Google Empire

[Mycroft]

I welcome my Google overlords.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I guess to sum up my position on all this - I think it is prudent, as it is with all things, to not blindly accept everything at face value. I have NO evidence that there is a Google conspiracy, nor did I posit that I did.

I DO think it is important to subject Google to the same level of personal scrutiny & thought as I would any corporation, government entity, NGO or private company. Just because I think someone is the bees knees should not allow me to put on the blinkers and expect them to always behave responsibly.

From the way you speak of Google, Joey - you sound a bit to me like while obviously a big fan, you seem to be unwilling to consider any scrutiny, no matter how minor or how superficial. That is generally only a response I see from say... Scientologists if you ask just how a Sci-Fi writer happened to write a religious tenet based on aliens?

 

[Joey McGee]

From the way you speak of Google, Joey - you sound a bit to me like while obviously a big fan, you seem to be unwilling to consider any scrutiny, no matter how minor or how superficial. That is generally only a response I see from say... Scientologists if you ask just how a Sci-Fi writer happened to write a religious tenet based on aliens?

You didn't... you did! I have to be honest, I'm really disappointed in you for making that argument. That was as classy as a Nazi comparison/Godwin's law. I can't honor that with an intelligent response, but I will say that you're absolutely backwards when it comes to your appraisal of my skeptical powers.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Well lets try this then...

. Do you agree that Google does a very good job at isolating topics mentioned within Emails and classifying them in such a way to effectively manage this data. ie - matching a query about a tourmaline with coloured gems?

. Do you agree that people generally assume (perhaps incorrectly) that their conversations in Email are more or less secure. I'm not talking here about disclosing matters of national security, but if you exchange an intimate thought with a friend / partner / lover, you have a reasonable expectation that this message will be kept private.

. Do you agree that if you knew that a government agency, or indeed any large company was able and actively trawling your Email and isolating terms for use in a database, that you would at least have a concern about what that information was being used for?

On the assumption that you replied 'yes' to those three points, then please understand - ALL that I am saying is that it amazed me no end that Google has achieved such an effective mechanism to achieve this. They did it fully with my authorization and warned me that the price of using their free Email service, was that they were going to do this. I also am saying that Google has to this point, never done anything with this information that causes me ANY concern.

All that said - am I willing to blindly trust Google and assume that this information could never be put to a use which makes me uncomfortable? The answer is 'no'. Not out of unreasonableness, not out of any slight against Google. I'm just saying that I'm not going to put this company on a pedestal.

Case in point - I received Emails this week from two large firms, who perhaps are not as altruistic as Google, but are more or less broadly trustworthy - Hilton Hotels & Starwood Hotels - that the 3rd party they use as the database provider for their marketing data was hacked, and my Email and some non-financial personal information (not really explained to me in great detail) may now be in the hands of the hackers. I'm not in a panic about this incident, I have enough safeguards in my personal and financial life to make sure that I feel relatively protected against such malfeasance.

The point which I seem to be making poorly, is that Google is a BIG company, having a BIG pile of data, and clearly, has some BIG ideas about what its role should be - ideas that extend to matters that cross cut large social issues, that generally are left to governments to deal with. Such as having conferences with groups that are of interest to national security. There is nothing WRONG with being a BIG company, and indeed I believe that Google has shown itself to be responsible and 'good'.

But the moment I start to think that a corporation, or government entity, or NGO is 'divine' or 'like a god' is the day where I've failed intellectually.

 

[Joey McGee]

So you're not willing to admit that the Scientology comparison was hysterical and silly. Well, your loss. I'm using "divine" tongue-in-cheek dude, you're riding off the rails.

One time a Google engineer went into someone's personal email and used the information gained to harass them. I was shocked that this was even possible in their systems but they defended the need for it. Was pretty skeptical about that. They deserve every iota of skeptical criticism they receive, great power/great responsibility yadda yadda. None of that justifies hysterical fear or pre-emptive persecution.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Well, if you can show me where I've been hysterical or pre-emptively judgemental, then I'll consider if my comment about Scientology was perhaps a bit histrionic. Perhaps it was merely as tongue-in-cheek as your use of 'divine'. Certainly seems to have hit a nerve.

