that posted an article discussing Google in relation to privacy concerns, in which they demonstrate the risks by publishing material about Eric Schmidt that was found via google searches
But no, you are right. None of them are relevant. Remember what I said in another comment about cult-like status? Should I call Rick Ross for you?
Yes, it's interesting. Anything that is remotely critical of Google gets downvoted pretty quick here on HN. Now I don't know if it's because many Google employees browse HN or because people still believe in that "don't be evil" marketing babel.
Sarcasm does not further a debate. If you want to froth at the mouth and show your agenda, sure, but not actually having constructive discussions.
Posting enormous gripe lists is not useful on any board, relevant or not, even minus the comically skewed narrative provided with them. In this case it wasn't even original but instead is a "create a puppet account and paste the complaint list again" tactic, which is just boorish and cowardly.
Go make a "whygoogleisevil.com" site and casually reference that in a legitimate post, sure, but not this.
And your whole "it's a cult" angle is ridiculous. If you convince yourself that people who find this strong polarization unconstructive must be in awe of Google, you have a very binary view of a complex world.
Edit: you have to take some of the blame for the sarcastic tone. It seems to be a result of the inability in this discussion to consider that discussion of Google's shitty aspects (there is much that has been good), on an article that is about these shitty things, could really be a thing. Enumerating badness might (?) be inelegant but it's a wholly valid thing to do in a discussion.
I started to realize that google had gone down the "let's be like Microsoft" path when, among other things, it flung itself head-first into the whole schema.org patent fiasco. It made me wonder if Google itself would have been successful if its rivals Yahoo & friends had tried to pull something similar back in the day.
Discussing the fact that Google's maneuverings are barely distinguishable from other giants in history is not "Frothing at the mouth". Especially forcing Android-using vendors to ship chrome - I challenge you to think of a more 1990s Microsoft scenario!
However, not that I have time or energy to care - it just seems like the natural lifee-cycle of successful companies.
Back in the 1990s I had the energy to care, and I enjoy working in/on/with Linux/BSD today but believe me when I say I just can't find the same energy to pick apart google (or Microsoft!) in the same way today.
And yet even I can see it's obvious that there is at the very least a case to say that Google's dominance could hurt the web. Hence the article. Hence this discussion.
He/She might have good reasons for anonymity. As long as the post contributes to the discussion I don't really care if the account is 10 years or 10 days old or if it has been posted 20 days ago.