This article is so utterly biased, that I hesitated to post it. However, I find it interesting how threatened the carriers feel by Google and after the GLAAD/AT&T debacle[1], I hope that this casts some more light on the shady lobbying practices of the big telcos:
Yeah, I see a whole lot of accusation and wild language about things everybody knows, combined with gross misrepresentations about what Google actually says. I don't think they've ever once cast themselves as philanthropists rather than a business. They'll be the first ones to admit that their customers are advertisers, not users. However, their primary claim is that focussing on the user delivers a better product, and thus more users to advertisers. Everybody wins.
The tinhattery in this article was pretty hard to read. Hosting this kind of content isn't really doing much for the Forbes brand.
It's a hit piece by a economic hitman but I'm glad you posted it. We live in a world where ignorance of propaganda and pr could be very dangerous to one's rights and society at large. The hit piece is almost humorous in its lack of sophistication but it's very important to know that people like this exists and what it is they do.
I don't get it. I was hoping to find references to solid "proofs" and examples on how Google is being deceptive. All I found was the statement that Google is deceptive and an entire blog post dedicated to why deceit is bad (as if people don't know).
There is not a single example of "deceptive practices" in the article, merely supposed "evidence" that those practices are likely. Whether or not that is true, without any example to point to, the article is entirely evidence-free.
We have a word for that: it is screed. That's all this article really is. One of the worst OP's I've ever read on HN.
It's an interesting OP in the sense that it shows that some big players are trying to brew up trouble for Google using antitrust mechanisms. The screed itself is not very informative (it's an attack piece by a lawyer for the other side). Now, I would like to understand who "the other side" really is, and to get an evaluation of what they hope to gain and what their chances are. It doesn't seem that the other side is competing search engines, probably more like competing advertisers.
I have to admit, I don't find it very "interesting" at all. I find it irritating and sophomoric.
I'm very sympathetic to Google, but I do believe that they are entering dangerous territory as they become more and more dominant. So I would like to see a serious critique of their policies and practices.
I find it interesting not in the sense of "I thank them for sharing their wisdom with me", but in the sense of "look what's massing on the horizon".
And as for Google's policies in practices, as users of their consumer products, we're exposed to just one side of it. The money-making side of their business is advertising, and they tend to be less of a "nice guy" about that. Now, I have no idea how they compare with other advertising companies; whoever hired the "consultant" that wrote the OP is also playing hardball.
Wow, an entire article talking about how terrible and corrupt Google is for biasing their search results, without a single example of Google biasing their search results.
This reads like a high school essay. In 1200 words the author manages to raise exactly one poorly backed point.
I've noticed lately the intensifying assault upon Google's citadel. I have some conservative acquaintances who lecture me about Google's evil ways - from how the company has attempted to destabilize the middle east to egregious violations of privacy. Not once have I heard them harp on Microsoft, or DRM, or Telcos. Frankly, I don't know where all this Google hate is coming from, but it must be an orchestrated effort by threatened industries.
We're already seeing a battle front in the mobile market, where no doubt spurious patents will be trumped up against Google. Anyone else care to chime in on developing fronts?
13 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 31.2 ms ] threadFrom the Author's bio, Scott Cleland (http://scottcleland.com/):
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/accused-of-a...The tinhattery in this article was pretty hard to read. Hosting this kind of content isn't really doing much for the Forbes brand.
Between the SpaceX/Loren Thompson fiasco and this I'm taking any article from them with a huge rock of salt.
We have a word for that: it is screed. That's all this article really is. One of the worst OP's I've ever read on HN.
I'm very sympathetic to Google, but I do believe that they are entering dangerous territory as they become more and more dominant. So I would like to see a serious critique of their policies and practices.
This is not it.
And as for Google's policies in practices, as users of their consumer products, we're exposed to just one side of it. The money-making side of their business is advertising, and they tend to be less of a "nice guy" about that. Now, I have no idea how they compare with other advertising companies; whoever hired the "consultant" that wrote the OP is also playing hardball.
I've noticed lately the intensifying assault upon Google's citadel. I have some conservative acquaintances who lecture me about Google's evil ways - from how the company has attempted to destabilize the middle east to egregious violations of privacy. Not once have I heard them harp on Microsoft, or DRM, or Telcos. Frankly, I don't know where all this Google hate is coming from, but it must be an orchestrated effort by threatened industries.
We're already seeing a battle front in the mobile market, where no doubt spurious patents will be trumped up against Google. Anyone else care to chime in on developing fronts?