Google is selling all my personal information in Google Domains to Squarespace?(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Google is selling all my personal information in Google Domains to Squarespace?
https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1671603045640151041
128 comments
> I feel like this is one of the things that Gergely has sensationalized recently to drive attention.
It's important to remember that Gergely is in the business of clicks and views. While I've enjoyed some of his reporting, it's very clear that he's optimizing his reporting based on what gets engagement. On places like Twitter, sensationalizing topics and riding waves of outrage is a cheap way to drive engagement.
This material plays well to certain subsets of Twitter, HN, Reddit, and other social media sites where people thrive on sensationalism and outrage. His previous thread about leaving Google Cloud because it might be abandoned at any minute (lol) was sensationalist enough that even the usual outlets were starting to call him out on it, but I'm afraid the engagement may have only incentivized returning to the well for another dip into the "Google Bad" outrage pool.
This isn't the only Substack author I've followed who veered into audience capture like this. There's something about the ultra-tight feedback loop where authors/influencers can see the real-time engagement with their topics and continue pressing whatever button drives the most engagement.
It's important to remember that Gergely is in the business of clicks and views. While I've enjoyed some of his reporting, it's very clear that he's optimizing his reporting based on what gets engagement. On places like Twitter, sensationalizing topics and riding waves of outrage is a cheap way to drive engagement.
This material plays well to certain subsets of Twitter, HN, Reddit, and other social media sites where people thrive on sensationalism and outrage. His previous thread about leaving Google Cloud because it might be abandoned at any minute (lol) was sensationalist enough that even the usual outlets were starting to call him out on it, but I'm afraid the engagement may have only incentivized returning to the well for another dip into the "Google Bad" outrage pool.
This isn't the only Substack author I've followed who veered into audience capture like this. There's something about the ultra-tight feedback loop where authors/influencers can see the real-time engagement with their topics and continue pressing whatever button drives the most engagement.
Author here. I noticed this tweet made it to Hacker News. (I didn’t even notice that another one did yesterday as well)
I don’t care about the views or clicks or “engagement” or “driving attention” or similar. I understand talk is cheap so I have asked dang to blacklist all tweets from my Twitter account (this URL) going forward on HN, which should significantly reduce such views and clicks.
The tweets are not editable, and I often type them out as I go. I shared this, for example, after talking with a current Googler who was very, very frustrated exactly because of this. I thought it’s an interesting angle, especially as I’m also a Domains customer.
“Sensationalist” is something I would definitely like to avoid. I used to “break” layoff news at tech companies the fall of 2022 (before or as they happened) which had very high “engagement” but sat increasingly poorly with me - and it did feel sensationalist - so I stopped doing all of this, regardless of anything I learn ahead of some other outlet sharing it. I’m happier for it.
I do have my own opinions and experiences with Google as a customer, going back all the way to the massive GAE price increases in 2011 when I was an early customer, and of course this contributes to my - necessarily biased - outlook.
There is also truth to Twitter takes often feeling sensationalist - brewity doesn’t help with nuance - and I don’t want to get more views/clicks/ “engagement” on any of these or contribute to “outrage.”
(By the way, thank you for an earlier criticism that I took to heart.)
I don’t care about the views or clicks or “engagement” or “driving attention” or similar. I understand talk is cheap so I have asked dang to blacklist all tweets from my Twitter account (this URL) going forward on HN, which should significantly reduce such views and clicks.
The tweets are not editable, and I often type them out as I go. I shared this, for example, after talking with a current Googler who was very, very frustrated exactly because of this. I thought it’s an interesting angle, especially as I’m also a Domains customer.
“Sensationalist” is something I would definitely like to avoid. I used to “break” layoff news at tech companies the fall of 2022 (before or as they happened) which had very high “engagement” but sat increasingly poorly with me - and it did feel sensationalist - so I stopped doing all of this, regardless of anything I learn ahead of some other outlet sharing it. I’m happier for it.
I do have my own opinions and experiences with Google as a customer, going back all the way to the massive GAE price increases in 2011 when I was an early customer, and of course this contributes to my - necessarily biased - outlook.
There is also truth to Twitter takes often feeling sensationalist - brewity doesn’t help with nuance - and I don’t want to get more views/clicks/ “engagement” on any of these or contribute to “outrage.”
(By the way, thank you for an earlier criticism that I took to heart.)
You didn't engage with the actual criticism.
You don't seem to have any knowledge at all about how personal data transfers work in the case of a merger or acquisition. Which is a radically different scenario from two standing independent companies exchanging personal data.
It's common practice and common sense that you get access to customer data when you take over a company, how else would you even run it? This has been true and normal for centuries. The concept still stands when applying the strictest of modern privacy laws, it's called "legitimate business interest". Meaning: there is no business without this data, the personal data is required to deliver the service at all.
So no, it's not a selling of your data, it's a change of control. And no, it does not require your consent.
If you don't want to see accusations of "sensationalist" you shouldn't confidently spread hot takes on topics you don't even seem to comprehend the basics of. And if you then go wrong and get corrective feedback as is happening on the Twitter spread, perhaps not double down.
You don't seem to have any knowledge at all about how personal data transfers work in the case of a merger or acquisition. Which is a radically different scenario from two standing independent companies exchanging personal data.
It's common practice and common sense that you get access to customer data when you take over a company, how else would you even run it? This has been true and normal for centuries. The concept still stands when applying the strictest of modern privacy laws, it's called "legitimate business interest". Meaning: there is no business without this data, the personal data is required to deliver the service at all.
So no, it's not a selling of your data, it's a change of control. And no, it does not require your consent.
If you don't want to see accusations of "sensationalist" you shouldn't confidently spread hot takes on topics you don't even seem to comprehend the basics of. And if you then go wrong and get corrective feedback as is happening on the Twitter spread, perhaps not double down.
With a company being sold: yes, customer data is also sold.
Google had not been in the business of selling its businesses until now (and thus was not selling customer data either). They were in the business of building own products (sometimes shutting them down) and buying other companies.
This is a first they shut off a division and also sell off customers’ data.
Google had not been in the business of selling its businesses until now (and thus was not selling customer data either). They were in the business of building own products (sometimes shutting them down) and buying other companies.
This is a first they shut off a division and also sell off customers’ data.
Taking control of a company and thereby getting ACCESS to customer data is not the same thing as selling customer data. They are radically different concepts.
As to whether Google has done this before or not is completely irrelevant.
As to whether Google has done this before or not is completely irrelevant.
But this is NOT a company being sold! And not even a division or a product sold. It’s not a merger or acquisition. It is, what you described as this: “two standing independent companies exchanging personal data.”
Google Domains and Google Cloud Domains is shutting down: no technology or people transfer happens. Customer accounts are what are sold, as laid out in black-and-white by Google:
“On June 15, 2023, Google entered into a definitive agreement with Squarespace, where they intend to purchase all domain registrations and related customer accounts from Google Domains.”
We can argue what it means to sell “customer accounts from Google Domains” from Google to a third party company.
