You are here

Conflict of Interest

Google bans Senator Collin's anti-Moveon.org ads -- Google's "Free Speech" double standard

Robert Cox, the Founder and President of the Media Bloggers Association, a non-partisan professional standards group, reports that Google has blocked the running of U.S. Senator Susan Collins' anti-Moveon.org ads on Google.

  •  "Internet giant Google has banned advertisements critical of MoveOn.org, the far-left advocacy group that caused a national uproar last month when it received preferential treatment from The New York Times for its “General Betray Us” message."
  • "The ads banned by Google were placed by a firm working for Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ re-election campaign. Collins is seeking her third term."

    Google has a particularly tortured concept of "free speech" if it is willing to editorially ban Republican speech that opposes its most important and high-profile lobbying ally in the net neutrality fight.

Unsolicited advice for Frontline Wireless' new Open Access Advisory council

Reed Hundt's Frontline Wireless,  is reportedly forming a high-profile "Open Access Advisory Council" for the 700 MHz spectrum auction, which includes "net neutrality" term-coiner and celebrity Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu.

I have two pieces of unsolicited advice for Frontline's new advisory council."

Google's "G-Phone" an alligator versus bear fight?

Google's long rumored Google phone
or GPhone project has attracted a lot of comment and chatter, but not a lot of
good analysis to date. One big exception is a very good article last week by
Miguel Helft of the New York Times: "For
Google, Advertising and phones go together
."

Why are mainline consumer groups AWOL on Google-DoubleClick privacy issues?

I continue to be surprised and saddened that the mainline consumer groups, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America remain completely AWOL on arguably one of the most important privacy issues threatening consumers --the pending Google-DoubleClick merger.

I can't seem to square the following facts.

AP: "Ethics group urges Congress to examine Google's Copyright controls"

Google's copyright kleptomania just can't stay out of the news for long. Per the AP/San Jose Mercury News last week:

  • "In letters sent to several lawmakers Wednesday, the National Legal and Policy Center excoriated Google for allowing its video-hosting service to become an online theater for showing and promoting illegally copied movies."

  • "The nonprofit group, which says it has no financial ties to the movie industry..."

  • "The grievances made to Congress focused exclusively on content found on Google's Web site rather than the company's more popular YouTube subsidiary that is being sued by Viacom Inc. for alleged copyright infringement."

More OpenLeft unabashed election manipulation using "Google bombs"

Open Left, a close ally of Moveon.org, is unabashedly bragging about how it has successfully manipulated Google search results, with the intent to manipulate the Presidential general election, with its "Google-bombing" campaign of Republican Rudy Guliani.

This is far from the first time Google has enabled "Google-bombing".

Great FT article on Google provides more evidence of Google's cultural aversion to internal controls

Richard Waters of the FT produced a very insightful and newsy article on how Google reportedly passed on buying DoubleClick two years earlier over internal concerns about how that alignment of businesses could clash with Google's famed "don't be evil' highmindedness.

  • It's a must read article for Googlephiles.

My big takeaway from this article was an undercurrent of Google's struggle over internal controls to ensure Google's "ethics" are carried out in practice.  

Google hypocrisy on privacy knows no bounds; also Monday Privacy event on GoogleDoubleClick

Google calling for global privacy standards is like the fox guarding the henhouse calling for better chicken wire standards. 

In a public relations ploy, Google, is now calling for international privacy legislation; see AP's "Google launches global privacy crusade."

My analysis of Google's call for International privacy standards is that it is a transparent PR ploy to try and lead the protest march for the cameras while trying to distract people from the fact that the privacy "march" is actually heading directly towards Google headquarters. 

NASA "discriminates" in favor of Google Founders 767 "Party plane"

Kudos to the New York Times for their front page article "Google claims ultimate perk: NASA runway."

  • The truth is often stranger than fiction... and a lot funnier.

Seems that Google and NASA have created a special "two-tiered" information super-runway conveniently 7 minutes away from Google's Silicon Valley Headquarters, where only Google's co-founders planes can land takeoff and park, but no other private planes can.

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths