This a very interesting article in regards to Google’s control on the search engine landscape. They have been able to continuously dominate the marketplace for over a decade where others fell off over time (Yahoo, askjeeves, and others) or were never really able to get off the ground floor to begin with (bing).
As a predominately free market fundamentalist I still see where Google has become a necessity for most businesses to survive no matter the costs. Will time continue to be this kind to Google over the next decade or will another option/function arise to surpass them?
In an ideal world the internet would be a utility, I could see google tying in that way in a similar relationship to a PG&E. No one lives without internet in this day and age, no one lives without google. It would be ideal to just make it an ingrained part of life and stop allowing business interests to affect these things, period.
Do you even know how PG&E runs? Being a public utility puts new regulations, sure, but it does not take the business out of the utility. It’s a process that has it’s own weaknesses.
Comcast for example due to public utility regulation nonsense cannot upgrade their fibers without paying some $3,000 per pole I think it was in WA, how many poles do you think there are in a city? The government has to have their share, and that raises costs for all users (ergo high comcast internet prices) and stops new entities from coming in with absurdly high entry costs (no competition) It blocks out anyone, and leads to the oligarchy you don’t like. And you want to double down. I am of course talking one aspect of public utility aspects, there are others. Don’t talk about something that you don’t know much about. I’ve fought against this nonsense, and this by the way was the reason Google fiber initially skipped over Seattle. The government doesn’t need to charge that much to “allow” someone into the industry. That’s insane.
Right now Tmobile wants to be approved for a merger that will allow them to invest enough capital to make a $70 unlimited 5g internet. They said they would do this if the merger was approved. Instead, we’re here waiting years for the government to decide if its good for the consumer, and then they have to hash out the utility connections. WA state already tried a lawsuit saying they won’t allow free rides on their utility poles, and they want 1 BILLION dollars. That will go toward consumers paying more than $70, that could double the cost in WA state for the consumers, literally, 1 million consumers would have to pay $83 per month to cover that cost alone.
When the government gets involved, they don’t make business better. You constantly complain about oligarchy, well this is how it happens, trying to get regulations to trigger for various companies and let the government make decisions in the “public” interest. Laughable.
Truth be told; if you are a professional researching issues on a topic, you almost always know which websites to visit for the pertinent facts and studies. Example: AMA = American Medical Association is a starting point. From there, you can find links within their articles and essays to other medical research. Another example; marIJuana legalization and insurance is covered (often to an excessive basis) here on IJ.
So, Goo-Gul may lose a large market share to people who know what they are researching and to the two other major search engines once more of Goo-Gul’s bias is unearthed and published …. and articles on such matters are found by wise researchers on search engines other than Goo-Gul.
I’m genuinely curious, though…what are some better better alternatives to Google? It seems like everything is defaulted to them… heck, people even say to “Google it” when they mean “look it up on the internet.”
When I was younger and the internet was still in its blessed infancy, I always used Dogpile. Anyone remember those days?
Using DuckDuckGo hides your identity during search. Search is still on Google, but Google doesn’t get to gather your search results and use it to send ads, share it with others, etc. Fight the Power!
Yep, I remember dogpile. Not a trend that lasted, though. Personally, I don’t have a problem with Google, if they want to track what I purchase and browse, so be it. I’d rather have ads targeted at what I am interested in rather than random commercials. Here’s an innovative idea – let me copywrite the brands I am looking at and share that marketing with others who are looking at the same thing. Could be a pretty cool genome project.
Actually CP, that’s a darn good idea. Let’s say you are looking at telescopes and Google has set aside an area for people who have searched the same brands so you can communicate in a forum, or possibly share emails if both parties agree….. You sure could save a lot of time and headache by sharing experiences with products this way.
Before I am finished typing this, Google will have it patented.
October 10, 2019 at 10:40 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
Google is in the public consciousness as being The Search Engine in the same way that the iphone is in the public consciousness as being The Smart Phone. There’s no escaping it. It’s not a bad thing except for whackadoo conservatives that refuse to believe a search engine that delivers things like “facts” because they refute their insane right-wing ideals. There are other search engine options, but none that are matching in capacity, speed, or user-friendly capabilities. The market has spoken, google is our search engine.
Let me guess, facebook didn’t do enough to stop the election interference, the tech industries must be regulated! You’re not fighting the man there.
Except google, I wonder why? Maybe because conservatives have a gripe and then it doesn’t matter, but when liberals do, suddenly corporations are bad. All corporations are bad, except when they provably harm conservatives.