As evidence that I am not being hysterical or being too quick to judge, I'll point out that Google is still the main Email address I use online for anything but business Email. Because my business Email uses a domain that identifies the firm who engages me, not because I don't 'trust' the Google Email.

Do you wish to address my previous post?

 

[Joey McGee]

Well, if you can show me where I've been hysterical or pre-emptively judgemental, then I'll consider if my comment about Scientology was perhaps a bit histrionic. Perhaps it was merely as tongue-in-cheek as your use of 'divine'. Certainly seems to have hit a nerve.

As evidence that I am not being hysterical or being too quick to judge, I'll point out that Google is still the main Email address I use online for anything but business Email. Because my business Email uses a domain that identifies the firm who engages me, not because I don't 'trust' the Google Email.

Do you wish to address my previous post?

I think that invoking Godwin's law is slightly hysterical. You could have made your point without comparing me to the stupidest cult in America.

You doubt their philanthropy on zero rational grounds. You're pre-emptively persecuting them by saying stuff like "they should be concentrating on their browser instead of trying to save lives" which is exactly what you implied. That's technically crazy.

I've lost interest for obvious reasons.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Well you've lost interest, but just in case anyone out there cares, I don't DOUBT their philanthropy - I question whether or not they are involved in things that a for-profit corporation should be engaged in.

Joey - you don't know me from Adam, but I work in international development. I see a lot of day to day meddling in areas that make me uncomfortable from an ethical perspective. Some people who have known me for awhile, such as Darat, have a better idea of what it is I do on a day to day basis. If you read my profile, you will see my current assignment.

So - when I see that Google is engaging so-called former Islamic extremists, I make a direct comparison (whether fairly or unfairly) with the sensitivities of negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, including very politically and ethically charged programs such as arms purchasing deals (pay to lay down arms) that I have seen and worked on myself.

I've never worked with Google. I used them to look stuff up, and as a webmail provider. That they are doing this stuff MAY be a good thing, it may not. I personally am unconvinced that we should be negotiating with terrorists, for much the same reason Dawkins won't debate Creationists. I would rather not have to consider this level of complexity when I ponder who is going to define a word for me, or help me find something I want to know.

From a business perspective, call me what you will, but I prefer my car manufacturers to build really good cars. If they want to use their mechanical engineering expertise to also work on a debating club, then I genuinely think they should do this on their own dime. Were I a shareholder of Google, the expense of some of these non-revenue generating items we've been discussing, WOULD interest me. Maybe a more sensible thing for Google to consider, is spinning off a not-for-profit vehicle like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, for these sorts of activities.

Anyways - I too grow weary of this soapbox. I personally am comfortable with my level of skepticism, and believe that it is rational and healthy. I'm sorry if you took grave offence at my provocative invocation of Scientology.

 

[Joey McGee]

I highly respect the work that you do and I can appreciate where you are coming from much better now, thank you. I'll introduce me, I am just a young person who never went to college or worked at an interesting job. I just read a lot.

I don't DOUBT their philanthropy - I question whether or not they are involved in things that a for-profit corporation should be engaged in.

Technically, Google Ideas is a think tank, they have teamed up with the CFR on this one. I question the wisdom in asking corporations to limit themselves as entities. They are organisms, they should be free to evolve into anything that will create more well-being.

I personally am unconvinced that we should be negotiating with terrorists, for much the same reason Dawkins won't debate Creationists. I would rather not have to consider this level of complexity when I ponder who is going to define a word for me, or help me find something I want to know.

It's just a conference to exchange ideas, I don't see how this has anything to do with negotiating with terrorists, something virtually everyone is highly dubious of.

From a business perspective, call me what you will, but I prefer my car manufacturers to build really good cars. If they want to use their mechanical engineering expertise to also work on a debating club, then I genuinely think they should do this on their own dime.

Google isn't a manufacturer, they are an intellectual, scientific entity connected to all of the greatest organizations in the world. They are uniquely positioned to do this kind of stuff. And what are they not doing on their own dime? Their people finding tool for disasters, no one else could have done that anywhere near as good, no government, no anybody. I heard they had a teams working non-stop in shifts for 72 hours until it was done after the quake.

Were I a shareholder of Google, the expense of some of these non-revenue generating items we've been discussing, WOULD interest me.

This has been discussed heavily by the investors and everyone involved for a long time. I totally understand the skepticism, they have addressed it, and I like their reasoning, though some investors don't. They didn't sell their shares over it though . They even have a rule something like "Let's be totally insane with 1% of our money!" which has some solid rationale behind it.

Maybe a more sensible thing for Google to consider, is spinning off a not-for-profit vehicle like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, for these sorts of activities.

The Google Foundation already exists!

I'm sorry if you took grave offence at my provocative invocation of Scientology.

I appreciate this.

 

[erlando]

Maybe a more sensible thing for Google to consider, is spinning off a not-for-profit vehicle like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, for these sorts of activities.

What an idea! Maybe they could then call it "The Google Foundation" or something like that.

Oh, wait. They already did.

 

[gumboot]

I'm far more worried about government surveillance than Google

Assuming you live in a democracy, your government is answerable to you and your fellow citizens. Who is Google answerable to?

Having said that my main beef with Google is how much YouTube's performance sucks since they took over. It used to be a tight-run, fast-loading, no-problems operation. Now's it's a hideous ungainly mess.

 

[dtugg]

Assuming you live in a democracy, your government is answerable to you and your fellow citizens. Who is Google answerable to?

Having said that my main beef with Google is how much YouTube's performance sucks since they took over. It used to be a tight-run, fast-loading, no-problems operation. Now's it's a hideous ungainly mess.

YouTube works perfectly for me on both my computer and on my cell phone.

 

[Joey McGee]

Assuming you live in a democracy, your government is answerable to you and your fellow citizens. Who is Google answerable to?

Law Enforcement and therefore the government and therefore us? Is Google somehow unbeholden to anyone? If so how can I also gain these powers?

Having said that my main beef with Google is how much YouTube's performance sucks since they took over. It used to be a tight-run, fast-loading, no-problems operation. Now's it's a hideous ungainly mess.

I agree! Except for when I use my newer computer, then I disagree.

 

[Kaylee]

I just saw this thread.

A friend of mine recently showed me the following video (I can't post the links in full as I require more posts to obtain the privileges).

youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfV6RzE30

After doing a bit of a search, I found a very similar video which was published in 2008 expressing similar concerns.

youtube.com/watch?v=RRj2HJx5Il0

Are these videos expressing unwarranted paranoia or a valid concern?

Well, I suppose they were produced in a hyperbolic over the top way -- but I think there are valid concerns. We have anti-monopoly laws on the books for a reason (even though it probably can be argued that they haven't really been enforced for a while now). I don't think its a good idea to have so much information in one company's hands either. Its too much power in too few hands. In business and politics I don't think we should rely on people's benevolence and goodwill to prevent abuses of power. I believe that things should be structured so that abuses of power can't occur, or at least would be extremely difficult to occur.

T<snip> Between my Android phone, Gmail, Google Calender, search, maps, ect. Google probably knows more about me than my mother. But I don't really care.

You appear to have a lot of company. I honestly don't understand why people are being so trusting.

I feel particularly odd, however, when I get an Email on my Gmail account that contains some slightly esoteric topic, to see ads targetting this topic on the Gmail pane. For example, I happened to Email someone about a tourmaline gemstone, and all of a sudden, I'm getting ads for coloured gems.

I'm curious -- if you were to delete your cookies and that e-mail, would you still get ads for gemstones? That would mean that Google is sending you targeted ads not just based on searching your e-mail but also based on information that they have stored about you.

But if they ever WANTED to rule the world, they have a rather compelling database & they clearly know how to use it.

I guess to sum up my position on all this - I think it is prudent, as it is with all things, to not blindly accept everything at face value. I have NO evidence that there is a Google conspiracy, nor did I posit that I did.

I DO think it is important to subject Google to the same level of personal scrutiny & thought as I would any corporation, government entity, NGO or private company. Just because I think someone is the bees knees should not allow me to put on the blinkers and expect them to always behave responsibly.

I agree.

