Prima facie this comment enraged me, but on reflection it has a deep point; both parties here are just acting out of rational self interest. Google has decided that their bottom line won't suffer if they tell locked-out customers to get fucked. They would rather use the money on cheeky bets that carry small risk and have high potential upside.
The critical corollary is that if you still feel it is a problem that Google doesn't provide support, and feel that "the market will fix it" is unconvincing in light of the available evidence, then you ought to be in favour of regulation that obligates them to.
> I would be in favor of such regulations, and yet I'm also not against the project here, so i don't see your point
The point is that FAANG companies are smart enough to elude a simple Hanlon's razor analysis.
Put more explicitly:
1. Your critique of OP's argument is fundamentally correct. Pointing out that Google could solve the problem if they wanted to is missing the point. Google doesn't want to solve the problem
2. Therefore, we either have to live with the status quo, or we have to change the incentive structure.
It might seem trivial to you, but I think it's an important point. Many members of the hn crowd exhibit this cognitive dissonance where on the one hand, they have a strong moral intuition that a particularly policy of tech giants is wrong (in this case, their choice not to put money in support), but on the other hand, an equally strong knee-jerk resistance to regulation of our industry.
Recognition that Google (or any other giant) are just doing what's best for them (as per their definition of "best") is an important step.
Why just obligate them to? They do not play nice, we should not play nice either (yes, obligating them is playing nice). I instead suggest nationalizing them, or close them down and arrest at least the executives.
Obligating them would solve the problem without creating a bunch of new problems. Your suggestions would create more problems than they solve.
A given company is typically not Capital-G-Good or Capital-E-Evil. They are probably doing some things well, and doing some things poorly. They respond to incentives. When a company is doing things poorly in a way that is hurting consumers, we should ask what incentives they're responding to.
Google has failed at support. They also do plenty of things well. On my view it's weird to take the position that they don't. I regard Google Search as the crown jewel of modern engineering.
The critical corollary is that if you still feel it is a problem that Google doesn't provide support, and feel that "the market will fix it" is unconvincing in light of the available evidence, then you ought to be in favour of regulation that obligates them to.