You are here
Unleashed: Transcript of Griffin/Cleland talk on Google, net neutrality, monopolies, click fraud, privacySubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-06-05 19:05
For those who like the written format, here is the link to the transcript of Chip Griffin's interview of me on all things Google.
This interview turned out to be one of the most comprehensive and in-depth discussions I have had on all things Google -- that's been captured for web listening or reading.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-06-03 18:41
Here is the link to Chip Griffin's 28 minute interview of me on "Conversations with Chip Griffin," an in-depth conversation about many of the reasons why I believe Google is becoming such a big problem and why I personally spend so much time focused on Google.
I believe you will find it an informative, interesting, and entertaining interview covering all things Google, the online economy, net neutrality etc.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-06-03 12:49
A Bloomberg article highlights yet another Google double standard.
The Google double standard is that Google takes down content objectional to other countries but refuses to largely comply with the legitimate bipartisan request of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to take down terrorist branded content designed to incite violence against Americans and others around the world.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-06-02 15:30
Does Google warrant the current exceptional leap-of-faith in the integrity of its dominant ad auction model, given its near total lack of openness, transparency, independent auditability, or third party oversight? There is a growing body of evidence that Google does not.
Why a lack of openness sullies the integrity of Google's ad auctions.
First, it is widely accepted that public markets operate best when open and transparent.
Google's ad auction model has become one of the world's most important public markets. Google is increasingly becoming the world's primary public information broker. Google brokers:
Google is also not open or transparent.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-05-30 17:18
After I finished my "Can you trust Google to obey the rules" analysis, I realized there were past posts and examples that I could have included but didn't.
From my earlier post of 1-18-08:
"Google.org Tax Treatment?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-05-28 17:10
In monitoring Google as closely as I do, it has become increasingly clear that Google does not believe it has to obey the rules, standards, regulations and laws, that others routinely obey and respect. Google increasingly operates like a self-declared, virtual sovereign nation, largely unaccountable to the rules and mores of the rest of the world.
Is Google accountable to anyone?
First, can public shareholders hold Google accountable?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-05-27 18:53
I would be remiss if I didn't link to my own, differently spelled, www.googleopoly.net website which includes some of the most in-depth and serious analysis of Google's growing market power.
For those who wonder -- why should I care:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-05-22 18:34
Microsoft's resumed interest in Yahoo's search business, suggests that Yahoo is close to outsourcing some of its search to Google. The antitrust implications of the world's #1 and #3 online advertising competitors, Google and Microsoft, fighting over the #2 competitor, Yahoo, has finally attracted serious media attention.
Now that the antitrust implications of this issue are beginning to get heightened media scrutiny, let me lay out my case of why a new Google-Yahoo search partnership is anti-competitive collusion and not benign collaboration.
First, one must look at the competitive impact of a Google-Yahoo partnership.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-05-21 18:15
When I blogged yesterday wondering how long it would take Google to fully respond to Senate Homeland Security Chairman Lieberman's request for YouTube to pull down "Internet video content produced by terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda", even I didn't think Google-YouTube would respond so immediately and uncooperatively to Chairman Lieberman.
Google-YouTube's response is remarkable because the United State's final arbiter of what is constituionally-protected free speech, The United States Supreme Court, just handed down a new ruling on free speech on Monday that further limited harmful free speech in its United States v. Williams decision. That decision concerned free speech limitations involving the pandering and soliciting of child pornography.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-05-20 12:26
Given that Google began offering online personal health records to the public yesterday, I thought it would be timely and helpful to repost in its entirety a previous post of mine from February 21, 2008 on why Google being in the business of storing personal health records is a really bad joke.
Below is my 2-21-2008 post in its entirety -- if you missed it, or care about this issue, it's a online privacy must-read post:
AP reports "Google to Store Patient's Health Records." Let's count the reasons why Google storing Americans' private health records is a really bad joke.