 

[gumboot]

YouTube works perfectly for me on both my computer and on my cell phone.

I agree! Except for when I use my newer computer, then I disagree.

I'm talking about the ads and the captions and how some videos can't be paused or full-screened without having to rebuffer from the beginning (this doesn't appear to be a performance or system issue as it happens with some videos and not others). The site's a dog's breakfast since Google took over.

 

[rjh01]

I'm talking about the ads and the captions and how some videos can't be paused or full-screened without having to rebuffer from the beginning (this doesn't appear to be a performance or system issue as it happens with some videos and not others). The site's a dog's breakfast since Google took over.

(Bolding mine)

The bolded bit could be due to your settings.
1. Go to your account settings / account playback (or just click here http://www.youtube.com/account_playback
2. Remove the tick next to the "Always play HD when switching to fullscreen (when available)"
3. Click on save changes.

Problem fixed.

 

[JJM 777]

So Google's evil plan is to show me the advertisements that are most likely to be selling products that I actually want and don't already know about?

Google doesn´t actually do anything to guarantee that the ads are products that you want. They are ads whose publishers tagged their ad with keywords that you are interested in. This is widely misused, the most misused word must be "free", try a google search for "Free dating" or "free sex" or something, the first free website will be somewhere on page 50 or 100 (excluding free trial periods with heavily restricted usability).

Google is not an ideal tool for searching any information, because the information is tagged the way how the publisher wants, not the way how a neutral third party would classify its contents. What I would like to see is a search engine as all-inclusive as Google, which empowers the user the tick on or off checkboxes to limit the search on or off commercial products, free products, dictionary entries, persons, geographical locations, etc. I don´t expect Google to give much of this power to the users soon, because Google makes its money from gratitude of advertisers empowered to reach people who are not looking for their products.

"Free" is the most lethal keyword for google, if that keyword easily found on top of the list the most wanted contents that are actually free and fully functional, many commercial products would be left unsold and therefore less advertised on Google.

 

[Babbylonian]

Google is not an ideal tool for searching any information, because the information is tagged the way how the publisher wants, not the way how a neutral third party would classify its contents.

That's not how Google's search engine works. At most, that's how Google ads can work, including the "results above the results" (the sponsored links) when doing a Google search.

Google's "spiders" travel the web creating indices that are searched when you use their engine with relevance determined by a number of factors, perhaps most importantly the number of links to each page. This is why Wikipedia results tend to sort towards the top for general information queries, since people link a lot to that site.

"Free" is the most lethal keyword for google, if that keyword easily found on top of the list the most wanted contents that are actually free and fully functional, many commercial products would be left unsold and therefore less advertised on Google.

"Free" would be "lethal" to any search engine - depending on the other word(s) used in the search - since that word is used often by retailers in order to entice customers, sometimes deceptively so.

I use Google pretty much exclusively for web searches and rarely have problems finding what I need. In fact, about the only times I have trouble with Google are when I'm searching for things with very odd spellings (medical equipment brand names, for example). I also typically use no fewer than 4 search terms. I think folks get into trouble because they try searching on 1 or 2 words, which makes it more difficult to get a relevant first page. People also tend to expect to get what they want within the first 5 results every time, and that's often not realistic either.

 

[JJM 777]

I use Google pretty much exclusively for web searches and rarely have problems finding what I need.

I often run in trouble finding anything useful with Google, when my keyword happens to refer also to something else very popular than what I am looking for. Lyrics or name of a pop band including the words that you are looking for, or a more famous person existing than the person who you are looking for. Also the ever more popular computer-generated websites suck that contain tons of meaningless text or copied dictionary entries, optimized for a high Google ranking.

 

[Joey McGee]

I often run in trouble finding anything useful with Google, when my keyword happens to refer also to something else very popular than what I am looking for. Lyrics or name of a pop band including the words that you are looking for, or a more famous person existing than the person who you are looking for. Also the ever more popular computer-generated websites suck that contain tons of meaningless text or copied dictionary entries, optimized for a high Google ranking.

As opposed to what search engine? Isn't finding the most popular results via an algorithm the point/limitation of all search engines? Are you always signed in with web history activated so your search becomes more personalized over time?