You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-11-26 10:58
It will be very interesting to learn if Google and the SaveTheInternet crowd truly believe in opposing discrimination on the Internet or whether they employ "situational ethics" and only oppose alleged Internet discrimination by their political opponents.
A recent Penn State study: Determining Bias to Search Engines from Robot.txt, highlights that Google benefits from discrimination against smaller competitive search engines because websites block access to those search engines robots that crawl the web to find what users are searching for.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-11-26 13:57
In "Google's tar pit," an article in the Atlantic about how Google's market dominance is attracting antitrust scrutiny in Washington -- much like Microsoft did before it -- provides us a new "image" or "word picture" of Google.
The article starts with this wonderfully telling scene-setter: "
So what does Google's choice of a T-rex as its corporate mascot tell us about Google?
First, non-Google paleontologists have gotten it all wrong about the T-rex.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-11-27 13:43
Verizon's announcement that it will allow customers to choose any app and/or any device on its entire network in 2008 is proof positive that competitive market forces best serve consumers, not rigid net neutrality regulation or legislation.
I see three big takeaways from the Verizon announcement: consumer protection/reliability; market discipline, and more diversity of consumer choice.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-11-28 13:39
The Wall Street Journal article yesterday: "Google plans service to store users' data" is another stark reminder of the very dark cloud on the Internet's horizon -- Google's dominant "cloud computing" capability (i.e. Google's world-leading parallel processing computing grid and storage centers, which Google uses to cache a more-than-daily copy of every page of every website on the Internet and also every Google users' clickstream history.)
Now why would Google want to give you that type of service for "free"? Because they want even more personal and total information about you than they have in your search history, in order to sell to advertisers even more info about your most private "hot buttons."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-11-29 13:51
Knowing I appreciate good satire, and especially good satire on Google, someone sent me the link to a 2005 spoof on Google that rings surprisingly true today...
Don't miss The Onion's: "Google plans to destroy all information it can't index."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-11-29 18:32
It appears that AP/Moveon.org/FreePress are panicking and have called for reinforcements to try and shore up their unreasonable characterization of Comcast's reasonable network managment of P2P traffic -- as somehow a net neutrality violation.
One of the EFF's main claims in their report is supremely ironic and very telling:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-11-30 15:22
I had to point you to a short, but great post by Michael Arrington of Techcrunch that shows how Yahoo and Facebook feel they must advertise on Google to reach Internet customers.
A core point I made in my "Googleopoly" white paper on the pending Google-DoubleClick merger, was why no competitor will be able to catch Google in search advertising, including #2 Yahoo and #3 Microsoft. (see pages 17-18 in particular)
Google's poodle -- Moveon.org is leading the privacy protest against Facebook -- which spurned Google...Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-11-30 17:07
The New York Times reports today in "Facebook Users Protest Online Tracking" that Moveon.org set up the online petition protesting Facebook's new program that automatically tells your 'friends" what you just bought online.
However, the reason I am blogging on this development is to spotlight the interesting Google-Moveon.org connection here and also Moveon.org's "situational ethics."
Let's connect some key dots: