?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
25 January 2006 @ 09:53 am
hence the silliness of 'dont be evil'  
Google to block some searches in China
 
 
 
(Deleted comment)
Braxanabraxana on January 25th, 2006 03:18 pm (UTC)
in this case.. same thing..:> nothing like having a stupid motto developed out of arrogance
Mynja: censoredarmandae on January 25th, 2006 03:16 pm (UTC)
M$ went through the same thing (almost a year) ago. And other search engines have done similar. It makes me curious if they are operating out of/or have met similar strictures in the middle eastern countries. or russia (which really is a non issue in modern politics; they are less and less socialistic - unless I'm forgetting something very obvious, China is the socialistic bastion for modern. Now I'm curious to see a survey of internet-nationalpolicy(in regards to politcal pseudo classification). Could be interesting to plot/analyse how the US has moved from almost-no-restrictionn to the current debate on google releasing search info.

If not google, someone else. They just happened to be the first search group to have that much -data- and records. Digital politics, ha! So much for the internet creating a borderless world *chuckle*
Braxanabraxana on January 25th, 2006 03:24 pm (UTC)
the problem is precisely this:

1. a search engine is ONLY a search engine. a search engines only way to winning a market is by number of users loyal to that engine. search engines dont produce a damn thing, ultimately that is the issue.
2. these are all public companies beholden to the share holder. share holders want maximization of value of their assests. hence looking at #1 the only means by which this value is increased the search engine must gain users.

the reality is that china is a big market but it is a market that actual producers of something .. i.e. creation... can decide to not have to sell into as one can increase product value through more creation or variance in creation- inducing the same customer to by more. but producers of NOTHING are sunk.

and btw, google doesnt 'have' the data as much as they 'rip off' that data.
Mynjaarmandae on January 25th, 2006 03:34 pm (UTC)
ha. your biases are showing through ;p

1. re the conversation from yesterday and information brokers. Funny. Winning the market in this case is (shooting from hip) a) efficiency of reeaching information/information yield from search terms b)non-clutter or clutter that is deemed (value judgement by engine, often based off terms) useful to user. I wonder if other search engines used in china are under the same strictures/voluntary censorship. If not, makes sense that the china user base would then use one of those engines, depending on the relative value of (a).

2. Relates tangentially to above.

Rip off/have -> Same net result. They end up having it whether copied, taken, stolen, created. They are copying/ripping off, yes. But is almost like a library. Taken as individuals, yes, individual authors created the content, but the library collects the content and in this case the whole is the structure that people seek, thereby finding the individual content. the library is still useful and only as popular as it's patrons/collections. Difference being is that libraries are non profit and aren't beholden to #2 and if there are other search engines not voluntarilly censoring, then people will find those search engines. lower value. The game is only fair if everyone plays by the rules. It makes sense that google would only play by the rules and make less profit if everyone else were doing likewise. Or, maybe not and maybe they are just the most obvious target for this action. Largest piece oof the pie. When they cease being largest pie piece, the govt or other groups asking for hte censorship move on to them. Similar to our strategy here. Attack/negate thosee groups that are the largest contributor to said problem (in this case the issue of information availability) and then move to the next. Common biz strategy from what i gather.
Braxanabraxana on January 25th, 2006 03:47 pm (UTC)
im not arguing the case of a better search engine vs a worse one. i am arguing the case that the ONLY way a search engine gains value over another is the number of users loyal to it. google has a good search engine, but thats ONLY what it is. nothing more nothing less. this does not give it the right to declare a moral high ground over others- that is a trait of their arrogance.

which leads to ripping off vs having. HUGE difference. if you are speaking only in the pure sense of 'having' then you are correct, however Google has made it into a MORAL argument- dont be/do evil. once one enters the world of morals one places oneself in the same judgement scheme as one places on others. i really would prefer a company that openly declares itself to be good at business and hence will do things in terms of business dealings than some sort of upstart that believes suddenly it has the right to make everyone bend to its will over moral issues yet place itself above that same judgement.

what i want is google to stop being so damn arrogant. they are a public company with public company issues. sure they have to do what it takes to be successful, but they need to stop pretending they are better than anyoneelse. they must bend before larger powers and thereby are ruled by such powers. fairness has nothing to do with it- it just IS.
Braxanabraxana on January 25th, 2006 03:54 pm (UTC)
on a note in regards to libraries vs google... the biggest difference is not that one is non-profit and the other is.. the biggest difference is that the authors/publishers have allowed libraries to place their books in them. it is the right of an author to have his/her book to be pulled from libraries. however google has taken upon themselves to copy and store data of books AGAINST the will of authors because it is a 'moral' imperitive to allow all information to be provided to everyone. they speak of things like 'well people will be able to search the information but wont get to read the whole thing' as if thats an argument for allowing them to copy the whole book. its not. someone who holds the right to tell someone not to copy something has the absolute say within the confines of law in this society.
Stephmistressmuffin on January 25th, 2006 04:09 pm (UTC)
Who says Google scans the whole book of publishers who hold copyrighted material and have explicitly told Google not to scan their books?

I can't really comment on most of the things you've said, but I will comment that Google mission statement is NOT "do not evil" or whatever you say above..

Google mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. Interpret that as you will.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/

There will always be arguments against Google's philosophies and approaches. I don't think any publicly held (or highly public, as the case may be) company can avoid the dissection. I think it's sad though when people point out things that they feel are "oh so bad" when the reality of it is that Google has done many great things for many great people and yes, it's been beneficial to that company, as a whole, but I'd argue to say it's worth it.

*plink plunk*

Braxanabraxana on January 25th, 2006 04:23 pm (UTC)
o? explain: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/2005110301.html

" Google responded to allegations of copyright infringement by asserting that only small portions of copyrighted works, about three lines, are displayed on Google Print, unless the copyright owner consents to displaying more.[21] Furthermore, Google stated that it respects the wishes of copyright owners, and upon request, will refrain from including a work in the project.[22] However, The Guild maintains that, in order to display any section on the Internet, Google had to initially scan the entire work, thereby violating the authors’ rights.[23]"

so its a opt out situation. which in many ways to me is the sort of thing spammers argue.



regardless, i do not that google has provided some good things. but so has microsoft and intel and at&t and nike. i did not declare that Google's mission statement was 'dont be/do evil', i declared that Google has made an arrogant step in placing a moral imperitive over things when they themselves are stepping over moral lines. i am saying "Google stop lying to yourself. be honest. you are a public company that does public company things. glad you are struggling with the issues but dont start thinking you are above them"
Stephmistressmuffin on January 25th, 2006 04:49 pm (UTC)
Yes - opt-out is a large effort put forth towards Google, but there are other things in place that "protect within the law". I wish the entire law suit thing would settle so that we could then go to the "another example of where the system has failed us" argument that will inevitably succeed the judgement.

Although interpretation of "attitudes towards" such-and-such are 9/10th of it I'd argue that unless you've sat down with Larry, Sergei and Eric and had this conversation I wouldn't assume what "Google" thinks of itself. Media hype is huge and statements taken out of context to mix with a writers view are biased and often interpretted incorrectly.

Ok.. that's it.. back in the box! :)
Braxanabraxana on January 25th, 2006 04:28 pm (UTC)
wups...
my line: i do not that google has provided some good things but so has microsoft and intel and at&t and nike

was supposed to be:

i do not state that google has not provided some good things, it has, but so has microsoft and intel and at&t and nike
More than a little wonky...apogeeperigee on January 25th, 2006 06:29 pm (UTC)
See...this never happened with a card catalog system!


(go go gadget archaism!)
Saratalesinsdaughtr on January 25th, 2006 09:31 pm (UTC)
This from the company that prides itself on being 'the doorway to all information', huh?
inaccessiblemelancholyglee on January 26th, 2006 01:43 am (UTC)
*gahhh*
thursday_quote on January 26th, 2006 04:48 am (UTC)
Unbelievable. ~shakes head~