You are here
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-05-20 11:55
Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman "Monday called on Google to remove Internet video content produced by terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. The videos – readily available on YouTube –show assassinations, deaths of U.S. soldiers and civilians, weapons training, incendiary speeches by al-Qaeda leadership, and other material intended to encourage violence against the West."
I link to this Senator Lieberman announcement because it will be telling how Google responds to this reasonable request from Homeland Security oversight authorities, given that Google is the funding patron and well recognized corporate leader of the "net neutrality" movement that has branded net neutrality as the "First Amendment of the Internet." (Never mind that the Internet has never had a constitution to amend.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-05-16 18:21
The new 2008 Internet Advertising Revenue report just came out from the Interactive Advertising Bureau.
It has U.S. Internet advertising revenues for 2007 at $21.2b, up an impressive 26% from 2006 revenues of $16.9b, but nowhere near as impressive as Google's 56% overall revenue growth in 2007.
With the pending Google-Yahoo outsourcing pact reportedly being negotiated, I thought it might be iluminating or instructive to see what share of U.S. Internet advertising revenues Google and Yahoo each have, and what they would have on a combined basis.
At a minimum, the domination of these two players in the U.S. Internet advertising market, combined with Google's incredible momentum in taking share from all its competitors signalling powerful network effects, must concern both the DOJ and FTC.
If Google and Yahoo partner to not compete as fully as they did before... where is competition going to come from?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-05-15 11:58
With respect and affection to the memory of the late great Dr. Seuss....
Googlehoo mocks all the boo hoos over their ballyhooed Googlehoo coup.
Get a clue.
Googlehoo pooh-poohs a collusive coup between their crews.
It's no glue to screw you.
But, who knew it would be true, that Googlehoo would rue, that Justice could see through, Googlehoo's collusion boo-boo, and eventually sue?
Can we construe Mr. Icahn's Yahoo debut, and shareholder kung fu, as a rejection of the Googlehoo view?
Will Yahoo bid Googlehoo adieu, overcome the Microsoft taboo, and renew the review of the Microsoft view?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-05-15 11:44
As Google and Yahoo continue to negotiate their search outsourcing pact, pesky competitive facts keep arising that suggest that such a deal is likely to eventually be found by antitrust officials to be illegal anti-competitive collusion.
The operative question is not whether Google and Yahoo can craft an acceptable search advertising outsourcing pact that can pass antitrust muster, but whether the DOJ wants to encourage such intimate and important business "cooperation" between Google, the dominant #1 in the market, and one of the only two companies that most consider to be Google's primary competition in multiple market segments.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-05-14 12:54
It is getting harder and harder for Google to continue to pretend to be the little vulnerable upstart -- Google is now the dominant incumbent in search and increasingly the market power in online advertising.
The numbers in Silicon Insider's analysis are quite compelling.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2008-05-13 12:04
Kudos to Richard Waters of FT for his insightful analysis "Google triumphant."
Let me highlight some key takeaways:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-05-12 11:55
The American Consumer Intstitute just put out a good consumergram on: the DOJ investigation of the Google-Yahoo deal and asks if the search market has reached a tipping point.
As I explained in detail in my Googleopoly analysis, the search market has already tipped to Google and the Google-DoubleClick merger was a tipping point to enable Google to extend its market power in search advertising to display and online advertising as well.
As I explained the stakes of lax antitrust enforcement in my Senate Judiciary testimony:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2008-05-12 11:01
Found a smoking gun on how Google's conflict of interests actually hurts Google users, which I explain later in this post.
Google knows there are "potentially harmful sites that make Google users more vulnerable to spammers or scammers. I have suggested before that they could easily warn users of the danger from specific results with warnings on search result pages.