I have to point out that’s sarcasm, it gets lost in internet posts. Irony here is so ironic.
October 11, 2019 at 3:46 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
No one said they’re fighting the man. I said that as a search engine, google is the winner. That’s it. I don’t necessarily agree with their other business practices and I think all major corporations are bad, I merely said it’s pointless to try and push another search engine because Google is the winner.
Additionally, your claims that google has proven to “provably harm conservatives” is nonsense. Your conservative crony buddies are up in arms that google gives results that shine a negative light on conservatives. That’s because google points to articles on the internet, and fact shines a negative light on conservatives. Yours is the side after all that tried asking Mark Zuckerberg why one of their neice’s found negative results when searching for conservatives on a Samsung product that he referred to as an iphone. Your party is filled with clueless idiots that don’t understand technology, is what I’m saying.
Yours is also the party of Polar, the IJ user who frequently spouts the belief that liberals are using BOTs to downvote his often completely unhinged posts.
Are you just going to get another board shut down? Probably.
October 11, 2019 at 4:17 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
“No one said they’re fighting the man.”
“you thinking you’re “fighting the power” ”
Yes they did. Try and keep up, puffy chest, maybe if you calm that puff down, you can read rather than go fisticuffs.
“I merely said it’s pointless to try and push another search engine because Google is the winner.”
It’s not pointless, and just because they are the winner doesn’t mean it’s good. Name something bad Google has done. They’ve done a lot. Competition stops that.
“Additionally, your claims that google has proven to “provably harm conservatives” is nonsense. ”
This is not nonsense it is verifiable fact. Hiring practices, and discrimination practices within the firm, as well as algorithms designed to block political people they don’t like. All have been confirmed. These conversations were had, there were numerous leaks about it. When you have a company trying to be the “winner” in all information, and they brag about changing public opinion, that’s a verifiable problem, and yes, I know that’s why you are for them, authoritarian.
“That’s because google points to articles on the internet, and fact shines a negative light on conservatives”
No, that’s not why I say that, people can read for themselves, I’m not accusing facts of being bad for conservatives.
“Yours is the side after all that tried asking Mark Zuckerberg why one of their neice’s found negative results when searching for conservatives on a Samsung product that he referred to as an iphone. Your party is filled with clueless idiots that don’t understand technology, is what I’m saying. ”
That’s a legitimate, if the search engine is biased and they talked about making either negative or no positive results come up. You don’t understand the bias. At all, this is known google literally tried to do this. It’s not opinion any more. It wasn’t that negative results could come up, it was that they were rigged to do so, and they had discussed doing it, to harm conservatives.
“Yours is also the party of Polar, the IJ user who frequently spouts the belief that liberals are using BOTs to downvote his often completely unhinged posts.
Are you just going to get another board shut down? Probably.”
I don’t get boards shut down puffy chest, you do. Bots do indeed downlike here, and have in the past, it’s not hard to do, and it has happened. We saw 100 dislikes in the past. 100!! There aren’t that many people here. It has occurred, so we are concerned it may again. Regardless, that isn’t related to this topic, puffy chest!
October 11, 2019 at 4:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Post might not go through, trying again, so it might show twice:
What is Islamophobic? MAGA hats? MAGA itself? Trump related aspects? Build the wall? Links linked to that, so anyone that references what the costs might be and studies to a wall? This was the problem. Their algorithms clearly have a bias and assume racism like you. It would be like you policing results, you would throw mine into the racist category. You would put reasonable posts here. Conservatives are sick of this. And proof that they would do this? Who does google consider Nazis?
They would sensor or remove results from Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, normal people who never say hateful things, I challenge you to find one truly hate filled Muslim comment.
Google is not trust worthy on it. Nor or you. These algorithms have to go to stop hate have to go, they are against conservative speech. You have not done thought into this, and you accuse the conservatives of being stupid on it. Absurd.
I just source quoted and explained why Google is an issue. If I hear some nonsense of I’m like fox news and polar, you’re a puffy chested buffoon. Make your debate.
