Should we be scared of Google becoming an ubermonopoly?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

With Google taking over the internet and everything, should we be worried about things going horribly wrong, say they started abusing the power and influence they now weild? I mean, what would happen?

― letsjumpnow (lets jump now), Monday, 23 October 2006 19:55 (nineteen years ago)

If we're playing ubermonopoly, could I be the little Scottie dog please?

― C J (C J), Monday, 23 October 2006 20:00 (nineteen years ago)

do no(w) evil

― gwynywdd dwnyt fyrwr byychydd gww (donut), Monday, 23 October 2006 20:00 (nineteen years ago)

I think the only hope for Google now is to put out an authorized mix by LCD Soundsystem.

― Sadly, he will be the next Alexis Petridish. (Dom Passantino), Monday, 23 October 2006 20:03 (nineteen years ago)

SKYNET

― manute lol (sanskrit), Monday, 23 October 2006 20:57 (nineteen years ago)

With Google taking over the internet and everything, should we be worried about things going horribly wrong, say they started abusing the power and influence they now weild? I mean, what would happen?

Nothing. Google hasn't taken over the internet, because if Google disappeared off the face of the earth, the internet would continue. The only cries would be from folks who put all their email, calendars, etc. etc. in GoogleWhatever without having backup or offline ability.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Monday, 23 October 2006 21:22 (nineteen years ago)

letsjump, elaborate on what you mean by "things going horribly wrong" and "abusing power and position".

― gwynywdd dwnyt fyrwr byychydd gww (donut), Monday, 23 October 2006 21:28 (nineteen years ago)

is there a way i can back up my gmail?

i mean, aside from relying on their tape drives...

― kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 23 October 2006 21:30 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, you can POP fetch the email or set it to forward to another email account. You can sync the calendar data to something else.

― mikef (mfleming), Monday, 23 October 2006 22:47 (nineteen years ago)

google is dominant in search and advertising. nothing else they've done has really taken off. look for these trends to continue. they'll be serving tv ads ads soon and continuing to index everything imaginable.

― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Monday, 23 October 2006 23:37 (nineteen years ago)

mike, you guys got any jobs over there?

― jaxon (jaxon), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 02:32 (nineteen years ago)

yeah all i'd lose would be gmail, and i lose email yearly anyway so meh.

if the search went, i'd just use something else like yahoo or alltheweb.

google earth is a novelty which i've barely used in the past few months. there are much better/easier to use map systems on the net.

what else?

― Ste (Fuzzy), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 08:13 (nineteen years ago)

CJ, if i don't get to be the dog, i'm not playing.

― teh_kit (g-kit), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 08:14 (nineteen years ago)

I'd really miss GMail, but I'd imagine in this theoretical meltdown that someone would be able to buy the really neat features that GMail have presumably patented.

Searching would be different, there must be nearly ten times as much on the web as there was pre-Google (anyone remember Altavista?).

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 08:31 (nineteen years ago)

> google is dominant in search and advertising.
> nothing else they've done has really taken off.

a) that's enough to be going on with.
b) google maps.

― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 08:41 (nineteen years ago)

Isn't google already putting the sites that pay enough money on top of any search? It's easy to see how this power could be abused; for example, non-wanted sites (like, say, those criticizing multinational companies) might stop appearing among the search results. Kinda like what is already happening with newspapers: big companies threatening to pull off their ad money if some paper releases articles that criticize them.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:00 (nineteen years ago)

Kinda like what is already happening with newspapers: big companies threatening to pull off their ad money if some paper releases articles that criticize them.

'already happening'. ie since newspapers were invented?

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:03 (nineteen years ago)

Isn't google already putting the sites that pay enough money on top of any search

As paid for links, obviously distinct from the search results, yes.

― ledge (ledge), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:08 (nineteen years ago)

Does that make it somehow better? (And I'm pretty sure this is a relatively new phenomenon in Finland, don't know about other countries.)

(x-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:09 (nineteen years ago)

A better option would be to have a comprehensive search engine that's totally noncommercial. Who would fund it, I'm not sure.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:10 (nineteen years ago)

i find it highly unlikely that finland has only just developed a capitalist economy.

xpost

but maybe tuomas hasn't adjusted to it?

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:12 (nineteen years ago)

I think the big Finnish newspapers have traditionally been funded mainly by sunscription fees, which has allowed less leverage for the advertisers.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:17 (nineteen years ago)

"subscription"

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:18 (nineteen years ago)

Google seem pretty benign to me. What are they gonna abuse? Photoshop the Eiffel tower out of GoogleEarth?

― Johnny B Was Quizzical (Johnney B), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:18 (nineteen years ago)

blimey. are they expensive? traditionally uk papers cost about three times (this stat may be out of date) more to produce than they cost to buy.

xpost

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:19 (nineteen years ago)

Why would that be a better option?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:19 (nineteen years ago)

I think the big Finnish newspapers have traditionally been funded mainly by sunscription fees, which has allowed less leverage for the advertisers.

I find it hard to believe that Finnish newspaper economics are that different from those in the rest of the world.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:20 (nineteen years ago)

Well, I think some international beneficial organization (say, the UN) could fund a noncommercial search engine.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:21 (nineteen years ago)

because the UN is totally unbiased.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:21 (nineteen years ago)

(x-post)

Well, I'm not totally sure about the newspaper thing. But I do know Finnish papers and mags have less ads than most of the foreign ones I've read, though this has been changing during the last fifteen years or so.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:23 (nineteen years ago)

Who is the UN biased towards? Anyway, I'm pretty sure they could come up with a less biased search engine than any commercial organization.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:24 (nineteen years ago)

Anyway, it doesn't have to be the UN, I think any international NGO with enough fundings could do it. Maybe even the bloody EU.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:25 (nineteen years ago)

But Tuomas, Google's results pages clearly differentiate between paid and non-paid results. If you can read, you can choose. I don't really see the problem.

Yes, it can be an issue that it is possible to artificially boost your ranking on the Google results page, but that could be the case even with a supposedly unbiased, commercial-free page.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:27 (nineteen years ago)

u mad if u think the UN or EU could do anything that comes close to what google does. fucking hell, i'm just trying to think that one over and it's like: yeah, the french or chinese goverments are sure to be more laissez faire than google.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:29 (nineteen years ago)

But laissez faire tends to lead to the dominance of those with most money. I don't think the French government would have much against a democratic search engine - it's not like they would ask for it to censor anti-French pages.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:32 (nineteen years ago)

Most Western countries allow sites that criticize the said countries or their governments to be hosted inside their borders. I don't really think that they'd have that much against a nonbiased search engine, the question is more like, do they have enough goodwill to fund it?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:34 (nineteen years ago)

you've got to be kidding me.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:35 (nineteen years ago)

i actually think the EU *is* trying to develop a "rival to google" or something similarly absurd. an EU google would probably attempt a formula to be less laissez faire, so that big business wouldn't dominate. and this would churn up a whole lot more shit than anything google have tried to pull.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:37 (nineteen years ago)

Feel free to explain.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:39 (nineteen years ago)

results would be based on an arcane quota system that cut african start-ups out. it would obviously favour EU sites. etc etc.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:40 (nineteen years ago)

This current French government might not, but what if some censor-happy French government got into power? What if France became like China? Should we all move over to some other government's hosting service then?

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:41 (nineteen years ago)

"obviously"

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:42 (nineteen years ago)

You really think the invisible hand of capitalism somehow provides you with the most unbiased information? In Finland, for example, noncommercial papers are funded by government, and they're the major source of information critical to, say, the multinationals. I think capitalism always needs societal efforts to balance it out.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:48 (nineteen years ago)

i trust governments about as much as capitalists here.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:49 (nineteen years ago)

is it not an "obviously" situation andrew? i felt it was called for.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:50 (nineteen years ago)

How do you know this search engine will "obviously" favour EU sites? Do you know how it would actually work?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:53 (nineteen years ago)

Google's search algorithm is pretty fuckin' democratic, fwiw.

― ledge (ledge), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:53 (nineteen years ago)

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1930009,00.html

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:55 (nineteen years ago)

Is the concern with Google not they have potentially a lot of aggregated information about us all. Like those AOL searches that leaked that were tied to a user number, google presumably has that plus your emails and google talk chats and potentially all your bookmarks if you're using their bookmark sync'ing tool. Potentially they could have a whole load of information on your online life.

― mms (mms), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:56 (nineteen years ago)

How do you know this search engine will "obviously" favour EU sites? Do you know how it would actually work?

-- Tuomas (lixnix...), October 24th, 2006.

it's just the way of the world. what would be the point of an EU engine if it didn't do something to forward the aims of the EU? from a cost/benefit analysis pov.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:57 (nineteen years ago)

Because Christ knows, everything the EU does is rigidly cost/benefit based.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:58 (nineteen years ago)

hahaha well, yes.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 09:59 (nineteen years ago)

Ok Ed, that's a scary link. Actually donating money to support individual candidates does seem to be crossing some sort of line. OTOH that's hardly unusual in the corporate world, and it doesn't give me reason to suddenly start doubting the integrity of Google search results.

