You are here
Conflict of Interest
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-11-01 18:16
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-10-24 11:44
Google represents its new default policy -- taking a user’s name and picture and putting it in their ads without permission or compensation -- as “Shared Endorsements.” This deceptive and unfair business practice is more aptly named Google-YouAd, “Pirated Endorsements,” or “Swindled Endorsements,” because they are taken deceptively without permission or compensation.
To Google, people apparently are just another form of digital content that should be open and free to exploit without asking the owner for permission and without any expectation of payment from Google for the value that Google generates from the taken content.
We should not be surprised. Google is treating their users, not as humans with privacy and ownership rights, but as inanimate products, content, and “targets” of their advertising model. Notice that they are treating people’s unique identities just like they treat others valuable content that is trademarked, copyrighted, patented, private, confidential or secret. Simply they take it without permission or compensation until an authority that they fear compels them to cease and desist.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-07-23 12:31
Google-YouTube’s Internet Video Distribution Dominance -- Part XII of Googleopoly Research Series
Top Questions as DOJ-Google Criminal Prosecution Deadline of August 19th Approaches -- Part 5 -- Google Complicity SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-07-12 18:42
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-07-08 11:38
Google is the spy tool of choice, the one stop-shop for spying, and the spymaster’s dream.
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt’s famously quipped: “if you have something you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it.” Given recent spying revelations, what Mr. Schmidt apparently means is: “if you don’t want to be spied upon, don’t use Google’s products and services.”
Why is that true? Let’s examine the top ten reasons.
The Bitcoin/Virtual Currency Bubble – Beware of the Alchemy of “Abundance Economics” – Part 2 The Code War SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-06-04 11:58
Bubbles happen because people ignore economics and assume away reality in their excitement over a new idea. “Virtual currencies” could be the latest tech “economics of abundance” bubble in the making. Fans of abundance economics imagine that the free and open Internet’s near zero marginal cost of borderless transactions will ultimately slay traditional economics of scarcity.
Cyber-utopians imagine that currency, or money, is a simple function, like any other product or service that they have made openly available to everyone in the world at virtually no cost on the Internet. They imagine the only thing that matters with the business of money is how money is transmitted.
They assume creating money is just a coding and crowd-sourcing task. How hard could that be? What possibly could go wrong? It’s only money.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-05-17 15:10
Sometimes something is so off-base that a straight analysis is wholly insufficient and warrants satire.
Google’s proposed search bias remedy is no remedy. It would be worse than the status quo.
If accepted by the EU, it would legitimize and entrench Google’s 90+% dominance of search and search advertising in Europe, and make it much harder for any semblance of competition to ever take root.
Google’s proposed search bias remedies are so preposterous one has to use metaphors, imagery and analogies to understand what is really going on and what Google is really proposing.
EU-Google: Too Powerful to Prosecute? The Problems with Politically Enabling Google – Part 22 Google Unaccountability SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-05-01 09:03
The EU blinked. It's obvious the EU does not want a high-profile political confrontation with Google over a search monopoly abuse enforcement action.
Last May, when the Competition authorities announced they had a preliminary Statement of Objections for four monopoly abuses against Google, the EU competition authority trumpeted their preference for a settlement over enforcement action in this case, i.e. ruling Google a search monopoly guilty of monopoly abuse that warranted a material fine. In extending their public deadlines for Google three times, and then tentatively accepting the immaterial search concessions Google proposed, it is obvious the EU bent over backwards to avoid politically confronting Google.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-04-12 15:17
In advance of the Senate Antitrust oversight hearing for the DOJ and FTC Tuesday, please see my Daily Caller op-ed "DOJ & FTC Antitrust Report Cards" -- here -- to learn two of the big oversight questions for the hearing.
This is Part 20 in the Google Unaccountability Research Series.
Google Unaccountability Research Series:
Part 0: Google's Poor and Defiant Settlement Record
Part 1: Why Google Thinks It Is Above the Law
Part 2: Top Ten Untrue Google Stories
Part 3: Google's Growing Record of Obstruction of Justice
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-04-09 11:48