October 11, 2019 at 4:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
And while at the time they said those algorithms didn’t go through, they were put in place in YouTube, and the result was many automatic bans, for even those on the left like David Pakman for God’s sakes. It hit conservatives more, but there should be no policing supposed hate nonsense, and it is biased against conservatives, in that they pick up what is clearly not hate. Believe a man is a man and a woman is a woman? That’s considered hate. Even though that is clearly a valid belief, and, Twitter already had this debate. They said that it is hate and they talked to psychologists who said that they are what they are. Yes, and Tim debated them saying no, psychologists on the matter don’t know what is best for them at this point, simply saying a man is a man and a woman is a woman is not hate. They wouldn’t accept it. Timcast debates Jack Dorsey’s rep, look it up on youtube. You have not done your research on this, you’re clueless as to what the debate is, moderates have been talking about this because it’s a real problem. You act like it’s the right and polar, go tell that to Tim cast, one of the largest podcasts in the nation and he’s a Tulsi Gabbard supporter, or Andrew Yang supporter, who refuses to support Trump, you far leftists, puffy chested peacock. I know way more than you on this topic, stop faking it until you make it, puffy chest.
Harvard professor who has done studies on this in an interview, with more links on it to sites concerned with google swaying public opinion and elections.
These aren’t ignorant things to say, I’m not like Polar, and you’re going to see how well researched what I say is. It comes from on this topic probably 50 hours or more of research. You don’t know what you’re talking about, Google is a risk, even taking out their conservative bias, and so would any big tech company in their role.
October 14, 2019 at 10:46 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Boring.
October 11, 2019 at 10:16 am
Smooth says:
Like or Dislike:
7
0
Google is an interesting company. Use any search engine and look at how many patents Google owns. Each year, they buy tens of thousands of patents. Why? Because it blocks anyone else from creating something new they haven’t thought of. Their sheer size and value make them impossible to compete with. Barring some unforeseen disaster, it will be hard for anyone to ever compete with Google. Yahoo and the others made a mistake. They stopped innovating. Google spends billions each year on new ideas and they keep getting better.
While Google will store your information, you do have a privacy setting that allows you, the user, to decide how the information is used and whether or not they can use it. Personally, I don’t care if they use my information to create more interesting ads for me. I’d rather see ads about something I find interesting and possibly useful as opposed to the old random ads from the late 90’s. I didn’t need Tampax then and I still don’t.
Seriously, I for one welcome our new google overlords. All of my targeted ads are related to video games or girls with large butts, what’s the problem exactly?
This a very interesting article in regards to Google’s control on the search engine landscape. They have been able to continuously dominate the marketplace for over a decade where others fell off over time (Yahoo, askjeeves, and others) or were never really able to get off the ground floor to begin with (bing).
As a predominately free market fundamentalist I still see where Google has become a necessity for most businesses to survive no matter the costs. Will time continue to be this kind to Google over the next decade or will another option/function arise to surpass them?
In an ideal world the internet would be a utility, I could see google tying in that way in a similar relationship to a PG&E. No one lives without internet in this day and age, no one lives without google. It would be ideal to just make it an ingrained part of life and stop allowing business interests to affect these things, period.
Do you even know how PG&E runs? Being a public utility puts new regulations, sure, but it does not take the business out of the utility. It’s a process that has it’s own weaknesses.
Comcast for example due to public utility regulation nonsense cannot upgrade their fibers without paying some $3,000 per pole I think it was in WA, how many poles do you think there are in a city? The government has to have their share, and that raises costs for all users (ergo high comcast internet prices) and stops new entities from coming in with absurdly high entry costs (no competition) It blocks out anyone, and leads to the oligarchy you don’t like. And you want to double down. I am of course talking one aspect of public utility aspects, there are others. Don’t talk about something that you don’t know much about. I’ve fought against this nonsense, and this by the way was the reason Google fiber initially skipped over Seattle. The government doesn’t need to charge that much to “allow” someone into the industry. That’s insane.
So an example on that for regulations in general:
Right now Tmobile wants to be approved for a merger that will allow them to invest enough capital to make a $70 unlimited 5g internet. They said they would do this if the merger was approved. Instead, we’re here waiting years for the government to decide if its good for the consumer, and then they have to hash out the utility connections. WA state already tried a lawsuit saying they won’t allow free rides on their utility poles, and they want 1 BILLION dollars. That will go toward consumers paying more than $70, that could double the cost in WA state for the consumers, literally, 1 million consumers would have to pay $83 per month to cover that cost alone.
When the government gets involved, they don’t make business better. You constantly complain about oligarchy, well this is how it happens, trying to get regulations to trigger for various companies and let the government make decisions in the “public” interest. Laughable.
Truth be told; if you are a professional researching issues on a topic, you almost always know which websites to visit for the pertinent facts and studies. Example: AMA = American Medical Association is a starting point. From there, you can find links within their articles and essays to other medical research. Another example; marIJuana legalization and insurance is covered (often to an excessive basis) here on IJ.
