COMMENTS: 25
Will Google Take the Internet Over the Cliff?
October 14, 2006 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.
Advertisement
Under the radar of all but the most savvy Internet users, powerful commercial forces are rapidly creating a digital media system for the United States that threatens to undermine our ability to create a civil and just society. The takeover of YouTube by Google announced October 9 and the 2005 buyout by Rupert Murdoch of MySpace are not just about mega-deals for new media. They are the leading edge of a powerful interactive system that is being designed to serve the interests of some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet.
Aware that social networking sites like MySpace and YouTube are attracting the key youth audience, and aiming to maintain their influence over future generations of consumers, marketers are aggressively seizing the initiative. Leveraging existing relationships with Yahoo!, Microsoft, the phone and cable companies, Google and the other large players, the advertising industry are developing an array of immersive online experiences--like MTV's Virtual Laguna Beach and Studio.com's Go Deep--that seamlessly blend relationships with products and brands.
Advertisers are harnessing technology that targets and follows Internet users on their journeys through cyberspace, collecting data and tracking behavior. Virtual software marketing tools will be deployed across the digital landscape so that wherever we go, whatever we do do--e-mail, instant messaging, mobile communications or searches--we will be immersed in enticing content for the lifelong sell: Witness the work of Oddcast, a New York-based immersive media company, whose "conversational character products" represent a new medium for marketing to get inside consumers' heads.
YouTube capitalizes on the growing proclivity of Internet users to be creators of information as well as consumers. And as the network television and cable audiences age, advertisers are increasingly aware that "user-created content"--be it a cute kitty video or clips from The Daily Show--are key to attracting young audiences. But as the Goo-Tube model develops, behind each video will be a powerful connection to an ad, targeted to the user's online behavior, as well as the stealth collection of personal data. As Ross Levinsohn, president of Fox Interactive, noted about his company's acquisition of MySpace, "the digital gold inside of MySpace wasn't the number of users, but the information they're providing." [Google, it should be noted, now also represents the interests of Rupert Murdoch's US empire. In August Google became Fox's principal online advertising agent for MySpace, Fox TV and Fox Interactive.]
Given this emerging marketing model, the US broadband infrastructure may well become one giant "brandwashing" machine. The most powerful communications system ever developed by humans is increasingly being put in the service of selling, commercialization and commodification. And it will lead to an inherently conservative and narcissistic political culture, in which the interests of the self and the consumption of products are the primary, most visible, media messages. And unless we begin to challenge it now, the emerging digital culture will seriously challenge our ability to effectively communicate, inform and organize.
A handful of companies now dominate much of the US new-media market. Five corporations--Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest--control the wires and cable lines delivering us broadband, digital TV and, soon, much wireless service. The viral "Singing Puppy" campaign from Nokia is an early warning that soon even our phone calls will become platforms for commercials. A few other major players--especially Google, News Corp., Viacom and Microsoft--have done the necessary deals to strategically grow their broadband content businesses (buying gaming sites and other programming to insure they ensnare the key youth market). Even if the pending update to the Communications Act of 1996 preserves the core principle of network neutrality, the voices of these most powerful media companies are likely to be the loudest.
More mergers in coming years will continue the consolidation of old media giants with the new. It's only a matter of time before a handful of companies will own TV, radio and newspaper properties along with key online services. This further interferes with the ability of mainstream news media to serve as an effective watchdog on government and big business.
Though the Internet was originally envisioned to serve the public interest, there is no guarantee it will continue to do so. Like radio, broadcast TV and cable, it will continue to be shaped by politics, telecommunication policies and the market. Web activists envision a medium that will always support social change and can serve as a platform to distribute diverse points of view. But if the economic relationships between the old and new media are allowed to dominate online culture, what guarantees do we have that the Internet will continue to be the "people's" medium? Events are moving quickly; media and telecommunications giants already have a powerful hold on members of Congress; regardless of which party is in power, it is unlikely our elected officials will deliver a federal policy that that puts the needs of citizens ahead of corporations.
That's why I suggest that progressives begin to get real--and get smart--about digital media. While we have a few reliable outlets--Democracy Now!, Alternet, Huffington Post and The Nation--the progressive community lacks a reliable well-connected broadband infrastructure that will deliver an array of news and cultural content to national and community audiences. I'm not talking about the wires and connections but about building a coalition of tech-savvy content providers that will deliver to PCs, TVs and cellphones a flow of alternative news and information challenging the status quo.
