6 ms·

Why does everyone assume it's Google's responsibility to save the internet? Yes, they do extremely great things for the world, the internet, and to protect pri

by dm2 12y ago

Why does everyone assume it's Google's responsibility to save the internet? Yes, they do extremely great things for the world, the internet, and to protect privacy and people's rights, but rather than criticize them when they don't step up to the plate every single time, why not criticize other companies for not even considering it and failing to ever act. I've seen over 75% of the people I know give thousands of dollars to Apple, but Apple gives back nothing to the world, they should be the ones criticized. How can a company such as Apple have hundreds of billions of dollars and not even consider helping the world with all of that extra money? Imagine the amazingly great things they could do if they weren't so focused on hoarding cash and ensuring nobody "steals" their rounded corner idea. The original article title is just link-bait anyways, it even says at the bottom, "Google hasn't gone completely silent. It and Facebook are members of the Internet Association, which in April urged the FCC to adopt open-Internet rules." So then what's the point of the article? To say that Google has been fighting for open-internet for 8+ years and that it helped form a group to help achieve that goal? Edit: If you disagree then please comment. I knew this wasn't going to be a popular thing to post but I think the discussion is more important than the karma points.

jbooth 12y ago
Because they're arguably the company most invested in an open internet. 2/3 of internet users are google users (made up statistic). That means that they're losing 2/3 of whatever if the internet is hurt. If they're not going to fight, who is?
- dm2 12y ago
  I'm not necessarily talking about just the Net Neutrality issue, it seems pretty obvious that the internet should not be remodeled after Cable TV. Plus, there's no real way to enforce it unless they purposely slow down VPN traffic, which would make me look for a new internet company immediately.
  - ianlevesque 12y ago
    Look for but not find. 28% of Americans have only one ISP choice. http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221099-woe-is-isp-30-percent-of-americans-cant-choose-their-service-provider http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221099-woe-is-isp-30-pe...
    - dm2 12y ago
      Hopefully this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Plan_(United_States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Plan_(United... http://www.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan http://www.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america It was tried before in the 90s but it failed. I don't know if there is another side to this story, but it looks like the telecommunications companies (Verizon and ATT) stole the money ($200 BILLION). http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
    - wpietri 12y ago
      And most of the rest have two choices. Duopoly is not significantly better for consumers than monopoly, because either a) the bigger player kills the smaller one, or b) they end up in a stalemate with roughly equivalent pricing and service, meaning there's still no real choice.
    - NoPiece 12y ago
      That number is only so high because it is discussing 10mbps or higher, so it excludes a big chunk of DSL providers as options. If you lower to 6mbps the numbers stay the same (sadly), but if you lower to 3mbps, 97% have access to 2 or more ISPs. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db1224/DOC-324884A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013... here is a direct link to a screencap of the chart: http://i.imgur.com/xhn1YCF.png http://i.imgur.com/xhn1YCF.png
  - sixothree 12y ago
    >which would make me look for a new internet company immediately. It's nice that you have that choice.
pessimizer 12y ago
Apple has never had any pretense of caring about people or society, including its own customers. Google has. Google has also made a fortune through the open, equal access nature of the internet (search), open protocols, etc. Apple would prefer if iDevice owners had to buy their iNternet through Apple, and their many loyal customers would buy it, and the stockholders would be happier for it. I think people are clinging to the idea that Google is greatly morally (or at least strategically) different than Apple. They're anthropomorphizing. Corporations have no personalities, they have brands. Decisions are made by designated people within them, and the mix of decisionmakers at both companies are fairly identical in temperament.
- evv 12y ago
  > Apple has never had any pretense of caring about people or society, including its own customers. Very true, and it hasn't held them back in the slightest. I bet a lot of people have a closeted respect for that- Apple doesn't try to hide its corporate greed. Everybody knows Apple is a shark, but Google really hustled us.
  - sophacles 12y ago
    Not defending google. Actually just slightly ranting on a tangent... Google today is not google 5 years ago. There are different employees, different managers, etc. To say that google (an entity with a single agency, as if it was a single person) "hustled" us by going through these changes is just not an accurate statement .
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Why would middle management changes affect their culture and principles significantly? Because middle management acts as a filter on upper management's view of operations, and a filter between upper management and the people actually doing the work when it comes to directions going the other way. The effect Bruce Webster calls "thermocline of truth" [1] is one significant manifestation of this. [1] http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-themocline-of-truth/ http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-t...
gress 12y ago
Google marketed themselves strongly as a promoter of the Open internet and gained credibility and support from the Tech community for this. They promoted it as one of their values. Now that it's commercially convenient for them they have betrayed this value, and all of the people who gave them credit for it. That is why they deserve criticism. Also, it should be pointed out that if Google works against an open internet, there will be little chance of saving it. Apple on the other hand, has a different set of values. You can criticize them, but they haven't pretended to be something they are not.
- dm2 12y ago
  "Now that it's commercially convenient for them they have betrayed this value" That's a 100% FALSE statement. In what way have they betrayed the open-internet initiative? They helped start both internal and external organizations to support the initiative. How would it benefit Google to have a more restricted internet? Now that the issue is mainstream maybe they've determined that the "right" outcome will prevail, they only have so many resources, at some point they have to start dedicating resources towards other initiatives and projects. https://www.google.com/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/whats-at-stake/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/whats-at-stake/ http://www.google.com/publicpolicy/issues/internet-access.html http://www.google.com/publicpolicy/issues/internet-access.ht... From the link above: "Google is a strong supporter of an open Internet." "The Internet was built and has thrived as an open platform, where individuals and entrepreneurs can connect and interact, choose marketplace winners and losers, and create new services and content on a level playing field." "One of Google’s top policy priorities is spurring the availability and uptake of affordable, open broadband Internet service." "Broadband-based Internet providers should not be permitted to discriminate against, or in favor of, certain services, applications, or viewpoints on the Web."
  - gress 12y ago
    Quoting Google's marketing just proves the point about their duplicity. How do you account for them joining with Verizon to lobby against network neutrality? A more restricted internet would benefit Google because they have huge capacity of their own and very deep pockets to buy priority where necessary, so they would be further protected against competition and their own products would be advantaged.
shmerl 12y ago
> Why does everyone assume it's Google's responsibility to save the internet? It's no one's specific responsibility, but it's a sensible stance. And Google seemingly changed theirs from vocal advocate to indifferent observer (in this case).
wpietri 12y ago
it is everybody's responsibility to save the Internet. Google is one of the companies that makes a shit-ton of money off of it, defines new standards for it, and in many ways is shaping it. That gives them an enormous amount of power, so their contribution to saving the internet should be proportionately large. I also think Google has a moral responsibility in that the only reason they exist is that the Internet started out as an open platform that they could index and serve search results for. Not keeping the Internet open smacks of enormous ingratitude.
AllenKids 12y ago
Because Google and its acolytes like to portray the company as the omnibenevolent curator of all that is good with the world(by world I mean everything online)?
jacobgreenleaf 12y ago
Title only makes sense if you accept the presupposition that Google has such a responsibility. Read: "Google's Growing Silence"
tcelfer 12y ago
It is Google's responsibility to be a positive actor in the Internet ecosystem on behalf of end-consumers. If not because it is the "right" thing to do and also essential to the long term vision and success of the company. Let me be expository on this for a moment, please. Right now there are three competing visions for the future of the internet: 1. The GNU vision: the internet becomes decentralized and every individual has the tools to replicate and manage small, individual infrastructural tasks. 2. The Google/Microsoft vision, where a series of non-government economic entities create centralized and competing infrastructure while being supervised by governments in the jurisdictions they operate in. 3. The Centrist vision where the internet is essentially a public utility and operated by a quasi-governmental agency or a series of joint governmental agencies. Currently our Internet is somewhere between 2 and 3, with a lot of talented individuals trying to write software and doing research to make #1 more feasible. But #1 is inherently never going to work. Moore's law should tip us off, if not the current state of affairs in the world. As software and computing get better, its rate of improvement (or just change, take your pick) increases. This means that it's progressively harder to stay abreast of security, devops, and software products. With the best of intentions but a quintessentially first-world outlook, #1 simply creates a series of digital under-classes and rewards the people with the huge time investment and economic support structure implied by people who are currently good at computers. #3 could work, but it assumes that Governments ultimately start to shape up and actually reflect the collective will of their population (as contradictory as that can be). It's possible, but I'm a sceptical. #2 is the closest to working, providing a tension between government and corporation that resembles the tensions present in the American constitution. What's more, economic and technical concerns reward this approach. It's cheaper to centralize computer infrastructure and when done correctly it's a huge cost and materials savings. Competition between said environments also works to keep Corporations focused on the people abandoned by approach #1, keeping their products approachable and with low overhead for starting up. But if Google is seen to constantly violate their user trust and not act as a sufficiently strong user advocate, eventually the populace will demand scenario #3 be enacted (or something with so much governmental input that it is indistinguishable from #3) and we'll be in a terrible situation. The biggest benefit to the current system is that Google, Microsoft, and even Baidu all have so much to lose. They need to be receptive to government arguments while all competing with each other. So yes. Google needs to be a white knight in shining armour because they benefit from user trust in a big way. The benefit in the short term with better engagement and margins. They benefit in the long term with superior positioning and longevity for their corporate rights.

by dm2 12y ago

jbooth 12y ago

Because they're arguably the company most invested in an open internet. 2/3 of internet users are google users (made up statistic). That means that they're losing 2/3 of whatever if the internet is hurt. If they're not going to fight, who is?

dm2 12y ago
I'm not necessarily talking about just the Net Neutrality issue, it seems pretty obvious that the internet should not be remodeled after Cable TV. Plus, there's no real way to enforce it unless they purposely slow down VPN traffic, which would make me look for a new internet company immediately.
- ianlevesque 12y ago
  Look for but not find. 28% of Americans have only one ISP choice. http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221099-woe-is-isp-30-percent-of-americans-cant-choose-their-service-provider http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221099-woe-is-isp-30-pe...
  - dm2 12y ago
    Hopefully this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Plan_(United_States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Plan_(United... http://www.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan http://www.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america It was tried before in the 90s but it failed. I don't know if there is another side to this story, but it looks like the telecommunications companies (Verizon and ATT) stole the money ($200 BILLION). http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
  - wpietri 12y ago
    And most of the rest have two choices. Duopoly is not significantly better for consumers than monopoly, because either a) the bigger player kills the smaller one, or b) they end up in a stalemate with roughly equivalent pricing and service, meaning there's still no real choice.
  - NoPiece 12y ago
    That number is only so high because it is discussing 10mbps or higher, so it excludes a big chunk of DSL providers as options. If you lower to 6mbps the numbers stay the same (sadly), but if you lower to 3mbps, 97% have access to 2 or more ISPs. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db1224/DOC-324884A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013... here is a direct link to a screencap of the chart: http://i.imgur.com/xhn1YCF.png http://i.imgur.com/xhn1YCF.png
- sixothree 12y ago
  >which would make me look for a new internet company immediately. It's nice that you have that choice.

pessimizer 12y ago

Apple has never had any pretense of caring about people or society, including its own customers. Google has. Google has also made a fortune through the open, equal access nature of the internet (search), open protocols, etc. Apple would prefer if iDevice owners had to buy their iNternet through Apple, and their many loyal customers would buy it, and the stockholders would be happier for it. I think people are clinging to the idea that Google is greatly morally (or at least strategically) different than Apple. They're anthropomorphizing. Corporations have no personalities, they have brands. Decisions are made by designated people within them, and the mix of decisionmakers at both companies are fairly identical in temperament.

evv 12y ago
> Apple has never had any pretense of caring about people or society, including its own customers. Very true, and it hasn't held them back in the slightest. I bet a lot of people have a closeted respect for that- Apple doesn't try to hide its corporate greed. Everybody knows Apple is a shark, but Google really hustled us.
- sophacles 12y ago
  Not defending google. Actually just slightly ranting on a tangent... Google today is not google 5 years ago. There are different employees, different managers, etc. To say that google (an entity with a single agency, as if it was a single person) "hustled" us by going through these changes is just not an accurate statement .
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Why would middle management changes affect their culture and principles significantly? Because middle management acts as a filter on upper management's view of operations, and a filter between upper management and the people actually doing the work when it comes to directions going the other way. The effect Bruce Webster calls "thermocline of truth" [1] is one significant manifestation of this. [1] http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-themocline-of-truth/ http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-t...

gress 12y ago

Google marketed themselves strongly as a promoter of the Open internet and gained credibility and support from the Tech community for this. They promoted it as one of their values. Now that it's commercially convenient for them they have betrayed this value, and all of the people who gave them credit for it. That is why they deserve criticism. Also, it should be pointed out that if Google works against an open internet, there will be little chance of saving it. Apple on the other hand, has a different set of values. You can criticize them, but they haven't pretended to be something they are not.

