Slashdot Log In
Google's Gatekeepers
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Nov 29, 2008 06:16 PM
from the can't-read-that-here-try-a-proxy dept.
from the can't-read-that-here-try-a-proxy dept.
theodp writes "With control of 63% of the world's Internet searches, as well as ownership of YouTube, the NY Times reports that Google is the most powerful and protean of the Internet gatekeepers, exerting enormous influence over who can find an audience on the Web around the world. Deciding what controversial material does and doesn't appear on the local search engines Google maintains in many countries — as well as on Google.com, YouTube, Blogger, Picasa, and Orkut — falls on the shoulders of Nicole Wong and her colleagues, who have arguably been given more influence over online expression than anyone else on the planet. Some find Google's gatekeeper role worrisome: 'If your whole game is to increase market share,' says Lawrence Lessig, 'it's hard to do good, and to gather data in ways that don't raise privacy concerns or that might help repressive governments to block controversial content.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
They blacklist sites without checking the reason (Score:5, Interesting)
www.annabelleigh.net got blacklisted awhile back for allegedly hosting illegal material.
It doesn't. It never has. I take that back: If anyone posts illegal material it is removed swiftly. It's still mostly blacklisted.
Yahoo still indexes it.
Call this sour grapes and maybe it is but Google doesn't make much effort to fix errors that have only a small impact on the average person.
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso (Score:2)
Google doesnt care about illegal material.
The only reason I've heard for sites getting blacklisted is for doing dodgy SEO and trying to game the system.
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso (Score:5, Insightful)
Try reading the newspapers, or even searching Google for 'google censorship in China'. The top of the search shows the BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm [bbc.co.uk].
So, in fact, China censors 'illegal material' which is a violation of UN treaties to censor in international communications. The idea of 'do no harm' is not good enough for such a large and powerful company: the idea of 'do no harm in China' by not bothering their government is in direct contrast to 'do no harm in China' by restricting the speech of those who disagree with the government.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it up to Google to do the work of the United Nations?
Google is a company just like any other, they have to operate within the law wherever they operate.
Not censoring a youtube video almost had Google employees arrested in Thailand until the bowed to pressure and deleted the lamest movie on YT with like 20 views. Governments have Google by the balls not the other way around.
I suggest you reassess your opinion of how much influence Google holds over governments because you'll find it's almost nothing,
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor.
Isn't that the standard definition of repression? Mistreat one group for the benefit, sometimes completely intangible benefit, of another?
Parent
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso (Score:4, Insightful)
"90% of the people in this country will tell you that www.annabelleigh.net crosses the line. I'm guessing over 50% will have a strong reaction against it and would prefer that Google make sure it doesn't come up in their search results."
It doesn't cross a legal line, so presumably you are referrring to a "moral" line. When you begin to moralise the internet, who can say where or when the resultant censorship will end?
"So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor."
Google is not doing a "big favor" for anyone. Censoring controversial material doesn't help readers; it simply makes them ignorant.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"What the fuck? And you're surprised this crap is blacklisted?"
Maybe you could explain why you wish for a legal discussion forum for paedophiles to be censored. It is not a "how-to-molest-children" forum, it is not a place for exchanging illegal material, it is simply a place where people who are attracted to girls can discuss their feelings.
If someone is isolated from their community, has nowhere to turn for support and has nothing to lose, they are less likely to care about consequences (for themselves or
Re: (Score:2)
While you may have a point about religion often being used as an excuse to commit crimes , censoring it won't solve the problem.
Blaming it on slashdot won't get you any good karma either.
And what do you mean with "progressive" slashdot. Sure , we all like technology and new things , but apart from that , our political views are very different.
This is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this news? Not that I agree with their political message, but World Net Daily (wnd.com) has been on the receiving end of Google's actions for a while now, supposedly due to political motives; so yes, this should worry anyone interested in free and open access to information.
It's "hard" but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are much worse scenarios imaginable, which I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
By saying this I don't want to bless all the problematic things that are happening, and it's certainly always helpful to "watch back", but we could be already living in an information nightmare already, which we aren't thanks, in part, to Google: If some other big company would have as big a share as Google, I wonder how they'd behave (don't mod me as troll please, it's just to show that we're still doing quite well.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. It's hard to tell whether or not privacy is a concern at all for Google.
2. Even if it is, it certainly isn't why they're so popular.
Borg (Score:4, Interesting)
It's fitting that the NY Times used the word protean to describe Google, since the word also has alternative meanings as a bacteria and is linked to a greek fable of a shape-changing god of the ocean. The problem of the internet is that people, unlike machines, don't handle decentralization well. Anarchy has always been a temporary reprise from authoritarian constructs. In and of itself that's not a problem, but there's too much political pressure to censor, alter, and manipulate access to online information, and let's face it: Very, very few of us have the resources to conduct an exhaustive independent search on the internet.
Honestly, I'm surprised the United States hasn't declared Google (and other major internet pieces) a national security asset and moved to place it under government protection. They've done it before -- citizens who worked on the Manhattan project, for example. It could also easily be looked at as a target for terrorism -- blasting google out of the water would have significant press coverage; And isn't the big reason for terrorism to be visible? It's hard to come up with a bigger target online right now than them.
cue fear-mongerers and anti-government commentary in 5...4...3...
Re:Borg (Score:4, Informative)
Um, I don't think you can just "blow Google up". Don't they have datacenters around the globe?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously it would take a high degree of coordination and skill but an electronic attack could take them out for awhile. It's been done before to large companies. My only point is that google is an attractive target for a great many political interests both domestically and abroad.
Re:Borg (Score:5, Funny)
My only point is that google is an attractive target for a great many political interests both domestically and abroad.
Nah. If they take down Google, how else are they going to find out what to do with all those bombmaking materials?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I know that your post was a joke, but they already DO offer free beer and food. Everyone seems to get back to work quite easily. Is the porn a work stoppage requirement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe the hackers in the US are smart enough to not get caught in the first place. The best hacker in the world is someone nobody's heard of. You know, as long as we're doing conspiracy theory, we might as well make it sound good.... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I'm surprised the United States hasn't declared Google (and other major internet pieces) a national security asset and moved to place it under government protection.
Because it is hard to bring down Google. Google, MS, Yahoo, Apple, and a few other sites could withstand a heavy DDoS attack even by the full force of a major botnet. On the other hand, I'm sure that even the US government's sites would fail when under that much attack. Not only that but the said websites are all rather smart and won't leave open anything for crackers to exploit.
Re: (Score:2)
This is getting off topic, but out of your list Apple use Akamai and Google and Yahoo have a large distributed (geographically) network. No idea about MS. It's not so much about the websites themselves, but that they have the infrustructure in place to mitigate such attacks. It's all still possible though (I remember submitting a story years ago about Google being offline in Australia for example).
Back to the GP you're replying to, I wouldn't be surprised if 'Sovereign Risk' was one of the factors in Google
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and let's face it: Very, very few of us have the resources to conduct an exhaustive independent search on the internet.
I don't know. It's not too bad. I just use Google to conduct my exhaustive, independent searches.
Re:Borg (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that difficult to script a search that checks multiple search engines to see if the same items appear. There are folks who do that. Comparing Google to other search engines is a business function these days. I don't think that Google could go too far out on a limb with modifying or restricting information without some complaints.
When you are as Big as Google, yes, there will be complaints. You can't please everyone all of the time. That said, I've not yet heard of Google outright doing evil.
Knowing the Bush administration and spy types in general, it's quite likely that there have been instances of co-operation, if not ongoing situations. The trouble is that given the size of Google and other Internet services providers it is not likely that there will be NO government co-operative instances. The thing to work at is keeping such things minimal and transparent/above board.
So far, Google has been good for the world. I'm not saying it will always be so, so it is good that people are watching them.
Parent
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A consumer can search elsewhere.
A business can't just be listed elsewhere and operate on a level playing field.
If Google gets shitty and decides to ban a small business, they can put them out of business. It's that simple. They are a scary, scary thing in online business.
Only 63% (Score:3, Interesting)
Only 63%? Who's the other 37%?
I would've thought more in the >90% range.
Re:Only 63% (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google dominates that latin language set. Once you get into Asian languages other search engines start to win out but they are country by country.
Korea and China for example have their own top search engine.
Google is able to compete in all of them with market share in double digits almost everywhere but it's not de-fact.
Google is not easy to say in none-western languages unfortunately and is therefore not a 'catchphrasy' name either.
What About Choice? (Score:5, Insightful)
I use Google for searches, but I could easily switch to Yahoo, AltaVista or even MSN.
Until Google start doing things to stop people using other search engines, there's no problem. If people object to the dominance of Google, they must either campaign for users to move to other engines, or create a better engine and gain marketshare.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
With such a large market share, if Google starts censoring results then a site essentially doesn't exist any more.. If google were censoring specific results, how would you know? Sure, if it's your data being censored, you'll probably find out, but if it isn't something you really know well, then how do you know that you're getting totally accurate results in every search?
I'm not saying that Google is consciously censoring result
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Until Microsoft starts doing things to stop people using other operating systems, there's no problem.
I seem to recall some issues around this... was there a trial..?