Imagine progressive organizations making smart deals with a variety of providers to carry this content deep in the heart of the digital distribution system. Imagine nimble, creative enterprises willing to experiment with new business models. Imagine having the courage to go beyond foundation grants and pledge drives and becoming adept at paying your own way. Imagine developing socially responsible advertising that respects personal privacy, is transparent about how data is collected and used, allows consumers to opt out of immersive experiences, fosters independent identity, builds community and supports social justice.
Foundations and the so-called Democracy Alliance have the potential to be the economic engines for such experiments and do the organizing necessary to patch together a content-challenge to the status quo.
As YouTube, Google, MySpace and immersive media marketing reshape the digital landscape, we need to be sure that public interest remains in the picture. And as tech-savvy progressive media find their place in that landscape, we must work together to build an online culture that not only pitches products but works for equity, social justice and the riches of a civil society.
Jeffrey Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy (www.democraticmedia.org).
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 25 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR
REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
Comments are closed-
I wouldn't worry too much
Posted by: Temporary on Oct 14, 2006 12:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Temporary on Oct 14, 2006 12:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Youtube will be sued into oblivion before you know it!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I wouldn't worry too much
Posted by: Guy
Comments are closed-
the overclass, CorpGovMedia & fakeleft "alternative media" all fear broadband video
Posted by: mah_favorite_flavor_cherry_red on Oct 14, 2006 3:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mah_favorite_flavor_cherry_red on Oct 14, 2006 3:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the overclass, CorpGovMedia & the fakeleft "alternative media" all fear broadband video because it represents a way for economic populist memes to rise up from the grassroots and take away from the ideological control they have by means of TV and radio. TV and radio are the primary means of ideological control they overclass has. But broadband video via google video and youtube etc. allows for wildcard leftist populist to send leftist populist memes out into the american meme-ecosystem. THat might cause a crumbling of the ideological hegemony that has controlled America for decades.
Here is a prototype example of such leftist populist videos that the overclass fears.
Here is a prototype example of such leftist populist videos that the overclass fears.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
You mean ...
Posted by: marxalot on Oct 14, 2006 5:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: marxalot on Oct 14, 2006 5:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mean they're going to try and sell me stuff on the internet?
Bastards!
Bastards!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
We need National Public Internet... or Public Internet International...
Posted by: sean000 on Oct 14, 2006 6:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sean000 on Oct 14, 2006 6:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Haven't we seen this before with music, television, and newspapers? Musicians, artists, movies, and publications that start off as independent DIY projects (often free) are eventually bought out if they are successful. Now we live in a world where most of the newspapers, news shows, and published works are owned by giant corporations. There are also those who would like to destroy, or at least kill federal and state funding for, public media services like public radio and public television.
Public radio and TV aren't perfect, but a world without NPR, PBS, PRI, etc. would be unpleasant to think about. I'm afraid the Internet, particularly the World Wide Web, is so commercialized now that it is difficult for free and open sites to become popular without being taken over. Of course the free and open sites keep comng, but they now face an increasingly hostile Web where they must rely on corporate search engines to steer people to their site. Imagine if those who own the infrastructure succeed at providing commerical sites that can pay the price with full bandwidth capability, while those sites who can't afford to pay receive only a trickle.
The airwaves are technically owned by the public - a law that justifies the very existance of public TV and radio. The Internet is more like the newspaper industry. Most of the infrastructure to produce and distribute electronic media is owned by large corporations.
We need more public investment in the infrastructure, and we need a public domain that provides free and open resources to everyone. Base it on open-source and let people contribute. The hardware cost would be huge, but compared to public TV and radio it should be much easier to maintain with the amount of support it would get from the existing open-source community. It would inspire an international version as well.
Google now provides a great set of tools. GMail works well and provides generous storage. Along with You Tube, Picasa image management, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google Desktop, Online Bookmarks, and more... Google now provides a complete set of productivity applications that allow one to access their documents, photos, videos, and e-mail from any computer on the Internet. Wouldn't it be great if a federally funded open-source site offered the same?
Public radio and TV aren't perfect, but a world without NPR, PBS, PRI, etc. would be unpleasant to think about. I'm afraid the Internet, particularly the World Wide Web, is so commercialized now that it is difficult for free and open sites to become popular without being taken over. Of course the free and open sites keep comng, but they now face an increasingly hostile Web where they must rely on corporate search engines to steer people to their site. Imagine if those who own the infrastructure succeed at providing commerical sites that can pay the price with full bandwidth capability, while those sites who can't afford to pay receive only a trickle.
The airwaves are technically owned by the public - a law that justifies the very existance of public TV and radio. The Internet is more like the newspaper industry. Most of the infrastructure to produce and distribute electronic media is owned by large corporations.
We need more public investment in the infrastructure, and we need a public domain that provides free and open resources to everyone. Base it on open-source and let people contribute. The hardware cost would be huge, but compared to public TV and radio it should be much easier to maintain with the amount of support it would get from the existing open-source community. It would inspire an international version as well.
Google now provides a great set of tools. GMail works well and provides generous storage. Along with You Tube, Picasa image management, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google Desktop, Online Bookmarks, and more... Google now provides a complete set of productivity applications that allow one to access their documents, photos, videos, and e-mail from any computer on the Internet. Wouldn't it be great if a federally funded open-source site offered the same?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
You Misunderstand -
Posted by: sjk on Oct 14, 2006 7:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sjk on Oct 14, 2006 7:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or msirespresent the nature of the Internet. Unlike television or radio, the Internet is an open system. ANYONE can put up content. Will those with more popular sites and services get more traffic? Yes. But, under the current operating schemes, they cannot restrict whatever content you post. The Internet was never "invisioned to serve the public interest". It existed first the military, then for the educational community, then for whatever people decided to use it for. It is simply an organized transport system. If not for companies like Google and Yahoo, and others, the rich media content we see today would not exist.
By suggesting that Google is somehow going to 'take over the public Internet' you are pointing the finger at perhaps the most benign threat to the Internet, as we know it today. You ignore the real issues which could effect open content delivery; issues like Net Neutrality -- which none of the big portal operators have come out against, the overreaching and draconian use of copyright and patent laws to stifle technology and speech, and the closing of shared facilities for ILECs -- allowing local carriers to become monopolies in last mile delivery.
The future of the Internet promises more content, more diversity, and more democracy then any medium we have seen. All you have to do is generate the content; Google, Yahoo, or even Fox cannot block your adresses from being announced or revoke your DNS information. Counter to what you say progressives are using the new media more effectively then others, they are creating more content and using content engines, like YouTube, to spread their message. If you believe that Google will begin to censor content, then publish your own engine., but lets recognize the real threats to consumers and the open Internet, at the moment, do not come from new media companies like Google, but from old centralized content providers like AT&T and Verizon.
By suggesting that Google is somehow going to 'take over the public Internet' you are pointing the finger at perhaps the most benign threat to the Internet, as we know it today. You ignore the real issues which could effect open content delivery; issues like Net Neutrality -- which none of the big portal operators have come out against, the overreaching and draconian use of copyright and patent laws to stifle technology and speech, and the closing of shared facilities for ILECs -- allowing local carriers to become monopolies in last mile delivery.
The future of the Internet promises more content, more diversity, and more democracy then any medium we have seen. All you have to do is generate the content; Google, Yahoo, or even Fox cannot block your adresses from being announced or revoke your DNS information. Counter to what you say progressives are using the new media more effectively then others, they are creating more content and using content engines, like YouTube, to spread their message. If you believe that Google will begin to censor content, then publish your own engine., but lets recognize the real threats to consumers and the open Internet, at the moment, do not come from new media companies like Google, but from old centralized content providers like AT&T and Verizon.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You Misunderstand My Point
Posted by: sean000
Comments are closed-
Emerging and disruptive - the internet is both
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 14, 2006 1:08 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 14, 2006 1:08 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In business terms, emerging technologies have no competitors in the marketplace, while disruptive technologies threaten the existence of a host of established businesses. The computer and the solar panel are derived from the same Bell Labs discoveries in the 50's (the same phenomena that allows a chip to store 1's and 0's also allows for solar-generated electricity). Billions of dollars went into uncounted new generations of chips, while there have only been three real generations of solar panels. One is emerging, the other is disruptive.
The internet is also disruptive to the traditional media business, however, and also to goverments who don't like the uncontrolled exchange of information. At the same time it provides uncounted new business opportunities, as well as a basic means of communication. It's worth noting that the Defense Science Board has called for the political control of the internet - their child has gone out of control. Similarly, China is trying to exploit the buiness opportunities while keeping a tight lid on information - investigative internet journalism is discouraged.
Let's consider for a second the physical system that the internet is made of - silicon-based microprocessors, fiber optics and electrical transmission. In fifty short years or so, we've moved from the first solid-state transistor to gigahertz chips.