My interpretation that this is selling customer data (that is needed for the buyer to operate them: it’s selling, none the less, to a third party who is not Google). To me, this sounds like a new era starting where customer accounts owned by Google can be sold (and this is the first). Which is fine: but then Google cannot claim they will not do this, going forward. This was the deal Google promised its customers - which implied they won’t sell off eg Gmail acccounts to a third party, YouTube accounts, or Google Domain accounts.
Google didn’t write that Squarespace is “getting access to customer data”. They wrote Squarespace is purchasing these accounts (likely this wording to avoid writing that Google is selling this: but same difference). Google’s wording: not mine.
https://support.google.com/domains/answer/13689670?hl=en#:~:....
Google Domains and Google Cloud Domains is shutting down: no technology or people transfer happens. Customer accounts are what are sold, as laid out in black-and-white by Google:
“On June 15, 2023, Google entered into a definitive agreement with Squarespace, where they intend to purchase all domain registrations and related customer accounts from Google Domains.”
We can argue what it means to sell “customer accounts from Google Domains” from Google to a third party company.
My interpretation that this is selling customer data (that is needed for the buyer to operate them: it’s selling, none the less, to a third party who is not Google). To me, this sounds like a new era starting where customer accounts owned by Google can be sold (and this is the first). Which is fine: but then Google cannot claim they will not do this, going forward. This was the deal Google promised its customers - which implied they won’t sell off eg Gmail acccounts to a third party, YouTube accounts, or Google Domain accounts.
Google didn’t write that Squarespace is “getting access to customer data”. They wrote Squarespace is purchasing these accounts (likely this wording to avoid writing that Google is selling this: but same difference). Google’s wording: not mine.
https://support.google.com/domains/answer/13689670?hl=en#:~:....
>> But this is NOT a company being sold! And not even a division or a product sold. It’s not a merger or acquisition. It is, what you described as this: “two standing independent companies exchanging personal data.”
This is just semantics on your part. Whether it's a company being sold, a division, or only a product, then reasonable companies will consider the data handling in a similar way with multiple gap analyses to mitigate concerns. Context is going to dictate what happens. Lesser companies will not consider this heavily and you can end up with the data being more of the value for the transaction. Whether we like it, or not, we are left to trust that these companies will make efforts to enact good policies and follow them.
What I'd expect to happen here is that Google and Squarespace will familiarize themselves with the posture on both sides and Google will want the standards to at least be maintained to a level which removes liability to them. They are very aware of the scrutiny and a big player here so they can force the acquirer to step up to a certain degree.
I don't know enough about Squarespace's security, or complete business model, but they'll be trying to work out what gaps they may need to fill. Google may have clauses that require that this data can't be co-mingled, or must be handled in specific ways for certain countries. The actual handling and what is communicated can take some time as the teams work out how they deal with any gaps. It's also possible that Google find some gaps on their side and have to resolve them before any transfer could actually happen.
Given the implications of service continuity if domains aren't transferred or operational, I can't imagine that they would ask customers to take some action. It creates a support nightmare with confused customers talking to support and then being unhappy they still took the wrong action when you ask them to approve the transfer.
This is just semantics on your part. Whether it's a company being sold, a division, or only a product, then reasonable companies will consider the data handling in a similar way with multiple gap analyses to mitigate concerns. Context is going to dictate what happens. Lesser companies will not consider this heavily and you can end up with the data being more of the value for the transaction. Whether we like it, or not, we are left to trust that these companies will make efforts to enact good policies and follow them.
What I'd expect to happen here is that Google and Squarespace will familiarize themselves with the posture on both sides and Google will want the standards to at least be maintained to a level which removes liability to them. They are very aware of the scrutiny and a big player here so they can force the acquirer to step up to a certain degree.
I don't know enough about Squarespace's security, or complete business model, but they'll be trying to work out what gaps they may need to fill. Google may have clauses that require that this data can't be co-mingled, or must be handled in specific ways for certain countries. The actual handling and what is communicated can take some time as the teams work out how they deal with any gaps. It's also possible that Google find some gaps on their side and have to resolve them before any transfer could actually happen.
Given the implications of service continuity if domains aren't transferred or operational, I can't imagine that they would ask customers to take some action. It creates a support nightmare with confused customers talking to support and then being unhappy they still took the wrong action when you ask them to approve the transfer.
Thank you. After having gone through more of this - and receiving more long-form input - I am with you that this is, almost certainly, not "selling of customer data."
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate it. Now is the part when I would want to go back and edit all my comments here (and on Twitter), but cannot thanks to the append-only nature. I can delete: but then e.g. this post points to nowhere and the context is lost. I deleted the orginal tweet given it's clear it has incorrect information / missing information, replaced with: https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1671959124337217536?...
Some longer form thoughts, and also input from someone who is quite well versed in privacy: https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/google-domains-to-shut-do...
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate it. Now is the part when I would want to go back and edit all my comments here (and on Twitter), but cannot thanks to the append-only nature. I can delete: but then e.g. this post points to nowhere and the context is lost. I deleted the orginal tweet given it's clear it has incorrect information / missing information, replaced with: https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1671959124337217536?...
Some longer form thoughts, and also input from someone who is quite well versed in privacy: https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/google-domains-to-shut-do...
> As to whether Google has done this before or not is completely irrelevant.
Isn't that the whole issue in discussion? Google never did this before, and as a result they could always claim "we will never, ever, sell your information". This just changed as now they decided to sell that data to Squarespace. So they can't claim that anymore, right?
I understand that Google had no other option. As far as I know, ICANN requires a registrar to transfer domains to another registrar if they are going out of business. So either they support the service forever, or sell their user data to another registrar and remove that statement as they no longer uphold that statement.
They got themselves into that business. No one forced them to sign an agreement with ICANN that could one day force them to transfer that information to someone else, but they did.
Isn't that the whole issue in discussion? Google never did this before, and as a result they could always claim "we will never, ever, sell your information". This just changed as now they decided to sell that data to Squarespace. So they can't claim that anymore, right?
I understand that Google had no other option. As far as I know, ICANN requires a registrar to transfer domains to another registrar if they are going out of business. So either they support the service forever, or sell their user data to another registrar and remove that statement as they no longer uphold that statement.
They got themselves into that business. No one forced them to sign an agreement with ICANN that could one day force them to transfer that information to someone else, but they did.
Coming back - as I can no longer edit my comment.
I am pretty sure I was wrong, and you were right. Thank you. Deleted the original tweet, replaced with: https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1671959124337217536
I am pretty sure I was wrong, and you were right. Thank you. Deleted the original tweet, replaced with: https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1671959124337217536
> This isn't the only Substack author I've followed who veered into audience capture like this
It was an entirely predictable outcome of Medium-/Substack-/Patreon-based journalism. People were complaining about mainstream media reporting being biased, and cheering on democratization of journalism; but Substack more directly ties specific stories to financial rewards foe the authoe. Pandering to your audiences biases will make you more money, so why would you ever report on anything outside of their bubble (or contradicts their worldview) when that hits your pockets?
It was an entirely predictable outcome of Medium-/Substack-/Patreon-based journalism. People were complaining about mainstream media reporting being biased, and cheering on democratization of journalism; but Substack more directly ties specific stories to financial rewards foe the authoe. Pandering to your audiences biases will make you more money, so why would you ever report on anything outside of their bubble (or contradicts their worldview) when that hits your pockets?
> It's self-evident that acquisitions can happen and that data will be transferred as a result.
Correct, which is one of the big reasons why I do my best to avoid all data collection I can, even if I fundamentally trust the company doing the collecting.
Correct, which is one of the big reasons why I do my best to avoid all data collection I can, even if I fundamentally trust the company doing the collecting.
Sure they happen, but this should trigger class action lawsuits.
"We don't sell your data" is a plainly worded claim, and is blatantly false if/when a company is sold. Companies should be required to say "We don't sell your data unless acquired" or "We don't sell your data now but might in the future".
Allowing consumers to make an informed choice is critical for properly functioning free markets, let's enforce this.
"We don't sell your data" is a plainly worded claim, and is blatantly false if/when a company is sold. Companies should be required to say "We don't sell your data unless acquired" or "We don't sell your data now but might in the future".
Allowing consumers to make an informed choice is critical for properly functioning free markets, let's enforce this.
Agreed, "we will not sell your data" is a straight up lie if you eventually end up selling the data.
Playing devil's advocate, maybe they would argue that "we" refers to the organization that operates the service, and that in the event that the ownership of the organization changes, the statement could still be true - "we" did not sell your data, but during the acquisition "we" were sold.
I'm sure that's exactly the argument they would make. But I think it flies in the face of logic by implying that the data a company has is not part of the sale, the value of that data is not priced into the sale price of the company, and the purchasing company does not take ownership of that data.
It isn't rare for one company to buy another entirely so they can get the customer data.
It isn't rare for one company to buy another entirely so they can get the customer data.
Sure, I agree. But in the meantime, it's on us to protect ourselves as best we can.
Isn’t this one of those moral hazards?
i.e. Encouraging everyone to protect themselves inadvertently slows down the fixing of the root problem?
i.e. Encouraging everyone to protect themselves inadvertently slows down the fixing of the root problem?
I don't see how the two things are remotely mutually exclusive. I think to tell people they should remain at risk while a larger solution is developed sounds extremely unwise and a bit unfair.
Agreed: Conceptually not mutually exclusive, but in practice, it would seem that problems only get fixed when they get pretty bad (squeaky wheels syndrome).
I’m personally very torn on this subject. In smaller circles where I have relationships, it’s easy: publish and recommend the workaround protection. But in humanity at large I’d really like the underlying problem to get fixed rather sooner than later?
I’m personally very torn on this subject. In smaller circles where I have relationships, it’s easy: publish and recommend the workaround protection. But in humanity at large I’d really like the underlying problem to get fixed rather sooner than later?
I hear what you're saying.
Personally, I don't feel that I have any right to tell others that they need to put themselves at risk in order to make the conditions right for accelerated change.
But I do agree that simply engaging in self-protection without also doing what you can to actually change the situation is ethically dubious.
Personally, I don't feel that I have any right to tell others that they need to put themselves at risk in order to make the conditions right for accelerated change.
But I do agree that simply engaging in self-protection without also doing what you can to actually change the situation is ethically dubious.
> It's just a big company getting its ducks in a row which takes time.
It is most common for both sides of a transaction to announce simultaneously. This was a bit weird in that SquareSpace made an announcement and there was nothing from the Google side. If Google was still preparing their communications, the norm would be SquareSpace waiting for Google to be ready.
It is most common for both sides of a transaction to announce simultaneously. This was a bit weird in that SquareSpace made an announcement and there was nothing from the Google side. If Google was still preparing their communications, the norm would be SquareSpace waiting for Google to be ready.
> It's self-evident that acquisitions can happen and that data will be transferred as a result. Most most attention is typically on other aspects of how Google handles data and this seems like an attempt to latch onto that.
I mean it's not that surprising though? The better option would've been to allow the user to opt out of transfer to squarespace and move their domain to somewhere else in the meantime?
I mean it's not that surprising though? The better option would've been to allow the user to opt out of transfer to squarespace and move their domain to somewhere else in the meantime?
> move their domain to somewhere else in the meantime?
Everyone can already do this.
Everyone can already do this.
I'm not saying its possible, I'm saying the communications should send reminders to people to decide what they want to do.
The actual acquisition is many months (possibly even a year+) away. The initial announcement they made was a legal requirement because they are both public companies. There's no reason to believe that there won't be more customer facing ones in the upcoming weeks.
Even though I work here, the lack of communications isn’t the fault of the customers that are hearing about this.
It’s not like Google didn’t know filing these notices were gonna go unnoticed.
It’s not like Google didn’t know filing these notices were gonna go unnoticed.
> allow the user to opt out of transfer to squarespace and move their domain to somewhere else in the meantime
I don't mean to downplay the overall idiotic nature of this sale, but you've always been free to transfer your domains out of Google Domains at any time (or any other registrar for that matter).
I don't mean to downplay the overall idiotic nature of this sale, but you've always been free to transfer your domains out of Google Domains at any time (or any other registrar for that matter).
The fact that Google Domains has still not sent any email to customers kind of goes against this. You can easily transfer out if you happened to hear about the sale early enough on social media.
I don't understand the reasoning that some company has better security than another. It's honestly trivial to set up good security. The main problem is incentive to go against/ break that security, which will likely grow with company size, or other factors. So it seems completely unreasonable to trust certain companies over others.
Perhaps trusting governments, since they have less silly financial reasons to break security is reasonable.
Perhaps trusting governments, since they have less silly financial reasons to break security is reasonable.
Google is "selling" your billing data, which Squarespace is not allowed to do anything with other than bill you for the service they provide.
This exact data already goes through many intermediaries in many different countries for the payment to successfully settle. So will you also complain that Google is selling your data to Visa/Chase/Stripe/PayPal and the hundreds of other companies they have agreements with?
This exact data already goes through many intermediaries in many different countries for the payment to successfully settle. So will you also complain that Google is selling your data to Visa/Chase/Stripe/PayPal and the hundreds of other companies they have agreements with?
> which Squarespace is not allowed to do anything with other than bill you for the service they provide.
Where are you getting this from?
Google says that Squarespace's privacy policy will be applicable, and that policy gives Squarespace the right to do plenty of other things with user data: https://www.squarespace.com/privacy
Where are you getting this from?
Google says that Squarespace's privacy policy will be applicable, and that policy gives Squarespace the right to do plenty of other things with user data: https://www.squarespace.com/privacy
Googler, opinions are my own.
I will say, I'm super frustrated by the Domains sale as well. I also work on Payments, and can at least give some insight here. The amount of data given to a payment processor definitely differs by country and form-of-payment. But one big difference is that a full billing profile tends to have lots more data than just what is required to process a payment. Many payments (like credit cards), just need a payment description, name, address, and the card details. But this doesn't always include stuff like email address, IP address, phone #, etc. So the card processor will get the minimum info required to process the payment. There are also agreements in place with what these processors can do with this PII data.
I'll definitely be interested to see what Google does regarding data transferred to SquareSpace. It's unclear right now what kind of restrictions will be placed on any data (if any) that is shared with SquareSpace.
I will say, I'm super frustrated by the Domains sale as well. I also work on Payments, and can at least give some insight here. The amount of data given to a payment processor definitely differs by country and form-of-payment. But one big difference is that a full billing profile tends to have lots more data than just what is required to process a payment. Many payments (like credit cards), just need a payment description, name, address, and the card details. But this doesn't always include stuff like email address, IP address, phone #, etc. So the card processor will get the minimum info required to process the payment. There are also agreements in place with what these processors can do with this PII data.
I'll definitely be interested to see what Google does regarding data transferred to SquareSpace. It's unclear right now what kind of restrictions will be placed on any data (if any) that is shared with SquareSpace.
Unless Squarespace is going to break ICANN agreements they'll at least need full contact information for registrants, technical contacts, etc., unless they do some fancy private registration deal where Google keeps that data and Squarespace doesn't have access to it.
What could be more personal than billing data?
I mean, I'm pretty liberal with my billing data? I buy stuff online all the time, and thanks to credit cards it's pretty easy to handle the situation of billing data getting stolen by reversing fraudulent charges and getting new billing data.
This is a dumb take.
No, you cannot “buy” people’s personal data (name, phone #, address, email, etc) from Google.
Yes, sale of a business unit usually includes the customer contracts, leads and historical data of that business unit. No, there isn’t anything nefarious about that, and every other business you transacted with does the same thing.
Yeah sure there is a cottage industry trying to use google’s data to augment other data sources, but that’s not “Google selling my personal data”.
No, you cannot “buy” people’s personal data (name, phone #, address, email, etc) from Google.
Yes, sale of a business unit usually includes the customer contracts, leads and historical data of that business unit. No, there isn’t anything nefarious about that, and every other business you transacted with does the same thing.
Yeah sure there is a cottage industry trying to use google’s data to augment other data sources, but that’s not “Google selling my personal data”.
I do think when a company is bought by another, you should need to 'opt-in' to continuing your business with them.
There shouldn't be an assumption that consent is transitive and that if you consented to Company A having your information, that you're also happy with Company B that takes over also having it.
It's the same thing with time; consent when given should not be eternal. I don't want to be contacted by a company I signed up to 12 years ago and forgot about to contact me about a new product.
It's the same thing with time; consent when given should not be eternal. I don't want to be contacted by a company I signed up to 12 years ago and forgot about to contact me about a new product.
From what I know, at least in my country, this is the case. Additionally, in the case of Google Domains, nothing is stopping you from migrating your domains to some other registry right now, before they get transferred over to Squarespace.
One could argue that having your data with Google is more damaging to one’s privacy than having it with any other company, considering that Googles business model is the selling of ads based on your data, but that’s besides the point here.
One could argue that having your data with Google is more damaging to one’s privacy than having it with any other company, considering that Googles business model is the selling of ads based on your data, but that’s besides the point here.
I haven't fleshed out the thought, but I've always thought it would be ideal if you were able to keep control of your data at all times.
You have a record of your details secured with locally stored biometrics and systems can reference that data with your consent (and an audit history) That way you don't need hundreds of accounts just to order food, products etc.
So the third-party never knows who you are, or where you're located, but are able to use your location by referencing your location record. That way they don't need to store any data about you.
You have a record of your details secured with locally stored biometrics and systems can reference that data with your consent (and an audit history) That way you don't need hundreds of accounts just to order food, products etc.
So the third-party never knows who you are, or where you're located, but are able to use your location by referencing your location record. That way they don't need to store any data about you.
I’m not sure about this one - seems like it significantly reduces the value of data, which would have a downstream impact on the entire industry. I guess that’s what you intended, but my mind quickly went to a rabbit hole with the second order effects of this one.
Arguably, the value of data in its modern version is much higher than mere “goodwill” including customer relationships. The data travels easily without customer consent, while a traditional customer relationship can be canceled by the customer at any time.
So the value of data is a modern day business windfall, that can be argued as unfair. Or fair. Depending on your viewpoint.
So the value of data is a modern day business windfall, that can be argued as unfair. Or fair. Depending on your viewpoint.
Absolutely not. Mergers/acquisitions happen all the time and the masses very much expect that service continues without action.
Squarespace bought the personal data (name, phone #, address, email etc) of all Google Domains customers. I cannot do that, but Squarespace could. Google sold, among other things, that data, to Squarespace.
What's dumb about that take?
What's dumb about that take?
Squarespace is giving Google money, and in exchange they're getting my personal information so they can bill me. That seems extremely clear-cut. Not sure if you're talking about some obscure legality interpretation but in plain speech, that is what they're doing.
Nothing has happened yet, and it’s easy for anyone who wants to opt out to do so. Transfer your domain and close your google domain account.
The bigger point though is that you are right, but it also applies to literally every business sale ever. What’s the point of talking about it now? Do you think GitHub sold your data to Microsoft?
The bigger point though is that you are right, but it also applies to literally every business sale ever. What’s the point of talking about it now? Do you think GitHub sold your data to Microsoft?
They totally did, as did many other acquired companies, but (AFAIK) Github didn't have "we won't sell your data" as a core tenet of the company carried off the mountaintop inscribed on stone tablets like Google.
I'm not one of those enraged over this, but it is both perplexing and disappointing.
I'm not one of those enraged over this, but it is both perplexing and disappointing.
> This is a dumb take.
Coming from the guy who yesterday talked about how much of a reputational risk selling Google Domains is... It's ironic he doesn't see tweeting something this dumb as a reputational risk...
Coming from the guy who yesterday talked about how much of a reputational risk selling Google Domains is... It's ironic he doesn't see tweeting something this dumb as a reputational risk...
I was bummed about Stadia but as a developer this really hurts. Feel betrayed and that I let down others that I recommended Google Domain.
Everyone makes the mistake of trusting Google once or twice. At least in this case it's just a domain name, easily transferred anywhere. It would suck to depend on a GCP bespoke service only to have it disappear next week.
It was the best domain registrar I had ever used - fast, streamlined, and convenient. So of course Google, the GM of Silicon Valley (1), had to sell it off or shut it down.
1: GM also has a reputation for getting a product just right and then killing it.
1: GM also has a reputation for getting a product just right and then killing it.
Same. I'm honestly shocked they're getting rid of the service. It's core infrastructure, cheap as chips to run, and binds people to using Google. Same reason why Microsoft hosts domains.
You have your mail, storage, office suite, photos, chat, etc, hosted by Google, they made it easy to host your domain there working with all those services, and all that vertically integration kept us comfortably in their warm embrace.
Now they're selling it because... why? Only theory that holds water is it doesn't make _enough_ money. Well sure it isn't a huge revenue source but it isn't losing money either, and the intangibles felt like they more than justified keeping it in-house.
Hopefully the inside story comes out, as I would be fascinated to hear their thought process.
You have your mail, storage, office suite, photos, chat, etc, hosted by Google, they made it easy to host your domain there working with all those services, and all that vertically integration kept us comfortably in their warm embrace.
Now they're selling it because... why? Only theory that holds water is it doesn't make _enough_ money. Well sure it isn't a huge revenue source but it isn't losing money either, and the intangibles felt like they more than justified keeping it in-house.
Hopefully the inside story comes out, as I would be fascinated to hear their thought process.
This is kinda a fool me once, shame on you, fool me two hundred and some odd times, shame on me, sort of situation.
Everyone believes they know the hard line Google will not cross for shutting down products, and everyone eventually is wrong.
Everyone believes they know the hard line Google will not cross for shutting down products, and everyone eventually is wrong.
It's not a sale of information to a third party. It's the sale of a business and transferring the business to the first party. Businesses buying and selling businesses happens, all the time. Customer data is being transferred in the process, all the time.
Is there anything noteworthy going on here, or are we just confused/pretending to be confused about the world and looking to put a spin on it?
Is there anything noteworthy going on here, or are we just confused/pretending to be confused about the world and looking to put a spin on it?
That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.
If I (the first party) have given data to a company (the second party), and that company is sold to someone else (the third party), then my data was sold to a third party.
> Customer data is being transferred in the process, all the time.
Right. Being common doesn't mean it isn't problematic, though. This is one of the reasons to minimize the amount of data you reveal to any company.
If I (the first party) have given data to a company (the second party), and that company is sold to someone else (the third party), then my data was sold to a third party.
> Customer data is being transferred in the process, all the time.
Right. Being common doesn't mean it isn't problematic, though. This is one of the reasons to minimize the amount of data you reveal to any company.
> Being common doesn't mean it isn't problematic, though.
Certainly. However, taking a common business/law(?) issue and making it a Google issue is lame.
EDIT:
> That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.
> If I (the first party) have given data to a company (the second party), and that company is sold to someone else (the third party), then my data was sold to a third party.
Well. I can see where you are coming from, but we have to be able to differentiate between
a) an ongoing 1p<->2p relationship, where 2p is selling data to a 3p
b) a relationship, where the entire 2p gets replaced
These two setups are clearly not equal. There is a distinction. And a difference.
Certainly. However, taking a common business/law(?) issue and making it a Google issue is lame.
EDIT:
> That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.
> If I (the first party) have given data to a company (the second party), and that company is sold to someone else (the third party), then my data was sold to a third party.
Well. I can see where you are coming from, but we have to be able to differentiate between
a) an ongoing 1p<->2p relationship, where 2p is selling data to a 3p
b) a relationship, where the entire 2p gets replaced
These two setups are clearly not equal. There is a distinction. And a difference.
What's the difference? In both cases, your data is now in the possession of a third party that you didn't intend to be in possession of it.
[deleted]
> It's not a sale of information to a third party. It's the sale of a business and transferring the business to the first party.
Suppose I let you borrow my car, on the condition that you not allow your son to drive it. When the car gets totaled, you tell me that you gave the keys to your spouse, and they were the one who let your son drive it. So I have no reason to be angry at you, because you didn't directly hand the keys to him.
If you draw an imaginary line around some of the people and assets in a company, declare that the data belongs within that imaginary line, and then say everything inside that imaginary line is being sold, that's the same sort of shell game.
> Is there anything noteworthy going on here, or are we just confused/pretending to be confused about the world and looking to put a spin on it?
Yes. There's a lie being told that "selling a business" and getting customer data along with it is somehow distinct from "selling data".
Suppose I let you borrow my car, on the condition that you not allow your son to drive it. When the car gets totaled, you tell me that you gave the keys to your spouse, and they were the one who let your son drive it. So I have no reason to be angry at you, because you didn't directly hand the keys to him.
If you draw an imaginary line around some of the people and assets in a company, declare that the data belongs within that imaginary line, and then say everything inside that imaginary line is being sold, that's the same sort of shell game.
> Is there anything noteworthy going on here, or are we just confused/pretending to be confused about the world and looking to put a spin on it?
Yes. There's a lie being told that "selling a business" and getting customer data along with it is somehow distinct from "selling data".
This bit in the tweet chain was more interesting to me:
Google Domains *was* profitable, I confirmed internally. Growing extremely fast (~$120M ARR now, ~growing $40M/year)
Google Domains *was* profitable, I confirmed internally. Growing extremely fast (~$120M ARR now, ~growing $40M/year)
I'm dubious of the "confirmed internally" part unless their source is someone in a high level in the CFO's org. It's not really possible for a regular engineer or someone else working on the product to know exactly what resources the company is providing their project in terms of salaries + benefits of everyone involved, hardware/cloud allocations, marketing, legal costs, accounting, customer support, insurance, other vendor fees and tons more. You might think that the tiny server or DB you are provisioning from a seemingly infinite pool or that email exchange with legal are free, but there is a dollar value attached to everything.
That means it had revenue that was growing.
We don't know what the expenses were. It's still possible it wasn't profitable.
We don't know what the expenses were. It's still possible it wasn't profitable.
We’re taking about a database that stores on the order of 1KB per customer. The product operating costs round down to zero per customer.
The only real expenses would be dealing with customer service and card fraud. While it’s possible that those costs could be substantial, Google isn’t exactly known for throwing a lot of money at customer service.
The only real expenses would be dealing with customer service and card fraud. While it’s possible that those costs could be substantial, Google isn’t exactly known for throwing a lot of money at customer service.
Sure but the database they used probably had seventy-four nines of uptime and used atomic clocks to support nearly simultaneous changes to a single record at a rate of a hundred and six thousand hertz, and that thing was crazy expensive. Unfortunately that database was built on Awesome Google Internal Technology 884611, which has been deprecated, and the replacement system doesn't work yet. The team that built Domains ended up owning Awesome Google Internal Technology 884611 because they were supposedly the only team left still using it, but then they discovered that Google Search also relies on it through a Stubby that no one noticed. So then the Domains oncalls were getting swamped with bug reports from Google Search every time someone used Google Image Search in Italy, for some reason... The Domains SWEs and SREs put up a heroic effort to keep Search (and Domains) running, but it was noted that implementing something like Domains would neither be Difficult or Impactful, so they all got Needs Improvement and resigned to go work on something more rewarding like High Frequency Trading of Kale Futures or driving a Lyft. Google Image Search in Italy has been flaky ever since.
Internally; I believe google is super averse to anything that scales linearly or faster than linearly. - at least as a rule.
So it doesnt matter, i speculate, if it was earning $1M in profit a year for 10M domains if they need to employ 50 call center staff - and for the next 10M domains they need to hire another 50 call center staff— I think they would rather pull the plug.