dm2 12y ago
"Now that it's commercially convenient for them they have betrayed this value" That's a 100% FALSE statement. In what way have they betrayed the open-internet initiative? They helped start both internal and external organizations to support the initiative. How would it benefit Google to have a more restricted internet? Now that the issue is mainstream maybe they've determined that the "right" outcome will prevail, they only have so many resources, at some point they have to start dedicating resources towards other initiatives and projects. https://www.google.com/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/whats-at-stake/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/whats-at-stake/ http://www.google.com/publicpolicy/issues/internet-access.html http://www.google.com/publicpolicy/issues/internet-access.ht... From the link above: "Google is a strong supporter of an open Internet." "The Internet was built and has thrived as an open platform, where individuals and entrepreneurs can connect and interact, choose marketplace winners and losers, and create new services and content on a level playing field." "One of Google’s top policy priorities is spurring the availability and uptake of affordable, open broadband Internet service." "Broadband-based Internet providers should not be permitted to discriminate against, or in favor of, certain services, applications, or viewpoints on the Web."
- gress 12y ago
  Quoting Google's marketing just proves the point about their duplicity. How do you account for them joining with Verizon to lobby against network neutrality? A more restricted internet would benefit Google because they have huge capacity of their own and very deep pockets to buy priority where necessary, so they would be further protected against competition and their own products would be advantaged.

shmerl 12y ago

> Why does everyone assume it's Google's responsibility to save the internet? It's no one's specific responsibility, but it's a sensible stance. And Google seemingly changed theirs from vocal advocate to indifferent observer (in this case).

wpietri 12y ago

it is everybody's responsibility to save the Internet. Google is one of the companies that makes a shit-ton of money off of it, defines new standards for it, and in many ways is shaping it. That gives them an enormous amount of power, so their contribution to saving the internet should be proportionately large. I also think Google has a moral responsibility in that the only reason they exist is that the Internet started out as an open platform that they could index and serve search results for. Not keeping the Internet open smacks of enormous ingratitude.

AllenKids 12y ago

Because Google and its acolytes like to portray the company as the omnibenevolent curator of all that is good with the world(by world I mean everything online)?

jacobgreenleaf 12y ago

Title only makes sense if you accept the presupposition that Google has such a responsibility. Read: "Google's Growing Silence"

tcelfer 12y ago

It is Google's responsibility to be a positive actor in the Internet ecosystem on behalf of end-consumers. If not because it is the "right" thing to do and also essential to the long term vision and success of the company. Let me be expository on this for a moment, please. Right now there are three competing visions for the future of the internet: 1. The GNU vision: the internet becomes decentralized and every individual has the tools to replicate and manage small, individual infrastructural tasks. 2. The Google/Microsoft vision, where a series of non-government economic entities create centralized and competing infrastructure while being supervised by governments in the jurisdictions they operate in. 3. The Centrist vision where the internet is essentially a public utility and operated by a quasi-governmental agency or a series of joint governmental agencies. Currently our Internet is somewhere between 2 and 3, with a lot of talented individuals trying to write software and doing research to make #1 more feasible. But #1 is inherently never going to work. Moore's law should tip us off, if not the current state of affairs in the world. As software and computing get better, its rate of improvement (or just change, take your pick) increases. This means that it's progressively harder to stay abreast of security, devops, and software products. With the best of intentions but a quintessentially first-world outlook, #1 simply creates a series of digital under-classes and rewards the people with the huge time investment and economic support structure implied by people who are currently good at computers. #3 could work, but it assumes that Governments ultimately start to shape up and actually reflect the collective will of their population (as contradictory as that can be). It's possible, but I'm a sceptical. #2 is the closest to working, providing a tension between government and corporation that resembles the tensions present in the American constitution. What's more, economic and technical concerns reward this approach. It's cheaper to centralize computer infrastructure and when done correctly it's a huge cost and materials savings. Competition between said environments also works to keep Corporations focused on the people abandoned by approach #1, keeping their products approachable and with low overhead for starting up. But if Google is seen to constantly violate their user trust and not act as a sufficiently strong user advocate, eventually the populace will demand scenario #3 be enacted (or something with so much governmental input that it is indistinguishable from #3) and we'll be in a terrible situation. The biggest benefit to the current system is that Google, Microsoft, and even Baidu all have so much to lose. They need to be receptive to government arguments while all competing with each other. So yes. Google needs to be a white knight in shining armour because they benefit from user trust in a big way. The benefit in the short term with better engagement and margins. They benefit in the long term with superior positioning and longevity for their corporate rights.