Currently the internet is made up of many independent physical nodes of servers that communicate using a shared language. I think the worry is that certain interests would like to set up a 'central node' that all communication would pass through; the domestic spying system may be just such a beast, according to the AT&T story. It is a very short step from watching traffic to blocking traffic.
"Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room"
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html
Many companies have such internet sceening systems in place for all computers attached to their network. Now government offices are starting to do the same thing; the executive branch offices of the various departments seem to be blocking access to Democracy Now, according to one set of reports. Is that legal? Bill O'Reilly is good, Amy Goodman is bad - if our employees were to listen to both, they would experience unacceptable levels of cognitive dissonance.
Maintaining direct node-to-node connectivity seems to be the key to preserving an open-access internet.
The internet is also disruptive to the traditional media business, however, and also to goverments who don't like the uncontrolled exchange of information. At the same time it provides uncounted new business opportunities, as well as a basic means of communication. It's worth noting that the Defense Science Board has called for the political control of the internet - their child has gone out of control. Similarly, China is trying to exploit the buiness opportunities while keeping a tight lid on information - investigative internet journalism is discouraged.
Let's consider for a second the physical system that the internet is made of - silicon-based microprocessors, fiber optics and electrical transmission. In fifty short years or so, we've moved from the first solid-state transistor to gigahertz chips.
Currently the internet is made up of many independent physical nodes of servers that communicate using a shared language. I think the worry is that certain interests would like to set up a 'central node' that all communication would pass through; the domestic spying system may be just such a beast, according to the AT&T story. It is a very short step from watching traffic to blocking traffic.
"Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room"
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html
Many companies have such internet sceening systems in place for all computers attached to their network. Now government offices are starting to do the same thing; the executive branch offices of the various departments seem to be blocking access to Democracy Now, according to one set of reports. Is that legal? Bill O'Reilly is good, Amy Goodman is bad - if our employees were to listen to both, they would experience unacceptable levels of cognitive dissonance.
Maintaining direct node-to-node connectivity seems to be the key to preserving an open-access internet.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
GOOGLE SUCKS!
Posted by: hot_rad_man on Oct 14, 2006 2:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: hot_rad_man on Oct 14, 2006 2:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you use Google be prepared for what I am about to tell you. They have hired pigs from Bush's spy troop and Google logs all your searches and keeps them for the pigs to muse over and ferret out snippets of terrorism so they can arrest users who are doing too much searching. I stopped using Google when I discovered www.scroogle.com and they do not keep records of my searching. If they did I would be in a secret prison by now! So screw Google and go Scroogle!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» www.scroogle.org not scroogle.com
Posted by: crisman
Comments are closed-
you don't seem to consider...
Posted by: bonobo80 on Oct 14, 2006 5:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: bonobo80 on Oct 14, 2006 5:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what about wikipedia?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
xenomera
Posted by: xenomera on Oct 14, 2006 7:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: xenomera on Oct 14, 2006 7:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with marxalot ("They're trying to sell me things on the Internet"? "Zut alors!!")
I'm a bit of a lefty, but come on, somebody has to pay for this stuff. And part of the fun is seeing how the commercial forces (which will always be with us) react to various developments, and how the people on the net react to it. I guess I just don't mind if somebody asks me to watch a couple of commercials to see some original content. What is the problem? I don't have to buy the stuff.
Calling it some terrible conspiracy is just boring, and not very inciteful. I think I see your frustration, but please, get a little more sophisticated in your arguments.
I'm a bit of a lefty, but come on, somebody has to pay for this stuff. And part of the fun is seeing how the commercial forces (which will always be with us) react to various developments, and how the people on the net react to it. I guess I just don't mind if somebody asks me to watch a couple of commercials to see some original content. What is the problem? I don't have to buy the stuff.
Calling it some terrible conspiracy is just boring, and not very inciteful. I think I see your frustration, but please, get a little more sophisticated in your arguments.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The problem with more sophistry...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Article ignores those not in the West
Posted by: kingfelix
» RE: Article ignores those not in the West
Posted by: kingfelix
Comments are closed-
Just a quick note...
Posted by: adamk on Oct 15, 2006 8:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: adamk on Oct 15, 2006 8:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this article is doing is murking the real debate. Why you decided to focus strictly on Google, I'm really not sure. This article should focus on the "Five corporations" that you mentioned briefly in your article --Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest. These are the companies that are going to truly change the internet as we know it, by controlling the speed and portions of their networks they allow specific corporations and media content to take up the greatest bandwith, in other words, the net neutrality debate..