― ledge (ledge), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:01 (nineteen years ago)

The interesting question with Google, of course, is what they could get away with charging and when.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:02 (nineteen years ago)

You really think the invisible hand of capitalism somehow provides you with the most unbiased information?

But it's not providing me with the information. It's providing me with the means to locate the information. What I choose to believe after that is my business. If I search for something on Google and it returns sites to me that I've never heard of, I'm not going to trust them just because they were ranked first. Just like I wouldn't trust it if the government ranked them first.

In Finland, for example, noncommercial papers are funded by government, and they're the major source of information critical to, say, the multinationals.

I would not trust my government to provide me with my news.

I think capitalism always needs societal efforts to balance it out.

Right, which is why Google searches will return both capitalist and government sites, and you can choose which ones you want to read.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:03 (nineteen years ago)

aren't people (i'm talking your usual person on the internet as opposed to a big corp thing) using the google stuff because they work better than the alternatives available??

it's not really like they're microsoft who seem to manage to persuade people to use rubbish software despite better alternatives? If someone conjures up a better search engine than google then they're finished aren't they (unless they buy them out :D)

the maps thing is awesome cos of the way it zooms about seamlessly cor. except i still use multimap when i have to look up names of towns (because it works a lot better than the google map search see!) but sometimes i try google maps for pop luck when looking for names of restaurants or soemthing in london

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:05 (nineteen years ago)

There are people (such as the good people at Ask.com) who argue that there are much better search engines out there (some with names that make more sense as words used to describe the action of searching) that are being buried because of Google. They argue that their algorithm is better and returns better information (I forget what "better" means in this context) but I tried it for a week to compare, and it didn't seem to be any different. And it was slower.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:09 (nineteen years ago)

i just ego-searched on ask. google gets better rizzults.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:14 (nineteen years ago)

Did it say you were king of the world? I like that kind of result.

I would be worried if Google started predicting the future, and when you googled yourself, it would tell you when your heart attack was due.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:15 (nineteen years ago)

maybe if it links its search engine to the NHS spine and does some clever logic....

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:26 (nineteen years ago)

yeah the nhs is a great example of government's genius for IT.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:27 (nineteen years ago)

yeah man. had it been GOOGLE who ran the NHS. cor, utopia.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:29 (nineteen years ago)

In Finland, for example, noncommercial papers are funded by government, and they're the major source of information critical to, say, the multinationals.

I would not trust my government to provide me with my news.

Okay, that was badly funded - the government financially supports noncommercial papers and magazines (but does not provide all of their funding), but it has nothing to do with the content of the papers. Of course you could say that it's the same with commercial papers and advertisers, but in the past at least the government has been less inclined to stop giving money to papers and magazines which criticize it (among other things). I'm not pro-government in any way, but it's rather simplistic to think that governments automatically censor anything that's against their interests, or that only think of costs and benefits in the capitalist sense.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:33 (nineteen years ago)

the government will always have an agenda though. it would be bad accounting, if nothing else, just to give people money to run a newspaper and not have any oversight.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:36 (nineteen years ago)

Right. Basically, Tuomas, you are lucky to live in modern Finland where your government lets the newspapers print what they like. If you lived in modern Russia, China, or even (possibly) Finland 100 years ago, that wouldn't be the case. I'm always suspicious of newspapers that boast that they don't have shareholders to answer to. Like that makes you any more likely to tell the truth?

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:50 (nineteen years ago)

If given enough power, governments will use censorship, even in democracies; it may be drip by drip, but it can and does happen. I don't think any government would fund a newspaper without having some form of accountability for how that money is being spent.

Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have all complied with the Chinese government to censor internet services and search engine results. Yahoo has even supplied information about email users, which has assisted in the conviction of at least one person in China. It's quite scarey that these companies have information which should be private, and are willing to hand it over at the request of a government.

― salexandra (salexander), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:54 (nineteen years ago)

It'd be like funding a library with books critical of your political system!

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:57 (nineteen years ago)

not really, more like tailoring health or security priorties to get tabloid headlines.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 11:00 (nineteen years ago)

I love that Tuomas is busy telling us governments can be trusted to give you the news, when vying for attention on the New Answers page with this thread is "BBC admits bias".

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 11:06 (nineteen years ago)

Meantime, personal Google search engines!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 24 October 2006 11:38 (nineteen years ago)

five years pass...

Google: do evil!

Darpa Director Bolts Pentagon for Google

DOJ Asks Court To Keep Secret Any Partnership Between Google, NSA

― Reality Check Cashing Services (Elvis Telecom), Monday, 12 March 2012 23:49 (fourteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.