Which I personally would never do, but, it is in line with other decisions they’ve made and how I have heard key people talk about googles leadership externally.
So it doesnt matter, i speculate, if it was earning $1M in profit a year for 10M domains if they need to employ 50 call center staff - and for the next 10M domains they need to hire another 50 call center staff— I think they would rather pull the plug.
Which I personally would never do, but, it is in line with other decisions they’ve made and how I have heard key people talk about googles leadership externally.
> Internally; I believe google is super averse to anything that scales linearly or faster than linearly. - at least as a rule.
This is 1000% true. The culture is that diminishing returns means linear scale will eventually turn into a cost center. Execs only care about 10x initiatives. My understanding is that Larry personally canceled gFiber b/c the margins, while profitable, were too thin.
This is 1000% true. The culture is that diminishing returns means linear scale will eventually turn into a cost center. Execs only care about 10x initiatives. My understanding is that Larry personally canceled gFiber b/c the margins, while profitable, were too thin.
I suspect even if gFiber had super high margins it would've still had its operations scaled down.
It's a huge pain in the ass to deploy fiber. The cities that got Google Fiber mostly had to bend over backwards in order to do so. There's a lot of logistical (and legal) factors that just don't exist for pretty much any other Google product.
Like what approvals does Google need to release Bard? But you could make pages of approvals needed to deploy fiber to a city.
It's a huge pain in the ass to deploy fiber. The cities that got Google Fiber mostly had to bend over backwards in order to do so. There's a lot of logistical (and legal) factors that just don't exist for pretty much any other Google product.
Like what approvals does Google need to release Bard? But you could make pages of approvals needed to deploy fiber to a city.
> Like what approvals does Google need to release Bard
Well, for one they still need Ireland's DPA approval before they release it to the EU.
Well, for one they still need Ireland's DPA approval before they release it to the EU.
Surely if Google Fiber started EU operations they would also need DPA approval?
The point is that fiber would require a lot more approvals than many of the pure software projects. Also afaik, fiber never launched in EU and exists in many less locations than Bard.
The point is that fiber would require a lot more approvals than many of the pure software projects. Also afaik, fiber never launched in EU and exists in many less locations than Bard.
It feels like such a myopic decision on several fronts, not least of all the obvious cross-product synergies. Google Fiber customers should have been the target market for Stadia, should have been a backbone for deploying semi-public wifi for Pixel Phones owners, a target audience for 'cinephile-grade' upgraded youtube subscription, etc.
Nevermind that non-linearity should have been achievable[0] via lobbying at the state/federal level.
[0]An advantage only really achievable by a company as large as google, with money and weight to throw around.
Nevermind that non-linearity should have been achievable[0] via lobbying at the state/federal level.
[0]An advantage only really achievable by a company as large as google, with money and weight to throw around.
>My understanding is that Larry personally canceled gFiber b/c the margins, while profitable, were too thin.
That makes sense given "nothing linear", but I can't understand why they would have thought it could have been better. Same for domains. In what scenario would they grow exponentially?
That makes sense given "nothing linear", but I can't understand why they would have thought it could have been better. Same for domains. In what scenario would they grow exponentially?
if they can automate the support fully?
like someone else in this thread said; in theory it’s a global distribution of 1kb in a database and a user interface.
if you are the best at AI, maybe you can solve the support burden. Or at least thats what they attempted.
like someone else in this thread said; in theory it’s a global distribution of 1kb in a database and a user interface.
if you are the best at AI, maybe you can solve the support burden. Or at least thats what they attempted.
> It's still possible it wasn't profitable.
Surely that's a lot more trivially fixed with a small price bump than throwing the entire revenue stream & user sentiment into the trash?
Google Domains is currently charging $12/year for a .com domain, which we know from cloudflare the "at cost" price of that is $9.15/year. Comparing the $12/year to other providers it's kinda middle-of-the-road, not especially cheap or anything. Shopify is $15/year while porkbun is ~$10/year, so $12/year certainly appears to be a price that has adequate margin to either be profitable or if not only needs a small bump to be profitable?
Surely that's a lot more trivially fixed with a small price bump than throwing the entire revenue stream & user sentiment into the trash?
Google Domains is currently charging $12/year for a .com domain, which we know from cloudflare the "at cost" price of that is $9.15/year. Comparing the $12/year to other providers it's kinda middle-of-the-road, not especially cheap or anything. Shopify is $15/year while porkbun is ~$10/year, so $12/year certainly appears to be a price that has adequate margin to either be profitable or if not only needs a small bump to be profitable?
That doesn't matter. In big corporations, unless they're making a strategic investment in a particular area or product, the ROI on any project is compared with to all other projects.
The ROI on Domains is likely to be no where near that of, I don't know, GKE or BigQuery. You can argue all you want about how those are totally different projects with totally different considerations. But at the end of the day, unless Google wants to have a strategic investment in maintaining an end user facing Domain Registrar service, the ROI is all that matters. They are focusing and consolidating all their "developer facing" services in GCP. What makes sense will eventually move there, what doesn't will get cut.
ARR and YoY growth tell you nothing about profitability or the ROI. Google never shied away from deprecating services that they don't care about to focus on things they care about.
The ROI on Domains is likely to be no where near that of, I don't know, GKE or BigQuery. You can argue all you want about how those are totally different projects with totally different considerations. But at the end of the day, unless Google wants to have a strategic investment in maintaining an end user facing Domain Registrar service, the ROI is all that matters. They are focusing and consolidating all their "developer facing" services in GCP. What makes sense will eventually move there, what doesn't will get cut.
ARR and YoY growth tell you nothing about profitability or the ROI. Google never shied away from deprecating services that they don't care about to focus on things they care about.
Could be true, but it's worth noting that Gergely has been wrong about his "confirmed internally" facts before. To his credit, he did issue a correction when it was discovered. However, take his "confirmed internally" stories with a grain of salt.
Probably lesser known here is the Charleston Road Registry, Google's entity which manages their TLDs:
"Google Registry is currently offering .app, .dev, .dad, .phd, .prof, .esq, .foo, .zip, .mov, .nexus, .page, .new, .how, .soy, .day, .boo and .みんな. We also own .ads, .eat, .fly, .here, .ing, and .meme among others. We'll be using some of the domains we own, such as .google, .youtube, and .chrome, for Google products, so they won't be open to the public."
It seems Google will continue working with registrar partners, but not operate a registrar themselves anymore (Google Domains). It does not seem like anything will change for this wholly owned registry entity.
In the future we'll be renewing our .dev domains with other registrars who themselves register the domains with Google Registry / Charleston Road Registry as the TLD administrators.
https://www.registry.google/faqs/
"Google Registry is currently offering .app, .dev, .dad, .phd, .prof, .esq, .foo, .zip, .mov, .nexus, .page, .new, .how, .soy, .day, .boo and .みんな. We also own .ads, .eat, .fly, .here, .ing, and .meme among others. We'll be using some of the domains we own, such as .google, .youtube, and .chrome, for Google products, so they won't be open to the public."
It seems Google will continue working with registrar partners, but not operate a registrar themselves anymore (Google Domains). It does not seem like anything will change for this wholly owned registry entity.
In the future we'll be renewing our .dev domains with other registrars who themselves register the domains with Google Registry / Charleston Road Registry as the TLD administrators.
https://www.registry.google/faqs/
Guess that's how these deals work. Would you rather they shut it down?
The weird part to me at least is that they don’t ask for affirmative consent prior to transferring all your data, billing details, etc., to Squarespace. This isn’t some 1:1 acquisition, the Google Domains UI won’t even exist anymore. Even stranger considering the Google workspace subscriptions are moving as well, no idea how Squarespace is handling that. At least transfers aren’t frozen so you can get away from Squarespace’s terrible product prior to the deal closing.
(I know Google has the legal right to do this, but that’s not the issue here.)
(I know Google has the legal right to do this, but that’s not the issue here.)
I read somewhere that Squarespace is already a reseller of Workspace, so the new accounts they acquire will likely slot into whatever current mechanism exists for managing and supporting these customers.
Apparently the Google Domains UI is sticking around too, although who knows how long that'll last.
Apparently the Google Domains UI is sticking around too, although who knows how long that'll last.
You want companies to consult users on M&A decisions? What's next cookie consent style popups but for merger contracts?
Maybe this is a radical position, but if users have given you data based on the agreement that you'll follow a particular privacy policy, then material changes to that policy should require the user's consent.
If a user doesn't consent, then sure, you can go ahead and do whatever policy changes or mergers or acquisitions you want, but you don't get to include that user's data in the deal.
If a user doesn't consent, then sure, you can go ahead and do whatever policy changes or mergers or acquisitions you want, but you don't get to include that user's data in the deal.
Better to shut down than sell people's data without consent. Better still to seek consent, but between what they're actually doing and simply shutting down and deleting customer data, the latter would be preferable.
Edit: If anybody disagrees, I have a question to ask you: How would you feel if Google sold your youtube view history to the likes of Facebook, Tiktok, or Palantir? Better for them to ask first, or simply delete it. This SHOULD be required by law.
Edit: If anybody disagrees, I have a question to ask you: How would you feel if Google sold your youtube view history to the likes of Facebook, Tiktok, or Palantir? Better for them to ask first, or simply delete it. This SHOULD be required by law.
This isn't a new issue. For example, WhatsApp and all of its data was sold to Facebook. I'm sure some people closed their WhatsApp accounts because they didn't agree with Facebook's privacy policies.
That _is_ how these deals work.
Some folks -- perhaps those who believed the lies about "unequivocal policies" -- would rather have it shut down than have their data sold.
Some folks -- perhaps those who believed the lies about "unequivocal policies" -- would rather have it shut down than have their data sold.
This deal isn't special, the data is priced in, and unless you want to ground all acquisitions to a halt this is how it should be.
In the Twitter thread linked here, it is being called out as the first time Google has done a sale like this including their collected user data.
So it’s not “special” in terms of acquisitions in general, but directly defies the public statements of Googles CEO and is notable in that way.
So it’s not “special” in terms of acquisitions in general, but directly defies the public statements of Googles CEO and is notable in that way.
Yes, I would prefer that. Give a year of notice then turn off the service. I can choose where to send my business next.
And I am, I'm moving to Cloudflare. It's a superior service anyway and they support my TLDs. I never bothered moving before simply due to the minor effort involved.
And I am, I'm moving to Cloudflare. It's a superior service anyway and they support my TLDs. I never bothered moving before simply due to the minor effort involved.
Isn't it obvious? If you want your domains to be automatically transferred, fine, do that, but otherwise refund any payments for future services and provide assistance for transferring domains to another provider.
The latest tweet in the thread already deals with this objection:
> And for those saying: "well, better than shutting down Google Domains"
> Google Domains was profitable, I confirmed internally. Growing extremely fast (~$120M ARR now, ~growing $40M/year)
Which, I mean, obviously the product isn't so unprofitable that it needs to be shut down, or nobody would be interested in buying it.
Maybe Google Domains isn't the company's most profitable product, and maybe Google would be able to make even more money by allocating those resources elsewhere. But the point that people are upset about is that Google is going against a principle it had publicly committed to. Principles don't count for much if you only follow them when there's no cost to doing so.
> And for those saying: "well, better than shutting down Google Domains"
> Google Domains was profitable, I confirmed internally. Growing extremely fast (~$120M ARR now, ~growing $40M/year)
Which, I mean, obviously the product isn't so unprofitable that it needs to be shut down, or nobody would be interested in buying it.
Maybe Google Domains isn't the company's most profitable product, and maybe Google would be able to make even more money by allocating those resources elsewhere. But the point that people are upset about is that Google is going against a principle it had publicly committed to. Principles don't count for much if you only follow them when there's no cost to doing so.
> But the point that people are upset about is that Google is going against a principle it had publicly committed to. Principles don't count for much if you only follow them when there's no cost to doing so.
This is surprising to literally nobody who's paid even a cursory amount of attention to Google over the past 20+ (and especially 15) years.
This is surprising to literally nobody who's paid even a cursory amount of attention to Google over the past 20+ (and especially 15) years.
Wait, what principle did they commit to?
I thought they've been shutting down products for a long long time now?
I thought they've been shutting down products for a long long time now?
Sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear. The principle I was talking about was this one, from Sundar Pichai, referenced in the tweet thread:
> To make privacy real, we give you clear, meaningful choices around your data. All while staying true to two unequivocal policies: that Google will never sell any personal information to third parties, and that you get to decide how your information is used.
The parent commenter was presenting a false dichotomy, as if either selling the product or shutting it down were the only options. But there's no reason that has to be the case.
And even if it was -- which seems unlikely to me -- shutting down the product and giving users the option to switch to a different provider would be more ethical than just selling their data without asking for consent.
> To make privacy real, we give you clear, meaningful choices around your data. All while staying true to two unequivocal policies: that Google will never sell any personal information to third parties, and that you get to decide how your information is used.
The parent commenter was presenting a false dichotomy, as if either selling the product or shutting it down were the only options. But there's no reason that has to be the case.
And even if it was -- which seems unlikely to me -- shutting down the product and giving users the option to switch to a different provider would be more ethical than just selling their data without asking for consent.
That makes sense!
There is no billing / login / ecosystem convenience advantage to using google for any service, because once that service is killed off it is no longer convenient.
They decided not to end service and allow you to migrate to your provider of choice, but to sell your account to another provider. Meaning your account was not valuable enough to continue service, but was valuable enough to sell to a third party.
They started this whole process by aggressively buying the .dev TLD domains and forcing TLS, breaking tooling that used that domain for development (even if that wasn't a great idea).
All for what? Too much ad money and no vision.
They decided not to end service and allow you to migrate to your provider of choice, but to sell your account to another provider. Meaning your account was not valuable enough to continue service, but was valuable enough to sell to a third party.