Google, on the other hand, is one of the few major players that has actually spoken out in favor of net neutrality, simply because it is in their vested interest. The higher amount fo bandwith they are allowed to have in networks, the higher quality content they can offer, i.e. services like YouTube. To lump Google in with Viacom, News Corp, and Microsoft shows a vital misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the real issues here. These companies/corporations are on different sides of the fence.
Google, on the other hand, is one of the few major players that has actually spoken out in favor of net neutrality, simply because it is in their vested interest. The higher amount fo bandwith they are allowed to have in networks, the higher quality content they can offer, i.e. services like YouTube. To lump Google in with Viacom, News Corp, and Microsoft shows a vital misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the real issues here. These companies/corporations are on different sides of the fence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes, net neutrality is the issue
Posted by: LeftWright
Comments are closed-
Fun on the internet
Posted by: Smiggsy on Oct 15, 2006 12:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Smiggsy on Oct 15, 2006 12:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YouTube is the most fun I've had on a PC connected to the web since email. Though I fear that the purpose & means by which it was invented - sharing stuff - a notion not readily espoused by the corporate knob, will be ruined by the new owners.
The inventors deserve every cent they got. Good for them!
For the rest of us it's a bit of shame that it will now be twisted into something its not supposed to be to justify the price tage.
The inventors deserve every cent they got. Good for them!
For the rest of us it's a bit of shame that it will now be twisted into something its not supposed to be to justify the price tage.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Much Ado About Nothing
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 15, 2006 3:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 15, 2006 3:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it was a bit ridicuolous that the founders of You Tube got so much money, over 1.6 billion for it. But, that just shows you the values of a society that can pay teachers peanuts and for entertainment pay megabucks. At any rate, I don't see how this will really hurt the medium of the internet either. The net neutrality issue is far, far, more serious. And, as another poster noted, issues such as Digital Rights Management (DRM), where music sellers want to sell you music heavily restricted from being shared is also important. And, yet other issues are also significant, such as being annonymous on the internet, identity theft, government spying on traffic, etc. Therefore, to worry about Google buying YouTube I think is much ado about nothing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
This article is rediculous
Posted by: GVon on Oct 15, 2006 9:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: GVon on Oct 15, 2006 9:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article implies that google is a company who is, or is about to, start using its search technology, advertising technology, and data logs to indoctrinate the masses, and harm independent media. This simply is not true, for a variety of reasons, which is very apparent when you research the nature of these Google technologies.
Google's search technology is fundamentally without political, corporate, or personal bias of any kind. Despite what many people believe, there isn't a group of people at Google who decide what should and shouldn't be in the results any one search query. If you do some reading on the subject, you'll find that there search results are the generated from what's called 'robots', which are programs that scout and catalog every website on the internet in real time. Web page ranks are determined by how many websites link to them, weighted by the rank of the web page. The entire process is done with sophisticated and well designed algorithms, and not done by people. This way search results are determined by the will of the Internet as a collective, and not by a group of people with a specific agenda, except in the rare cases of "google bombing."
The moment Google stops generating search results this way, and starts altering the results themselves based on personal or political or corporate biases, I suspect the loyalty and support of their user base would be destroyed by public outrage.
Google's targeting advertising is equally devoid of personal or political bias. They use very intelligent and well designed algorithms to deliver advertisements based on your interests. The data they collect is not analyzed by a group of people who are invading your privacy. It is collected and analyzed by sophisticated computer algorithms that determine what type of advertisements you would be interested in seeing, based on the content of web pages you are looking at. The accuracy and apparent intelligence of these targeted ads often give you a paranoid Orwellian feeling, like they read your mind. But advertisement targeted to your interests is nothing new, they are just doing it with sophisticated computer programs that are really good at guessing what you want. This leads to less irrelevant advertising, making the ads less annoying, and more useful. No person is studying you or your web surfing habits to determine these results, its all done by computer programs. And no one is forcing you to click on the ads, they are clearly marked as ads and very easy to ignore.
Google is also actively supporting independent media. Google, along with Al Gore and many other people, created Current TV, the shining star for diverse, independent, and people empowering content on cable television. Their creation and support of Current TV speaks a lot about Google's contribution to independent media.
