5 ms·

Don't be evil

26 points by iamelgringo 17y ago

christopherolah 17y ago
I recently tried cuil again. When I first tried i, I was very disappointed, but now I find it quite nice. Not on par with Google yet, IMHO, but not much worse. And they respect privacy. They don't even keep IP addresses. (Except, I just looked at their privacy policy and they say that may change in the near future. That would be disappointing.) And I like the fact that sites don't have to be popular to get to the top of the search, just relevant... http://www.cuil.com/ http://www.cuil.com/
ableal 17y ago
Just this morning, I clicked for the first time on the small 'Ads by Google' link above a picture advertisement, and gave Google a piece of my mind on it. It started by the pic being of battered and shot young men ("beat up your friends"). Around here, they're showing ads by those scammers who promise free phone games or whatever to the young and naive, who then find themselves enrolled in a paid weekly subscription, charged to the phone account. Someone made them put a small cryptic price-tag on the pics, but still ... This kind of scam is also all over the free (and not only) newspapers. The ad-carriers smell the money and do it, but the real fault is with the telecom operators, who are allowed to act as currency issuers, and get a nice fat cut. P.S. My last line to Google, about the scammers, was "Cut them off. The stench clings." That goes triple for the telecom operators. They get the money now, and the guys in charge get their bonuses. Their name being mud doesn't seem to get to the bottom line, but it will. P.P.S. The carrier with a clear 'no scams, no money transfers' policy will get my kids phones in a couple of years, and possibly the rest of the family. Companies would probably also appreciate it. Rub two brain cells together, marketing guys.
gruseom 17y ago
I'll be surprised if the DoJ tries anything much on Google.
knowtheory 17y ago
The thing i don't like about articles like this, is that there seems to be a cadre of haters out there explicitly bent on tearing Google down unjustly. There are things that i criticize Google upon (the capriciousness of algorithmically generated decisions, say on flagging Google Checkout accounts), but the stuff that articles like this point out are intentionally bad indicators. The fact that you are being sued, does not indicate that you are a monopoly. It means that someone has enough political cover for the government to go after you. Both Microsoft and Google are large tech companies, and the fact that their battles are being borne out in government is not a surprise. It also does not mean that Google is guilty of bad, abusive, or monopolistic behavior. If someone were to invent a better ad system, and/or a better search engine... i don't see Google going out and trying to stomp on the competition.
- aristus 17y ago
  Well... this particular article is not hating, it's pointing out that Google is attracting attention from regulators, and that it is talking very disingenuously about its market position. I have competed head-to-head with Google in the ad market, and they don't play nice. Neither does Yahoo. (Funnily, MSN was the nicest in Latam because they were the weakest player.) The problem is not that Google is evil. The problem is that when you have overwhelming marketshare, every time you shift your weight someone gets crushed. We expect and eventually demand that monopolists be more civilized and careful than everyone else.
froo 17y ago
But then again, Google's argument (saying they only influence 2.66% of the advertising market) is also correct, given they also do TV advertising http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/ http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/ ...and have dabbled in radio ads http://google-tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-but-will-explore.html http://google-tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-... If they didn't do either of these things, I would find fault in their argument, but lucky for Google, they have.
- shiranaihito 17y ago
  If they didn't do either of these things, I would find fault in their argument, but lucky for Google, they have. So you're letting them off on a technicality then.
  - froo 17y ago
    So you're letting them off on a technicality then. I wouldn't say Google are getting off on a technicality. I'm just saying that the premise of the article is false given that Google has shown in the past that they are trying advertising in many sectors (not just online) and so, their market position argument can be assumed to be correct, regardless of whether they dominate one area of the total market that they address.
    - shiranaihito 17y ago
      Well, talking about having a 2.6% market share of.. all of advertising is disingenuous at best. If they do something morally incorrect, it happens in the market segment they totally own. It's just a distraction. The bigger a company gets, the closer the probability that they do something evil gets to 1.
webwright 17y ago
All you need to do is watch my parents use the internet (Google search and adsense laden sites) to realize that a HUGE portion of Google's revenue is based on tricking non-geeky folks into clicking on things that they didn't know were ads. While the right-hand ads are somewhat clear, the top ads (nearly white, right near the #1 result) are NOT and novice users when routinely click on that ad when asked to click on the first result. Adsense advertisers are constantly rewarded for walking the fine line between blending in and just outright tricking their users. While maybe this isn't outright EVIL, it certainly is disingenuous.
- boryas 17y ago
  The top results aren't just ads, they're still relevant results and sometimes it's just another good result in the list. It doesn't cost the user anything to click on it, so I don't exactly follow why this is evil trickery...
  - webwright 17y ago
    Wait, what? A paid ad posing as content isn't trickery? First of all, that argument would extend to adsense... What's wrong with a web publisher making ads look like legitimate content? It'd also extend to more search results... What'd be wrong about having the first 10 results be ads instead of the first 1-2? Oooh, it'd also extend to paid editorials. How about I pay the New York Times for a positive review of my company? Should that be labeled as an ad? The point is that there is an implicit promise with content that it's there based on its merits rather than based on who paid to have it there. There's no victim if the ad is approximately as relevant as an organic search result-- but if it's going to the highest bidder, there's no guarantee that this is the case.
sahaj 17y ago
soon apple will be on the line for being anti-competitive for having a large app store, a market which they created. as microsoft stock continues to tumble, we'll see more stories like this. i tried to place a short-sell order for MSFT today and was greeted with the message: Currently, there are no shares of MSFT available for shorting.

