I consider myself of like mind with my friend Adam Theirer of PFF on most all issues of substance, however, I must take strong exception to his misguided take on Google and Googlephobia.
In Adam's post "Googlephobia: Part 6 - the Left Begin to Turn on Google":
- Adam mis-guidely lionizes Google as "America’s greatest capitalist success story of the past decade."
- (I will show in detail how misguided this Google assessment is later in this post.)
- Adam also said: "The reason this concerns me is that I see a unholy Right-Left alliance slowly forming that could lead to more calls for regulation not just of Google, but the entire search marketplace."
- Let me be crystal clear, I agree with Adam in strongly opposing economic regulation of the Internet and of the Government picking winners/losers, or technologies.
- Where we may disagree is that I also strongly believe law enforcement applies to the Internet and that the Internet can not be a wild west lawless place.
- I am a fervent free-market capitalist who believes free-market capitalism cannot exist in lawless anarchy, but needs accountability -- i.e. respect for the individual (customer), property, contracts, and the rule of law -- in order to succeed and flourish.
- It is bad actors, like Google, with little accountability or respect for the rule of law, that give capitalism a bad name.
- The single biggest risk to free-market capitalism may be the tendency to mischaracterize all law enforcement as "regulation."
- Bad actors must not get a pass from accountability and the rule of law, because accountability/the rule of law are necessary to protect consumers from fraud/physical harm, property-owners from theft/destruction, and society from anarchy.
- As a free-market capitalist, I strongly support law the enforcement, because in part, it removes a pretext for Government to justify intrusive economic regulation and picking winners/losers and technologies.
- Common sense and experience show us that going light on case-by-case law enforcement, begs sweeping economic and intrusive regulation.
Now back to Google.
- Google's leaders have learned that they can get away with most anything they want -- if they just -- twinkle their noses and chant "don't be evil!" "open sesame!" and "innovation-cadbara!" because so many people will quickly fall into an adoring trance about how Google is the answer to all the world's problems.
Google is a bad actor.
- Google is NOT "America’s greatest capitalist success story of the past decade."
- That over the top accolade must await the test of time because there were many who misguidedly and prematurely heaped that accolade on other bad actors like Enron and WorldCom -- to name just a couple of the most ignominious.
Google is a genuine bad actor. The evidence is overwhelming for anyone willing to examine it in detail.
First, Google is an anti-competitive predator.
- See the evidence and case in my 12 page white paper "Googleopoly II: Google's Predatory Playbook to Thwart Competition."
- Or read the DOJ's explanation for blocking Google-Yahoo.
Second, Google steals and is a notorious scofflaw.
- Is it just coincidence that more than five different industries have independently sued Google for theft?
- Or consider how Google has proved "Crime does pay" in its settlement with authors/publishers.
Third, Google is hostile to privacy norms that Americans expect.
- I make the case in detail in my testimony before the House Internet Subcommittee, and in my post "Google's Privacy Lip Service."
Fourth, Google represents itself as ethical when it is not.
Fifth, Google misrepresents its serious conflicts of Interests.
- See this post on why Google's conflicts are harmful.
Sixth, accountability is an anathema to Google.
- See the post: "Can you trust Google to obey the rules? Is Google accountable to anyone?"
Google is far from "America’s greatest capitalist success story of the past decade."
- The evidence is overwhelming and only continues to build that Google is a bad actor and giving free-market capitalism a bad name.