I think there are corporations that use the media to support political agendas, strangle independent voices, and indoctrinate the masses. One in particular that I feel deserves and needs this negative attention is Viacom. But Google is in a category of it's own; its the one corporate media giant who is using its power and influence to help empower the voices of the many. Google is a valuable ally of independent media, and I feel that this article's preemptive strike against Google is unmerited, poorly researched, and unhelpful.
Google's search technology is fundamentally without political, corporate, or personal bias of any kind. Despite what many people believe, there isn't a group of people at Google who decide what should and shouldn't be in the results any one search query. If you do some reading on the subject, you'll find that there search results are the generated from what's called 'robots', which are programs that scout and catalog every website on the internet in real time. Web page ranks are determined by how many websites link to them, weighted by the rank of the web page. The entire process is done with sophisticated and well designed algorithms, and not done by people. This way search results are determined by the will of the Internet as a collective, and not by a group of people with a specific agenda, except in the rare cases of "google bombing."
The moment Google stops generating search results this way, and starts altering the results themselves based on personal or political or corporate biases, I suspect the loyalty and support of their user base would be destroyed by public outrage.
Google's targeting advertising is equally devoid of personal or political bias. They use very intelligent and well designed algorithms to deliver advertisements based on your interests. The data they collect is not analyzed by a group of people who are invading your privacy. It is collected and analyzed by sophisticated computer algorithms that determine what type of advertisements you would be interested in seeing, based on the content of web pages you are looking at. The accuracy and apparent intelligence of these targeted ads often give you a paranoid Orwellian feeling, like they read your mind. But advertisement targeted to your interests is nothing new, they are just doing it with sophisticated computer programs that are really good at guessing what you want. This leads to less irrelevant advertising, making the ads less annoying, and more useful. No person is studying you or your web surfing habits to determine these results, its all done by computer programs. And no one is forcing you to click on the ads, they are clearly marked as ads and very easy to ignore.
Google is also actively supporting independent media. Google, along with Al Gore and many other people, created Current TV, the shining star for diverse, independent, and people empowering content on cable television. Their creation and support of Current TV speaks a lot about Google's contribution to independent media.
I think there are corporations that use the media to support political agendas, strangle independent voices, and indoctrinate the masses. One in particular that I feel deserves and needs this negative attention is Viacom. But Google is in a category of it's own; its the one corporate media giant who is using its power and influence to help empower the voices of the many. Google is a valuable ally of independent media, and I feel that this article's preemptive strike against Google is unmerited, poorly researched, and unhelpful.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This article is rediculous
Posted by: Stephane
Comments are closed-
I have bigger problem folks
Posted by: jpinder on Oct 16, 2006 8:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jpinder on Oct 16, 2006 8:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And then there were earthquakes, tornadoes, famine, disease and war. It’s just the internet, you fear mongers. Visa, ebay, radio shack and worse, my government has some of my info so why should I care about myspace and ilk. Please, I have bigger problems.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Will Google Take the Internet Over the Cliff? NOT VERY LIKELY
Posted by: Artaraxl on Oct 16, 2006 11:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Artaraxl on Oct 16, 2006 11:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google's one of the good guys. And there are plenty of AlterNetives to YouTube.
To wit:
Ten video sharing services compared
To wit:
Ten video sharing services compared
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
What?
Posted by: joeblo on Oct 16, 2006 4:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: joeblo on Oct 16, 2006 4:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this a joke similar to the article posted about how myspace makes it easier to register domain names and makes people stupid?
Why does the predominance of articles on alternet address its audience as if they were simpletons?
In the public interest? As long as the 'public' thinks the internet is comprised of individual sites; google, myspace, etc, then this kind of BS will pass as authentic. The only thing that is going on is that the internet is being formed into Americas other favorite pastime, you are replaceing one phosphor tube(TV) for another(PC). The PC is NOT TV!!! Dont like what you see, post your own. Break out of the box people, this is a TWO WAY MEDIUM.
Just because you felt it necessary to submit to an authoritarian experience on the internet, doesnt mean that the 'problems' you see are real. You are just reaping what you have sown, stop blaming everyone else and step up to the plate and educate yourself.
Why does the predominance of articles on alternet address its audience as if they were simpletons?
In the public interest? As long as the 'public' thinks the internet is comprised of individual sites; google, myspace, etc, then this kind of BS will pass as authentic. The only thing that is going on is that the internet is being formed into Americas other favorite pastime, you are replaceing one phosphor tube(TV) for another(PC). The PC is NOT TV!!! Dont like what you see, post your own. Break out of the box people, this is a TWO WAY MEDIUM.