They started this whole process by aggressively buying the .dev TLD domains and forcing TLS, breaking tooling that used that domain for development (even if that wasn't a great idea).
All for what? Too much ad money and no vision.
Fwiw you're confusing Google Domains and Google Registry. Two completely different teams and products.
I can't believe Google hasn't sent any information to Domains users so far. All I've learned about this has come from Twitter, HN, etc. Google Domains website doesn't mention the sale at all. Seems sketchy af.
They are legally obligated to tell investors the minute the deal is signed. It is not going to close for many months (maybe even over a year), so there's plenty of time to craft customer-facing communications. I'm sure they still have to finalize a lot of details about how the transfer will actually work.
So, you’re saying that we’ll have months to find another registrar and complete the transfers, before they start sharing our data with this company? Just trying to understand the urgency.
Yes
To me the oddest thing is Google Cloud Domains is still going to be around (it has to stay because the other cloud vendors offer the same).
Why didn’t they transfer Google Domains stuff to their own cloud outfit?
Why didn’t they transfer Google Domains stuff to their own cloud outfit?
Gergely reports that Cloud Domains is to be shut down as part of this: https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1669726481130434563
Oh wow. This is going to be a misstep.
The key point to me is that this data hasn't been sold yet. If I had any domains in Google, I'd migrate them immediately.
I didn't even know Squarespace was buying Google Domains. This was an interesting way to find out.
[deleted]
No way in heck Google is turning your personal information into revenue? Color me absolutely flabbergasted.
This discussion would probably be improved by being specific about what information will be transferred instead of saying "personal information".
Because that's not what's happening.
FTA: "Once regulatory approvals are obtained and the transaction closes, the billing and support services for Google Workspace (including G Suite) subscriptions currently billed by Google Domains will be managed by Squarespace."
FTA: "Once regulatory approvals are obtained and the transaction closes, the billing and support services for Google Workspace (including G Suite) subscriptions currently billed by Google Domains will be managed by Squarespace."
It is exactly what's happening.
Google is handing over the personal information of its subscribers, and the responsibility for their accounts, to Squarespace. In return, Squarespace is giving Google a bunch of money (revenue).
Google is handing over the personal information of its subscribers, and the responsibility for their accounts, to Squarespace. In return, Squarespace is giving Google a bunch of money (revenue).
The distinction I would draw is that the headline implies this is selling it for marketing purposes, not subcontracting for admin/support.
This is different from subcontracting, though, because Google Domains is being sold in its entirety and will no longer be owned or controlled by Google.
Once the data is in Squarespace's hands, what's stopping them from using it for marketing purposes? The customer data obviously has marketing value. Google's announcement says that after the "transition" is complete, customer data will be handled subject to Squarespace's privacy policy, which (naturally) gives Squarespace permission to use it for marketing.
Once the data is in Squarespace's hands, what's stopping them from using it for marketing purposes? The customer data obviously has marketing value. Google's announcement says that after the "transition" is complete, customer data will be handled subject to Squarespace's privacy policy, which (naturally) gives Squarespace permission to use it for marketing.
does selling a business release the business from it's contractual obligations (including EULA/data privacy+processing) to its customers?
The problem is that in the US there are very few such obligations in the first place. Most privacy policies say that the company can change the policy at any time. Just change your policy to allow the spinoff and thus the spinoff is compliant with your policy.
No way in heck Google is turning your personal information into revenue? Color me absolutely flabbergasted.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me 483 times, shame on me.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me 483 times, shame on me.
Can you give an example of Google selling the contents of personal information, rather than the use of it?
That's the big deal here. Google has previously sold information like "show an ad to people who own domains" but not "give me an email list of people who own domains"
That's the big deal here. Google has previously sold information like "show an ad to people who own domains" but not "give me an email list of people who own domains"
This is totally wrong.
Google has over and over and over again collected as much information as possible about users, and then guarded it zealously against others (while profiting by exploiting it).
This is unequivocally different from collecting information and then giving it to others, which is what will happen as part of this sale.
I can't say with confidence that this is the first time that Google has sold personal information to a third party, but I'm not aware of any other cases, and certainly doing so has not been their traditional modus operandi.
My experience at Google (not recently) was that Google is/was so zealous about properly siloing and guarding PII that it was at times an obstacle to preventing criminals from defrauding Google for large sums of money. Never mind selling it to third parties, but in some instances teams would require high-level (director-level?) sign-off to let other teams (e.g. anti-fraud) see the information they'd collected. I cannot say if this is typical, but I saw it happen more than once. That is a pretty privacy-focused company.
Google is also zealous, though law-abiding, about pushing back on the government demanding information about users. That doesn't mean that the government never wins (so think twice about giving Google information that will get you in trouble with the government), but it's in stark contrast with the "welcome to Room 641A, yeah sure wiretap all our users" attitude of the telcos. Everybody talks like PRISM was the fault of "the tech companies", but that's literally backwards.
So, is this sale-of-personal-information an absolute first? As far as I know yes, but maybe not. But it's definitely not business-as-usual for Google.
Google has over and over and over again collected as much information as possible about users, and then guarded it zealously against others (while profiting by exploiting it).
This is unequivocally different from collecting information and then giving it to others, which is what will happen as part of this sale.
I can't say with confidence that this is the first time that Google has sold personal information to a third party, but I'm not aware of any other cases, and certainly doing so has not been their traditional modus operandi.
My experience at Google (not recently) was that Google is/was so zealous about properly siloing and guarding PII that it was at times an obstacle to preventing criminals from defrauding Google for large sums of money. Never mind selling it to third parties, but in some instances teams would require high-level (director-level?) sign-off to let other teams (e.g. anti-fraud) see the information they'd collected. I cannot say if this is typical, but I saw it happen more than once. That is a pretty privacy-focused company.
Google is also zealous, though law-abiding, about pushing back on the government demanding information about users. That doesn't mean that the government never wins (so think twice about giving Google information that will get you in trouble with the government), but it's in stark contrast with the "welcome to Room 641A, yeah sure wiretap all our users" attitude of the telcos. Everybody talks like PRISM was the fault of "the tech companies", but that's literally backwards.
So, is this sale-of-personal-information an absolute first? As far as I know yes, but maybe not. But it's definitely not business-as-usual for Google.
Using for profit =/= selling
This only applies to people who registered their domain through Google itself, right?
Who is the go-to domain provider to migrate to now?
Reminds me of how cars and houses have transfer taxes and title change information that can be circumvented by simply selling the LLC that owns said car or house respectively
Is the https://domains.google.com/ service going away ? if so why are they still selling domains ?
It's self-evident that acquisitions can happen and that data will be transferred as a result. Most most attention is typically on other aspects of how Google handles data and this seems like an attempt to latch onto that.
I personally feel better about basic data security and processing under Google than I would under a company like Squarespace. I know Google have faced nation state attackers so they've got some security chops. I feel that they'll enforce reasonable contractual requirements on the purchaser, but those won't override Google being a safer bet with the basics.