So, Goo-Gul may lose a large market share to people who know what they are researching and to the two other major search engines once more of Goo-Gul’s bias is unearthed and published …. and articles on such matters are found by wise researchers on search engines other than Goo-Gul.
I’m genuinely curious, though…what are some better better alternatives to Google? It seems like everything is defaulted to them… heck, people even say to “Google it” when they mean “look it up on the internet.”
When I was younger and the internet was still in its blessed infancy, I always used Dogpile. Anyone remember those days?
Using DuckDuckGo hides your identity during search. Search is still on Google, but Google doesn’t get to gather your search results and use it to send ads, share it with others, etc. Fight the Power!
or use a VPN and don’t worry about it.
Yep, I remember dogpile. Not a trend that lasted, though. Personally, I don’t have a problem with Google, if they want to track what I purchase and browse, so be it. I’d rather have ads targeted at what I am interested in rather than random commercials. Here’s an innovative idea – let me copywrite the brands I am looking at and share that marketing with others who are looking at the same thing. Could be a pretty cool genome project.
Actually CP, that’s a darn good idea. Let’s say you are looking at telescopes and Google has set aside an area for people who have searched the same brands so you can communicate in a forum, or possibly share emails if both parties agree….. You sure could save a lot of time and headache by sharing experiences with products this way.
Before I am finished typing this, Google will have it patented.
Google is in the public consciousness as being The Search Engine in the same way that the iphone is in the public consciousness as being The Smart Phone. There’s no escaping it. It’s not a bad thing except for whackadoo conservatives that refuse to believe a search engine that delivers things like “facts” because they refute their insane right-wing ideals. There are other search engine options, but none that are matching in capacity, speed, or user-friendly capabilities. The market has spoken, google is our search engine.
HA HA HA HA HA! Always good for political insanity.
LOL @ you thinking you’re “fighting the power” using a serach engine called DuckDuckGo LOLOL pathetic
Corporations are bad except for when they’re not, more Jon nonsense.
You’re the one thinking you’re “fighting” the power all the time.
Let me guess, facebook didn’t do enough to stop the election interference, the tech industries must be regulated! You’re not fighting the man there.
Except google, I wonder why? Maybe because conservatives have a gripe and then it doesn’t matter, but when liberals do, suddenly corporations are bad. All corporations are bad, except when they provably harm conservatives.
” You’re not fighting the man there.”
I have to point out that’s sarcasm, it gets lost in internet posts. Irony here is so ironic.
No one said they’re fighting the man. I said that as a search engine, google is the winner. That’s it. I don’t necessarily agree with their other business practices and I think all major corporations are bad, I merely said it’s pointless to try and push another search engine because Google is the winner.
Additionally, your claims that google has proven to “provably harm conservatives” is nonsense. Your conservative crony buddies are up in arms that google gives results that shine a negative light on conservatives. That’s because google points to articles on the internet, and fact shines a negative light on conservatives. Yours is the side after all that tried asking Mark Zuckerberg why one of their neice’s found negative results when searching for conservatives on a Samsung product that he referred to as an iphone. Your party is filled with clueless idiots that don’t understand technology, is what I’m saying.
Yours is also the party of Polar, the IJ user who frequently spouts the belief that liberals are using BOTs to downvote his often completely unhinged posts.
Are you just going to get another board shut down? Probably.
“No one said they’re fighting the man.”
“you thinking you’re “fighting the power” ”
Yes they did. Try and keep up, puffy chest, maybe if you calm that puff down, you can read rather than go fisticuffs.
“I merely said it’s pointless to try and push another search engine because Google is the winner.”
It’s not pointless, and just because they are the winner doesn’t mean it’s good. Name something bad Google has done. They’ve done a lot. Competition stops that.
“Additionally, your claims that google has proven to “provably harm conservatives” is nonsense. ”
This is not nonsense it is verifiable fact. Hiring practices, and discrimination practices within the firm, as well as algorithms designed to block political people they don’t like. All have been confirmed. These conversations were had, there were numerous leaks about it. When you have a company trying to be the “winner” in all information, and they brag about changing public opinion, that’s a verifiable problem, and yes, I know that’s why you are for them, authoritarian.
“That’s because google points to articles on the internet, and fact shines a negative light on conservatives”
No, that’s not why I say that, people can read for themselves, I’m not accusing facts of being bad for conservatives.
“Yours is the side after all that tried asking Mark Zuckerberg why one of their neice’s found negative results when searching for conservatives on a Samsung product that he referred to as an iphone. Your party is filled with clueless idiots that don’t understand technology, is what I’m saying. ”
That’s a legitimate, if the search engine is biased and they talked about making either negative or no positive results come up. You don’t understand the bias. At all, this is known google literally tried to do this. It’s not opinion any more. It wasn’t that negative results could come up, it was that they were rigged to do so, and they had discussed doing it, to harm conservatives.
“Yours is also the party of Polar, the IJ user who frequently spouts the belief that liberals are using BOTs to downvote his often completely unhinged posts.
Are you just going to get another board shut down? Probably.”
I don’t get boards shut down puffy chest, you do. Bots do indeed downlike here, and have in the past, it’s not hard to do, and it has happened. We saw 100 dislikes in the past. 100!! There aren’t that many people here. It has occurred, so we are concerned it may again. Regardless, that isn’t related to this topic, puffy chest!
Post might not go through, trying again, so it might show twice:
htt ps://www.wsj.com/articles/google-workers-discussed-tweaking-search-function-to-counter-travel-ban-1537488472
Read between the words, Goggle said they were not implemented, but this conversation is clear.
““Actively counter islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc.””
What is Islamophobic? MAGA hats? MAGA itself? Trump related aspects? Build the wall? Links linked to that, so anyone that references what the costs might be and studies to a wall? This was the problem. Their algorithms clearly have a bias and assume racism like you. It would be like you policing results, you would throw mine into the racist category. You would put reasonable posts here. Conservatives are sick of this. And proof that they would do this? Who does google consider Nazis?
htt ps://ww w.washingtonexaminer.com/news/leaked-email-from-google-employee-refers-to-ben-shapiro-jordan-peterson-as-nazis
They would sensor or remove results from Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, normal people who never say hateful things, I challenge you to find one truly hate filled Muslim comment.
Google is not trust worthy on it. Nor or you. These algorithms have to go to stop hate have to go, they are against conservative speech. You have not done thought into this, and you accuse the conservatives of being stupid on it. Absurd.
I just source quoted and explained why Google is an issue. If I hear some nonsense of I’m like fox news and polar, you’re a puffy chested buffoon. Make your debate.
And while at the time they said those algorithms didn’t go through, they were put in place in YouTube, and the result was many automatic bans, for even those on the left like David Pakman for God’s sakes. It hit conservatives more, but there should be no policing supposed hate nonsense, and it is biased against conservatives, in that they pick up what is clearly not hate. Believe a man is a man and a woman is a woman? That’s considered hate. Even though that is clearly a valid belief, and, Twitter already had this debate. They said that it is hate and they talked to psychologists who said that they are what they are. Yes, and Tim debated them saying no, psychologists on the matter don’t know what is best for them at this point, simply saying a man is a man and a woman is a woman is not hate. They wouldn’t accept it. Timcast debates Jack Dorsey’s rep, look it up on youtube. You have not done your research on this, you’re clueless as to what the debate is, moderates have been talking about this because it’s a real problem. You act like it’s the right and polar, go tell that to Tim cast, one of the largest podcasts in the nation and he’s a Tulsi Gabbard supporter, or Andrew Yang supporter, who refuses to support Trump, you far leftists, puffy chested peacock. I know way more than you on this topic, stop faking it until you make it, puffy chest.
https://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2014/06/06/zittrain-google-election
Harvard professor who has done studies on this in an interview, with more links on it to sites concerned with google swaying public opinion and elections.
These aren’t ignorant things to say, I’m not like Polar, and you’re going to see how well researched what I say is. It comes from on this topic probably 50 hours or more of research. You don’t know what you’re talking about, Google is a risk, even taking out their conservative bias, and so would any big tech company in their role.
Boring.
Google is an interesting company. Use any search engine and look at how many patents Google owns. Each year, they buy tens of thousands of patents. Why? Because it blocks anyone else from creating something new they haven’t thought of. Their sheer size and value make them impossible to compete with. Barring some unforeseen disaster, it will be hard for anyone to ever compete with Google. Yahoo and the others made a mistake. They stopped innovating. Google spends billions each year on new ideas and they keep getting better.
While Google will store your information, you do have a privacy setting that allows you, the user, to decide how the information is used and whether or not they can use it. Personally, I don’t care if they use my information to create more interesting ads for me. I’d rather see ads about something I find interesting and possibly useful as opposed to the old random ads from the late 90’s. I didn’t need Tampax then and I still don’t.
Seriously, I for one welcome our new google overlords. All of my targeted ads are related to video games or girls with large butts, what’s the problem exactly?
And that’s coming from ME you guys.