Slashdot Mirror
Google Abused Its Power By Quashing a Report Critical Of Its Service, Reporter Says (gizmodo.com)
In the wake of claims that Google got a think-tank research team sacked for criticizing the company, a respected journalist is alleging other abuses by the search giant. Kashmir Hill, a reporter at Gizmodo, is claiming that when she worked for Forbes six years ago, Google told the the magazine's staff that if publishers didn't add the "+" Google Plus social network button at the bottom of stories, those articles would come up lower in search results. From her report: I published a story headlined, "Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic Suffers," that included bits of conversation from the meeting. (An internet marketing group scraped the story after it was published and a version can still be found here.) Google promptly flipped out. This was in 2011, around the same time that a congressional antitrust committee was looking into whether the company was abusing its powers. Google never challenged the accuracy of the reporting. Instead, a Google spokesperson told me that I needed to unpublish the story because the meeting had been confidential, and the information discussed there had been subject to a non-disclosure agreement between Google and Forbes. (I had signed no such agreement, hadn't been told the meeting was confidential, and had identified myself as a journalist.) It escalated quickly from there. I was told by my higher-ups at Forbes that Google representatives called them saying that the article was problematic and had to come down. The implication was that it might have consequences for Forbes, a troubling possibility given how much traffic came through Google searches and Google News. [...] Given that I'd gone to the Google PR team before publishing, and it was already out in the world, I felt it made more sense to keep the story up. Ultimately, though, after continued pressure from my bosses, I took the piece down -- a decision I will always regret. Forbes declined comment about this. But the most disturbing part of the experience was what came next: Somehow, very quickly, search results stopped showing the original story at all. As I recall it -- and although it has been six years, this episode was seared into my memory -- a cached version remained shortly after the post was unpublished, but it was soon scrubbed from Google search results. That was unusual; websites captured by Google's crawler did not tend to vanish that quickly.
Power is most easily apparent when it's being abused.
Oh the irony.
While everyone is up in arms about Google being evil I am a little on the wary side of this. Not because the story is untrue, but rather the implication that only Google is involved with attempting to influence rankings for search results. Everyone has been looking at gaming the system, companies regularly hired people to do just this. I admit that this is blatant but it is not like only Forbes could put the Google button on their page. They appeared to do it with anyone that was willing to participate.
The other issue I have with this piece is that from a story she did 6 years ago, did they change during this time or is still true? In this case I would like to see a little less complaining and a few more facts about the current state of the problem rather than a rehash of an old article.
Like a public utility. It's simply too powerful and has way too much control over our decisions, to the point that we don't even realize it. They push their own products in search and then say it's organic search results, and they do the same with politicians or issues they like (burying right wing sites while pushing up left wing ones as well as promoting Hillary and the Democrats)
And for those who say there's competition, Bing and yahoo are absolutely jokes compared to Google, and Google has such a large database of information that creating a real competitor is impossible. I'm not generally one for government interfering with businesses, but Google has simply become too powerful and damaging to the flow of freedom of speech and information that a democracy depends on.
ANY organization becomes more evil, (from the standpoint of the average citizen), when it becomes bigger and/or more powerful. That 'and/or' qualifier I put there was intentional. Mozilla didn't have the kind of power that Google has, but after they reached a certain size their own internal power struggles, empire-building tendencies, and sheer hubris led to ignoring their users' needs and desires. As for Google, they are both very big and very powerful. "Might makes right" became a cliché for a very good reason, and Google is a fine example of this.
I've long argued that laissez-faire ought to apply to small businesses, with a sliding scale of progressively more government interference as a company gets larger. The catch-22 here is that government will become bigger and more powerful as a result, with the same consequences. So what we really need is an educated, thoughtful, politically engaged populace. But governments and corporations have that covered: schooling that teaches knee-jerk obedience to authority and frowns upon truly critical thinking, combined with bread and circuses and copious advertising, ensure that most people will take what they're given and do as they're told, even as they imagine themselves to be rebels.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Google told the the magazine's staff that if publishers didn't add the "+" Google Plus social network button at the bottom of stories, those articles would come up lower in search results.
They had to somehow "push" Google Plus down our throats. I would give some advice to Google if they want some traction.
Improve its interface. Have consumers continue to consume video content on the screen even while scrolling and consuming other material.
In other words, borrow a leaf from Facebook. They seem to be doing pretty well. Emulate the successful.
anyone still using the internet in 2017 is willfully giving their data directly to the NSA
Fixed that for you.
Hear me out because i'm trying to be objective about this.
Google has +1 buttons on a fuckload of pages and it indexes them all. The question is, how much additional computational power would it require to identify the few pages that are not fond of Google? Given all that power used, how much money would they be paying just to suppress a negative articles?
I don't know the numbers but it seems to me that it would be rather costly to correctly identify which pages to avoid putting a +1 button on. I get the creeping feeling it's more likely that they left an html tag open or something which resulted in eating the button and thus not being displayed.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Orwell's 1984. If there were ever a more prescient book I can't identify it.
1984 should be required reading for our children. But soon, just like "Gone With the Wind", "1984" will be more and more banned in the public sphere.
Thought, initially not banned by your government, but by the Wizards of Silicon Valley. The ones who hide behind a digital curtain, leading you down a yellow brick road, and adorning you with stories of how you too can have a heart.
But as the curtain of "Do No Evil" devolves into "We Tell You What is Evil" even the most dense among us realize they live in chains.
Chains not denoted by iron and steel, but by plastic, silicon, and lithium.
It is incumbent upon good women and men, who believe in freedom of thought, to take a stand. For if they don't children who never read 1984 will live in 1984.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Why was it a reasonable presumption that the meeting was confidential? Did they say in the meeting that the content of the meeting would be confidential? Did Google ask Forbes to sign an NDA that purported to prevent either party from disclosing the illegal activities of the other party? (It's illegal to abuse your market position in one area to gain an advantage in another market.)
You're correct that all the technology was already in place - but I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Google basically scrapped their existing Android interface and redesigned it from scratch after the iPhone came out.
Apple has never been anything close to a technological innovator, but it's dishonest not to give them credit for producing streamlined user-friendly interfaces that become the standard against which all others are measured. They never do anything new, but they do do user interfaces *right* - at least for the non-techy masses. And even as a techy that avoids Apple products, I appreciate the influence they've had on more capable interfaces.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The difference is that the Left says, "surrender to us and we will provide". And the never provide.
The Right says, "here is a tool called capitalism. Employ it and you can succeed." And it usually does.