Slashdot Mirror
Doctorow: Rivalry Keeps Google From Doing Evil
An anonymous reader writes "Writer and activist Cory Doctorow says competition keeps Google behaving ethically because it believes there are benefits to be had. However, as it moves into sectors where it faces fewer rivals this may not always be the case. 'It actually seems to be a quality metric. They believe they can attract customers, independent software vendors, resellers and an ecosystem around them by not being evil,' he says. 'Where they operate in narrower, less competitive markets — like where they’ve become an Internet service provider, for example — they abandon those commitments.'"
With reading TFA, I'm assume their fiber business is being referred to and their blocking 'Servers', which most other ISPs do. If that's the objection, it seems that that rule is only so a subscriber with an unlimited bandwidth plan does not run their own ISP on their connection. It seems quite fair, although there are probably a few other ways to enforce that than the more general ban, which I understand they do not enforce (also like most other ISPs).
I've rarely seen Google approach evil other than some of the push with Google Plus, which I think is at least bordering on it, like embedding 'join Google Plus' function in a YouTube 'play' button.
Right, Google's problems with evil are more on the ad side. They paid extortion to the tune of $500,000,000 as a penalty to the Department of Justice to keep Larry Page out of jail when Google offended the pharmaceutical industry cartel. That amount was sufficient to match the bribes paid by the pharmaceutical industry, and since it shut down most internet pharmacies being found via google, they didn't pursue the matter further.
There, fixed that for ya.
Every ISP I've ever used has had a "no servers" clause in their TOS. They also don't tend to enforce it, as I generally run SSH, etc. From what I can see, Google is no different other than having what looks like a well funded FUD campaign targeted at them. It's good to keep an eye on them, but I think they get a lot more abuse and a lot less praise than they deserve, compared to pretty much everybody else at least.
The problem is that they don't clearly define "server". If I use Bittorrent to download a Debian release, other downloaders are pulling the data from me. Will I be blocked? If I'm hosting a Minecraft server, will that be blocked? What about ownCloud, Tonido Plug, Gotomypc.com. Are they blocked? What if my home security system allows remote access, can I use that without violating my terms of service? What if I set up a simple S/FTP server for me and a few friends to access? I can understand an argument that I shouldn't run a node for newegg.com out of my basement, but I think Google should delineate more clearly between what kinds of home service are forbidden on a consumer plan - and if they really mean everything, it sucks.
And in terms of Evil, Google complained that they couldn't query public posts on Facebook while Bing can, but can Bing or anyone else query public posts on Google Plus? Of course not. Are they opening Google Plus APIs to third party app developers so users can cross-read and cross-post content and comments from other networks? Of course not. I strongly suspect that Google circa 2005 would have done differently. But now that they've settled further into their position as an juggernaut, they've started to take pages from the Microsoft play book.
I still trust Google more than I trust Microsoft. But the gap in credibility between the two companies is narrowing.