Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

The conflict of interest that is Google

<< < (23/27) > >>

J-Mac:
Corporations are like drug dealers. They give you something for free in order to hook you up.

BTW: This is interesting. Google is next to useless when you are searching for something like a car.

The Incredible Stupidity Of Investigating Google For Acting Like A Search Engine

-rxantos (December 02, 2010, 12:37 PM)
--- End quote ---

Uhh... maybe it's just me, but... does anyone really expect a Google search for any topic to show links to the results for the same topic on other, competing search engines? That expectation sounds so out of place with, well, everything I have ever expected from a search engine! C'mon, really? This guy truly expected to find results from Bing, Yahoo, and a host of other search engines in his Google search results?

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Thank you.

Jim

Bamse:
Good link rxantos. Hope you read it all or you have been tricked :)

Closer to the real world with nice kick at those stupid newspapers. He know it is the same money and clicks fight is about. Clash of interests, zero to do with consumer rights or anything. Some prefer Microsoft, old newspaper methods, anything non-Google because it is trendy - others prefer Google world. Be careful who you join hands with :)

If you step back from the rhetoric, the political jockeying, the concerns that Google is just too big so let’s use any argument to stop it — if you logically think about this argument from a user perspective — it makes no sense.
--- End quote ---

If you missed his link at bottom Google has responded to the hunt http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2010/11/our-thoughts-on-european-commission.html

zridling:
This is one of the best topics ever on DC.

As others have pointed out with far better clarity than I ever could, the problem with Google is its ad plan. If you set in motion profit before content, then naturally the greedy are going to go straight for the web hits, or more specifically, the ad hits. Already you've distorted every single result of your search engine right there, not to mention opened it to corruption.

There are plenty of trolls -- i.e., columnists -- who will post something just to get hits, and then turn around and post the opposite opinion a week or month later, hoping no one cares enough to notice. But by then, they (or their company) have already been to the bank.

Just as when you travel, your best experiences are had when you get out of the big city, off the main highway, and don't eat at chain restaurants, I find the same is true when using Google. I can find anything I want using it, but I have to sift through increasing digital noise to get there. I think that's also why when you come across something fresh like Yippy or Bing, it's kind of refreshing (for a while).

mouser:
Article today slamming google for increasing tendency to bury real search results in ads:

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/2012/03/at-google-advertising-is-crowding-out-search-results/



That’s a total of 23 links on that page, as it appears on a typical computer. Only one is a search result.
--- End quote ---

IainB:
Is it justified to criticise Google for what it does or the way it does what it does?
As the marketing speak would put it, "It's all a matter of perception".

One perception here:
Looks like Du Pont was originally a gunpowder manufacturer (that was interesting - I never knew that) and then diversified into all sorts of fields, and sought to grow as a corporation, through acquisition and expansion. The objective would have been to fulfil its charter to make profits for its shareholders. Looks like it was probably a well-run psychopathic corporation - true to its business model. Then a bit of antitrust bother. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind. (Well, you can' t always get away with monopoly all of the time, but you have to try, don't you?)
Think of all the employment that resulted (and still continues) from Du Pont's operations as the corporation grew.
An enormous wealth-creating economic engine.
A great corporation.

As an experiment, re-run the above but substituting "IBM" for "Du Pont". Same model, different products/services. Antitrust bother in the early '80s (IBM was forced to sell their Commercial Bureau Services arm, which was bought up by CDC).
Another great corporation.

Then repeat that with "Google", or the name of whatever other major corporation you care to think of.
Try "Monsanto" - I think that fits it too. Monsanto might have studiously avoided the antitrust hurdle so far (has it?), but anyway it's GM technology probably takes it perilously close to the line (it's patenting food on a global scale, for goodness' sake). One day the legislators might wake up to that fact - if Monsanto's lawyers/lobbyists forget to fund them enough to stay asleep.

Define "Conflict of interest" and see if it really applies to Google. You will probably arrive at the conclusion that there is none in Google. It is probably just another well-run psychopathic corporation - true to its business model.
A great company.
But there's maybe a small difference with the "Do no evil" statement. That flies right in the face of what a well-run psychopathic corporation should be doing - treating it's adverse effects as externalities, for society to deal with. If anything, it is that statement that is a conflict of interest in this context.
No problem, the statement can always be quietly removed/forgotten by the Board, after the phantasising idiot who pronounced it has died/retired/been paid off. It's probably not a legal requirement anyway (is it?) - it's an ambiguous and morally high-sounding PR statement ("spin"), and has no real meaning and certainly no binding value. It's become a cliché. It's probably just a comforter for suckers like us. Regardless, you can rest assured that the corporation will justify whatever it wants to justify as being "Not evil".

So, stop griping about them and just accept those adds in the searches and support the economic engine and all that employment. The adverts are harmless, and a good thing, because they can generate consumption by those with the propensity to pay. And if you are lucky enough to have the propensity to pay, then it's only because of the economic engine that you are a part of.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page