26 points by iamelgringo 17y ago

I recently tried cuil again. When I first tried i, I was very disappointed, but now I find it quite nice. Not on par with Google yet, IMHO, but not much worse. And they respect privacy. They don't even keep IP addresses. (Except, I just looked at their privacy policy and they say that may change in the near future. That would be disappointing.) And I like the fact that sites don't have to be popular to get to the top of the search, just relevant... http://www.cuil.com/ http://www.cuil.com/

ableal 17y ago

Just this morning, I clicked for the first time on the small 'Ads by Google' link above a picture advertisement, and gave Google a piece of my mind on it. It started by the pic being of battered and shot young men ("beat up your friends"). Around here, they're showing ads by those scammers who promise free phone games or whatever to the young and naive, who then find themselves enrolled in a paid weekly subscription, charged to the phone account. Someone made them put a small cryptic price-tag on the pics, but still ... This kind of scam is also all over the free (and not only) newspapers. The ad-carriers smell the money and do it, but the real fault is with the telecom operators, who are allowed to act as currency issuers, and get a nice fat cut. P.S. My last line to Google, about the scammers, was "Cut them off. The stench clings." That goes triple for the telecom operators. They get the money now, and the guys in charge get their bonuses. Their name being mud doesn't seem to get to the bottom line, but it will. P.P.S. The carrier with a clear 'no scams, no money transfers' policy will get my kids phones in a couple of years, and possibly the rest of the family. Companies would probably also appreciate it. Rub two brain cells together, marketing guys.

gruseom 17y ago

I'll be surprised if the DoJ tries anything much on Google.

knowtheory 17y ago

The thing i don't like about articles like this, is that there seems to be a cadre of haters out there explicitly bent on tearing Google down unjustly. There are things that i criticize Google upon (the capriciousness of algorithmically generated decisions, say on flagging Google Checkout accounts), but the stuff that articles like this point out are intentionally bad indicators. The fact that you are being sued, does not indicate that you are a monopoly. It means that someone has enough political cover for the government to go after you. Both Microsoft and Google are large tech companies, and the fact that their battles are being borne out in government is not a surprise. It also does not mean that Google is guilty of bad, abusive, or monopolistic behavior. If someone were to invent a better ad system, and/or a better search engine... i don't see Google going out and trying to stomp on the competition.

aristus 17y ago
Well... this particular article is not hating, it's pointing out that Google is attracting attention from regulators, and that it is talking very disingenuously about its market position. I have competed head-to-head with Google in the ad market, and they don't play nice. Neither does Yahoo. (Funnily, MSN was the nicest in Latam because they were the weakest player.) The problem is not that Google is evil. The problem is that when you have overwhelming marketshare, every time you shift your weight someone gets crushed. We expect and eventually demand that monopolists be more civilized and careful than everyone else.

froo 17y ago

But then again, Google's argument (saying they only influence 2.66% of the advertising market) is also correct, given they also do TV advertising http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/ http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/ ...and have dabbled in radio ads http://google-tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-but-will-explore.html http://google-tmads.blogspot.com/2009/02/google-exits-radio-... If they didn't do either of these things, I would find fault in their argument, but lucky for Google, they have.

shiranaihito 17y ago
If they didn't do either of these things, I would find fault in their argument, but lucky for Google, they have. So you're letting them off on a technicality then.
- froo 17y ago
  So you're letting them off on a technicality then. I wouldn't say Google are getting off on a technicality. I'm just saying that the premise of the article is false given that Google has shown in the past that they are trying advertising in many sectors (not just online) and so, their market position argument can be assumed to be correct, regardless of whether they dominate one area of the total market that they address.
  - shiranaihito 17y ago
    Well, talking about having a 2.6% market share of.. all of advertising is disingenuous at best. If they do something morally incorrect, it happens in the market segment they totally own. It's just a distraction. The bigger a company gets, the closer the probability that they do something evil gets to 1.

webwright 17y ago

All you need to do is watch my parents use the internet (Google search and adsense laden sites) to realize that a HUGE portion of Google's revenue is based on tricking non-geeky folks into clicking on things that they didn't know were ads. While the right-hand ads are somewhat clear, the top ads (nearly white, right near the #1 result) are NOT and novice users when routinely click on that ad when asked to click on the first result. Adsense advertisers are constantly rewarded for walking the fine line between blending in and just outright tricking their users. While maybe this isn't outright EVIL, it certainly is disingenuous.

boryas 17y ago
The top results aren't just ads, they're still relevant results and sometimes it's just another good result in the list. It doesn't cost the user anything to click on it, so I don't exactly follow why this is evil trickery...
- webwright 17y ago
  Wait, what? A paid ad posing as content isn't trickery? First of all, that argument would extend to adsense... What's wrong with a web publisher making ads look like legitimate content? It'd also extend to more search results... What'd be wrong about having the first 10 results be ads instead of the first 1-2? Oooh, it'd also extend to paid editorials. How about I pay the New York Times for a positive review of my company? Should that be labeled as an ad? The point is that there is an implicit promise with content that it's there based on its merits rather than based on who paid to have it there. There's no victim if the ad is approximately as relevant as an organic search result-- but if it's going to the highest bidder, there's no guarantee that this is the case.

sahaj 17y ago

soon apple will be on the line for being anti-competitive for having a large app store, a market which they created. as microsoft stock continues to tumble, we'll see more stories like this. i tried to place a short-sell order for MSFT today and was greeted with the message: Currently, there are no shares of MSFT available for shorting.