Nice rewording of my post, but it's a shame that you reinforced my message while you thought you were knocking my point down.
Wrong again (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you referring to US vs. Microsoft in 1998-1999? That was with regard to Internet Explorer, not the Windows OS. Microsoft lost, and they are paying their due penalty.
Google, on the other hand, has a much larger monopoly not just on search advertising but on information availability. Your bitter dislike of Microsoft is blinding you apparently; you'd rather fight over small fries like what browser you want use rather than fight over where you can find information and who controls it.
No different from IE bundling (Score:2, Insightful)
Google has prevented me from using Yahoo!, Ask, etc. in the same vein that Microsoft prevented me from using other web browsers.
Does Google somehow physically stop me from using other search engines? No. Did Microsoft physically stop me from downloading and using other browsers? No.
Does Google very closely bundle their search engine with Google Docs, YouTube, Android, etc.? Yes. Did Microsoft very closely bundle IE with Windows? Yes.
Is Google being punished for doing the same exact same thing Microsoft w
Re: (Score:2)
gOS 3 Gadgets instantly launches Google Gadgets for Linux on startup, introducing over 100,000 possible iGoogle and Google Gadgets to the desktop.
Google Documents, Calendar, and Mail launch in Mozilla Prism windows to closer resemble desktop applications.
Google _everything_ links right there on the desktop.
I'll get modded down for dissing a Linux distro, but I'm not knocking the OS, I've been running it as my primary OS for some years. Currently on Gentoo. I have installed gOS for several people.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason this should have been marked as a 'troll'. Google is the default search engine for every popular web browser except the one controlled by Microsoft, and their search bar is installed with tons of software, including the most installed plugins on the internet. It seems very much like when Internet Explorer was being installed with every software package on the planet.
The problem is not that people can't switch search engines. It's that they're unaware of their options. They're being fed Goo
Google workforce on the extreme left (Score:2, Interesting)
I recently finished a year working at Google as a contractor. While it's a great company to work for, the employees are tilted to the extreme left. I think this is a direct result of their rapid expansion and hiring huge numbers straight out of college. The political leanings of the employees is going to affect how they do things, it can't be helped, even if they make an effort not to be politically biased. My politics are rather moderate, but in comparison to Google employees, I was a far right lunatic
Re: (Score:2)
Google's adheres to the Internet censorship policies of China,[3] enforced by means of filters colloquially known as "The Great Firewall of China". Google.cn search results are filtered so as not to bring up any results concerning the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, sites supporting the independence movements of Tibet and Taiwan or the Falun Gong movement, and other information perceived to be harmful to the People's Republic of China (PRC)."
My politics are rather moderate, but in comparison to Google employees, I was a far right lunatic.
Uh huh. [wikipedia.org] Apparently they're conservative enough to know how to make money. How right-wing were you? Joe Lieberman, Rush Limbaugh, Strom Thurmond?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's very difficult to be smart and not lean to the left. case and point: See Ted Conferences (ted.com)
Re: (Score:2)
It's very difficult to be smart and not lean to the left. case and point: See Ted Conferences (ted.com)
And of course that's very debatable, although you probably don't realize it.
Perhaps we could also apply this: It's very difficult to be arrogant and not lean to the left.
Meh. I got karma to burn if the mods aren't in a good mood.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Selfish and smart people tend to lean towards capitalism if they have lots of money and socialism if they don't. Unselfish and smart people tend to lean towards socialism if they consider guaranteeing everyone's physical welfare more important than economic liberty, and capitalism if the other way around. And stupid people tend to lean towards whichever side's propaganda they hear most.
I think that about covers it
Re:Google workforce on the extreme left (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all relative; Compared to places like Berkley or downtown San Francisco, Google is pretty moderate; Compared to the rest of the country, not so much. What else would you expect for a company from the San Francisco Bay area?
P.S. We do at least have some closet Libertarians, as evidenced by the Ron Paul talk a while back. Also, remote office locations also tend to reflect the local populace pretty well.
Parent
If you didn't read the article yet, please do :) (Score:2)
That was quite enjoyable.
I particularly like that they are willing to push the envelope of freedom of speech whenever they can.
Google cannot control content (Score:2)
Jealousy (Score:2, Insightful)
Before internet, the gatekeepers to information were powers like NY Time.
Here's an idea (Score:2)
'it's hard to do good, and to gather data in ways that don't raise privacy concerns or that might help repressive governments to block controversial content.'"
Actually it's pretty easy. Just be a search engine and generate revenues though benign info spidering. They've got it. The second they let politics in, it's over. That would be like traffic lights turning green for BMW's. It just won't work out in the end.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,640,000 for China's moon program. (0.14 seconds)