You are here

Conflict of Interest

Surprise! Google is concerned a Microsoft-Yahoo merger would hurt the Internet

Google's CEO Eric Schmidt must have an extremely dry sense of humor.

 

Google's growing undisclosed "conflicts of interest" are bearing their teeth

New evidence exposes that Google has much more serious financial conflicts of interest and is much less of an "honest broker" of online advertising than most appreciate. 

Where's the outrage over Google-YouTube's free speech double standard?

Kudos to Warner Todd Huston for picking up on the outrageous free-speech double standard: "Google-YouTube Yanks Pro-Life Video, Allows Planned Parenthood Vids" that cpicked up on the Catholic News Agency's story that "American Life League video yanked by YouTube."

  • The hypocritical double standard here is doubled:
    • Google censors pro-life videos, but not pro-choice videos containing some of the exact same material, with no explanation or justification of this blatant content discrimination based on political views; and
    • Google's advocacy groups make a scene whenever an ISP is alleged to have violated free speech but they go underground and hide when their primary corporate patron and advocacy ally Google is alleged to have violated free speech.  
      • Two. Two. Two hypocrisies for the price of one!

It is the height of irony and hypocrisy that the House Judiciary Committee is having a hearing on "Net Neutrality and free speech on the Internet" Tuesday March 11th and there hasn't been a peep of concern or outrage from all the net neutrality/freespeech proponents, the marauding pack of so-called public/Google advocates that I affectionately refer to as "Googles Poodles." 

Moveon.org busted for not practicing what it preaches at Politics Online conference

Moveon.org, through its FreePress/SaveTheInternet puppets, loves to extol the virtues of grass roots democracy and claim to the press that there is a spontaneous groundswell for their net neutrality views in the "netroots." BALONEY! Moveon.org is a glorified top-down email list of activists, albeit a huge 3 million activist email list -- just like direct mail political organizers before them.

To support this point, I had to share this juicy dead-on insight shared at the Politics Online conference this week, by Personal Democracy Forum founder Andrew Rasiej -- per Washington Internet Daily:

  • "If any group was positioned to challenge the two major parties in Internet history, it was MoveOn.org, but strangely the group "didn't want to introduce its members to each other" as a social network, instead simply handing down marching orders, Rasiej said. MoveOn "at least symbolically" checks with its 3.5 million members on what issues to pursue, but it's still run by a handful of people who typically don't query the troops unless they already know the answer, Johnson said."

Remember it was Moveon.org that attacked Facebook, the hot social networking site, when Facebook spurned Google for Microsoft. See my previous post:  "Google's poodle -- Moveon.org is leading the privacy protest against Facebook -- which spurned Google..."

Exposing the sanctimony of net neutrality activists

Enough of Net neutrality activists' hypocritical sanctimony over freedom, free speech and democracy! It is sickening.

Net neutrality activists claim to support freedom, free speech, and democracy, but they really don't in practice.

First, let's look at the recent activist whining from FreePress/SaveTheInternet about how the FCC network management forum at Harvard was somehow hijacked by Comcast sympathetic attendees or who these activists have derisively called "seat fillers."

Google caught censoring free speech... again -- where's the indignance from net neutrality supporters?

Fox News reported that Google quietly reinstated an Inner City Press news service that specializes in UN corruption news, that Google had previously censored from its search engine and from Google news.

  • Per Fox News: "The reaction to the de-listing, however temporary, had been furious. The non-profit Government Accountability Project lambasted the company, calling Inner City Press "the most effective and important media organization for U.N. whistleblowers.""

Important Questions:

Google humor: "human review trumps technology" in filtering for copyright

I had to stop myself from bursting out laughing when listening to Google-YouTube's product counsel, Mia Garlick, speak on the Internet Caucus panel on "Internet Copyright Filters: Finding the Balance."

  • Google-YouTube's representative said with a straight face: "human review trumps technology" in copyright filtering.  

Let that little quote sink in for a moment.

Google...

  • the self-described technology company,
  • the algorithm leader,
  • the company that automates virtually everything internally,
  • the company that is not interested in pursuing businesses or tasks that cannot be automated or condensed to an algorithm,
  • the company that has taken innovation and technology to a new level on the Internet,
  • the company that uses technology for customer service not humans...
    •  is saying that "human review trumps technology"?

If human review of content trumps technology, why doesn't Google rank/filter all the world's content in its search process with human review rather than technology -- if human review is better?

Google's Regulatory Outlook 2008

The big question for investors is why?

  • Why has Google felt the need to rapidly build up a new lobbying operation in D.C. (rivaling Microsoft's in size) and why did Google just unveil, with great fanfare, its new cutting-edge office space in DC with a party that attracted 650 people and many VIPs?
    • What does Google know that investors may not?

Google's Regulatory Outlook:

Federal Trade Commission

Antitrust:

Google co-founder's professor warns of Google's "technical arrogance: The system cannot fail"

Ken Auletta of the New Yorker discovered one of those rare window-into-the-soul insights about Google in his excellent in-depth expose on Google: "The Search Party -- Google squares off with its Capitol Hill Critics." I strongly recommend reading the full article but it's critical not to miss this insightful gem in Auletta's article quoted below:

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths