follow Patrick following
follow Patrick 2017 Sep 1, 7:19am
1,145 views 30 comments
The Google salespeople were encouraging Forbes to add Plus’s “+1" social buttons to articles on the site, alongside the Facebook Like button and the Reddit share button. They said it was important to do because the Plus recommendations would be a factor in search results—a crucial source of traffic to publishers.This sounded like a news story to me. Google’s dominance in search and news give it tremendous power over publishers. By tying search results to the use of Plus, Google was using that muscle to force people to promote its social network.I asked the Google people if I understood correctly: If a publisher didn’t put a +1 button on the page, its search results would suffer? The answer was yes....But the most disturbing part of the experience was what came next: Somehow, very quickly, search results stopped showing the original story at all. As I recall it—and although it has been six years, this episode was seared into my memory—a cached version remained shortly after the post was unpublished, but it was soon scrubbed from Google search results. That was unusual; websites captured by Google’s crawler did not tend to vanish that quickly.
Hop into your Delorean, go back to 1980, and stop Reagan from becoming president. That is the only way to prevent Google from doing whatever it wants. Anti-trust laws are important, and they are dead because of Reagan.
January 15, 1986 | From The Washington PostWASHINGTON — President Reagan, arguing that American business needs greater flexibility to respond to global competition, has decided to ask Congress to overhaul the nation's antitrust laws to ease restrictions on mergers, Administration sources said Tuesday.
Dan8267 saysHop into your Delorean, go back to 1980, and stop Reagan from becoming president. That is the only way to prevent Google from doing whatever it wants. Anti-trust laws are important, and they are dead because of Reagan.Maybe you're right about that: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-15/business/fi-28375_1_antitrust-laws
Regean ...gave black people the right to vote.
Dan8267 saysHop into your Delorean, go back to 1980, and stop Reagan from becoming president. That is the only way to prevent Google from doing whatever it wants.
Hop into your Delorean, go back to 1980, and stop Reagan from becoming president. That is the only way to prevent Google from doing whatever it wants.
And the WSJ had an article yesterday called "New Criticism of Mergers Draws Skeptics" (can't find it online anywhere) which says:"The 'markup' that companies can charge over their marginal cost has risen steadily, potentiailly a sign of declining competitive forces that keep prices in check.""The excess, what they call the markup of price over marginal cost, fluctuated between 16% and 32% until 1982, and has since climbed steadily, to 67%. This, they say, is proof that companies are increasingly able to exert "market power," that is, charge higher prices so as to boost profits at the expense of consumers.""Advisers found return on capital has become astronomical for the most profitable publicly traded companies, which shouldn't be possible if competitors could freely enter their market."The article then says this may explain deeper economic maladies: lower demand for labor, lower wages for low-skilled workers, discouraging people from working, barriers t...
Tenpoundbass saysRegean ...gave black people the right to vote.That seems to be a new interpretation of history,
Liberals ruined everything
Yup Google is a liberal utopia and shows what happens when the elft gains power for free speech.
The New America Foundation’s Open Markets group was a rare, loud voice of protest against Google’s ever-growing consolidation of economic and technological power around the world. But New America, like many of its fellow think tanks, received millions in funding from one of the targets of its anti-monopoly work, and according to a New York Times report today, pulled the plug after the company’s chief executive had enough dissent.After EU regulators fined Google $2.7 billion earlier this summer, Barry Lynn, who ran the Open Markets division, cheered the decision, adding that “U.S. enforcers should apply the traditional American approach to network monopoly, which is to cleanly separate ownership of the network from ownership of the products and services sold on that network, as they did in the original Microsoft case of the late 1990s.” It didn’t take long for Lynn and his colleagues to suffer the consequences, the Times reports: Those worries seemed to be substantiated a couple of days later, when Ms. Slaughter summoned the scholar who wrote the critical statement, Barry Lynn, to her office. He ran a New America initiative called Open Markets that has led a growing chorus of liberal criticism of the market dominance of telecom and tech giants, including Google, which is now part of a larger corporate entity known as Alphabet, for which Mr. Schmidt serves as executive chairman. Ms. Slaughter told Mr. Lynn that “the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways,” according to an email from Ms. Slaughter to Mr. Lynn. The email suggested that the entire Open Markets team — nearly 10 full-time employees and unpaid fellows — would be exiled from New America. […] “We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points,” Ms. Slaughter wrote in an email to Mr. Lynn, urging him to “just THINK about how you are imperiling funding for others.”New America president Anne-Marie Slaughter quickly informed Lynn that his team would no longer be welcome at the think tank, presenting about as tidy and flagrant a case of conflict of interest and monied suppression of criticism as one can imagine. But on Twitter, Slaughter disputed the Times report, claiming that it was simply “false”:New America’s statement, however, disputes literally not a single fact in the Times story or any of Lynn’s claims:The Intercept reviewed the full termination email sent from Slaughter to Lynn that was cited and quoted in the Times report and found that they were reported and characterized with complete accuracy. The full text does, however, show that Slaughter threatened to make Lynn’s firing more difficult for him and his team should it generate any negative publicity for New America.
OK, that's 3 cases lately where Google was stomping on attempted free speech:1. James Damore2. New America Foundation’s Open Markets group3. the article above (though the incident is 6 years ago)
On Tuesday evening, Google sent a conservative website an ultimatum: remove one of your articles, or lose the ability to make ad revenue on your website. The website was strong-armed into removing the content, and then warned that the page was "just an example and that the same violations may exist on other pages of this website."...Trejo argued that the article Google specified "contained no offensive content." Rather, it "was merely distinguishing the many differences between the alt-right and literal Nazis."The Liberty Conservative writer suggested that the article was singled out because it was written by former Liberty Conservative contributor James Allsup. Allsup was involved in the "Unite the Right" riot (which Trejo described as a "rally-turned-riot") in Charlottesville, Va. Trejo said the article was targeted because "it was authored by a man deemed to be an 'unperson' by the corporate elite."
Google has ramped up its political contributions and spent more money on political campaigns this year than global investment bank, Goldman Sachs. The tech giant is looking to gain more political clout in Washington,it was revealed.
Google knows I am an outspoken critic of them. I bought a new tab, and when I activated it, it downloaded the YouTube profile for my account. That profile is set up to return the most ville disgusting demonic shit for Children videos you could possibly find on the Internet. Disgusting shit, I don't think ISIS shows kids the Shit YouTube shows kids of parents they deem anti Google. Now why do I say this. Because when my Grand daughter uses on of my daughter's iPads which have their own separate Google association to their accounts. When she searches for Elmo, Barney and other type Videos, it returns the videos as expected.
Google knows I am an outspoken critic of them
You think google is monitoring who likes them and who doesn't
You think google is monitoring who likes them and who doesn't, and since they have you on their shit list, they are going to give you different children's videos than they give your daughter ? That is, with the intention of harming your granddaughter ?