Just because you felt it necessary to submit to an authoritarian experience on the internet, doesnt mean that the 'problems' you see are real. You are just reaping what you have sown, stop blaming everyone else and step up to the plate and educate yourself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Paranoia?
Posted by: cynicaloptimist on Oct 17, 2006 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: cynicaloptimist on Oct 17, 2006 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like The Nation, and respect what Digital Democracy is doing, but this article is filled with half-truths and hyperbole. First of all, the Internet was not created to "serve the public interest" (what has?) -- it was created by the DoD to help fight wars. And second, I'm not sure what makes the author think we don't already live in an "inherently conservative and narcissistic political culture, in which the interests of the self and the consumption of products are the primary, most visible, media messages." Of course we should do something about it -- some people already are. But you're not going to change Capitalism overnight.
And I don't have to "imagine nimble, creative enterprises willing to experiment with new business models" because it is happening on the Internet already -- that is exactly what YouTube, SustainLane and countless other sites provide. I also don't have to "imagine progressive organizations making smart deals with a variety of providers to carry this content deep in the heart of the digital distribution system" because they are already doing just that -- I get my Democracy Now! podcast from iTunes every morning, and my AlterNet headlines from my Google Reader.
It is also important to distinguish between the media owners from the media conduits, both of which are becoming a distressingly few companies and should be closely watched by both the FCC and the public. But Google is neither a media owner (they create no content) or a media conduit (they have no delivery mechanism), so I'm not sure how using it as an example supports the author's argument.
Socially responsible advertising is a noble but elusive goal, and we have a looong way to go. In the mean time, I can certainly ignore irrelevant ads and I sorta look forward to the day when every ad I am subjected to is handpicked for my interests: does that make me narcissistic or more efficient?
And I don't have to "imagine nimble, creative enterprises willing to experiment with new business models" because it is happening on the Internet already -- that is exactly what YouTube, SustainLane and countless other sites provide. I also don't have to "imagine progressive organizations making smart deals with a variety of providers to carry this content deep in the heart of the digital distribution system" because they are already doing just that -- I get my Democracy Now! podcast from iTunes every morning, and my AlterNet headlines from my Google Reader.
It is also important to distinguish between the media owners from the media conduits, both of which are becoming a distressingly few companies and should be closely watched by both the FCC and the public. But Google is neither a media owner (they create no content) or a media conduit (they have no delivery mechanism), so I'm not sure how using it as an example supports the author's argument.
Socially responsible advertising is a noble but elusive goal, and we have a looong way to go. In the mean time, I can certainly ignore irrelevant ads and I sorta look forward to the day when every ad I am subjected to is handpicked for my interests: does that make me narcissistic or more efficient?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Alternet Comments:
» RE: I wouldn't worry too much
Posted by: Guy
» RE: You Misunderstand My Point
Posted by: sean000
» www.scroogle.org not scroogle.com
Posted by: crisman
» The problem with more sophistry...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Article ignores those not in the West
Posted by: kingfelix
» RE: Article ignores those not in the West
Posted by: kingfelix
» Yes, net neutrality is the issue
Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: This article is rediculous
Posted by: Stephane
Comments are closed-
I wouldn't worry too much
Posted by: Temporary on Oct 14, 2006 12:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Temporary on Oct 14, 2006 12:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Youtube will be sued into oblivion before you know it!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I wouldn't worry too much
Posted by: Guy
Comments are closed-
the overclass, CorpGovMedia & fakeleft "alternative media" all fear broadband video
Posted by: mah_favorite_flavor_cherry_red on Oct 14, 2006 3:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mah_favorite_flavor_cherry_red on Oct 14, 2006 3:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the overclass, CorpGovMedia & the fakeleft "alternative media" all fear broadband video because it represents a way for economic populist memes to rise up from the grassroots and take away from the ideological control they have by means of TV and radio. TV and radio are the primary means of ideological control they overclass has. But broadband video via google video and youtube etc. allows for wildcard leftist populist to send leftist populist memes out into the american meme-ecosystem. THat might cause a crumbling of the ideological hegemony that has controlled America for decades.
Here is a prototype example of such leftist populist videos that the overclass fears.
Here is a prototype example of such leftist populist videos that the overclass fears.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
You mean ...
Posted by: marxalot on Oct 14, 2006 5:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: marxalot on Oct 14, 2006 5:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mean they're going to try and sell me stuff on the internet?
Bastards!
Bastards!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
We need National Public Internet... or Public Internet International...
Posted by: sean000 on Oct 14, 2006 6:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sean000 on Oct 14, 2006 6:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Haven't we seen this before with music, television, and newspapers? Musicians, artists, movies, and publications that start off as independent DIY projects (often free) are eventually bought out if they are successful. Now we live in a world where most of the newspapers, news shows, and published works are owned by giant corporations. There are also those who would like to destroy, or at least kill federal and state funding for, public media services like public radio and public television.
Public radio and TV aren't perfect, but a world without NPR, PBS, PRI, etc. would be unpleasant to think about. I'm afraid the Internet, particularly the World Wide Web, is so commercialized now that it is difficult for free and open sites to become popular without being taken over. Of course the free and open sites keep comng, but they now face an increasingly hostile Web where they must rely on corporate search engines to steer people to their site. Imagine if those who own the infrastructure succeed at providing commerical sites that can pay the price with full bandwidth capability, while those sites who can't afford to pay receive only a trickle.
The airwaves are technically owned by the public - a law that justifies the very existance of public TV and radio. The Internet is more like the newspaper industry. Most of the infrastructure to produce and distribute electronic media is owned by large corporations.
We need more public investment in the infrastructure, and we need a public domain that provides free and open resources to everyone. Base it on open-source and let people contribute. The hardware cost would be huge, but compared to public TV and radio it should be much easier to maintain with the amount of support it would get from the existing open-source community. It would inspire an international version as well.
Google now provides a great set of tools. GMail works well and provides generous storage. Along with You Tube, Picasa image management, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google Desktop, Online Bookmarks, and more... Google now provides a complete set of productivity applications that allow one to access their documents, photos, videos, and e-mail from any computer on the Internet. Wouldn't it be great if a federally funded open-source site offered the same?
Public radio and TV aren't perfect, but a world without NPR, PBS, PRI, etc. would be unpleasant to think about. I'm afraid the Internet, particularly the World Wide Web, is so commercialized now that it is difficult for free and open sites to become popular without being taken over. Of course the free and open sites keep comng, but they now face an increasingly hostile Web where they must rely on corporate search engines to steer people to their site. Imagine if those who own the infrastructure succeed at providing commerical sites that can pay the price with full bandwidth capability, while those sites who can't afford to pay receive only a trickle.
The airwaves are technically owned by the public - a law that justifies the very existance of public TV and radio. The Internet is more like the newspaper industry. Most of the infrastructure to produce and distribute electronic media is owned by large corporations.
We need more public investment in the infrastructure, and we need a public domain that provides free and open resources to everyone. Base it on open-source and let people contribute. The hardware cost would be huge, but compared to public TV and radio it should be much easier to maintain with the amount of support it would get from the existing open-source community. It would inspire an international version as well.
Google now provides a great set of tools. GMail works well and provides generous storage. Along with You Tube, Picasa image management, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google Desktop, Online Bookmarks, and more... Google now provides a complete set of productivity applications that allow one to access their documents, photos, videos, and e-mail from any computer on the Internet. Wouldn't it be great if a federally funded open-source site offered the same?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
You Misunderstand -
Posted by: sjk on Oct 14, 2006 7:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sjk on Oct 14, 2006 7:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or msirespresent the nature of the Internet. Unlike television or radio, the Internet is an open system. ANYONE can put up content. Will those with more popular sites and services get more traffic? Yes. But, under the current operating schemes, they cannot restrict whatever content you post. The Internet was never "invisioned to serve the public interest". It existed first the military, then for the educational community, then for whatever people decided to use it for. It is simply an organized transport system. If not for companies like Google and Yahoo, and others, the rich media content we see today would not exist.
By suggesting that Google is somehow going to 'take over the public Internet' you are pointing the finger at perhaps the most benign threat to the Internet, as we know it today. You ignore the real issues which could effect open content delivery; issues like Net Neutrality -- which none of the big portal operators have come out against, the overreaching and draconian use of copyright and patent laws to stifle technology and speech, and the closing of shared facilities for ILECs -- allowing local carriers to become monopolies in last mile delivery.
The future of the Internet promises more content, more diversity, and more democracy then any medium we have seen. All you have to do is generate the content; Google, Yahoo, or even Fox cannot block your adresses from being announced or revoke your DNS information. Counter to what you say progressives are using the new media more effectively then others, they are creating more content and using content engines, like YouTube, to spread their message. If you believe that Google will begin to censor content, then publish your own engine., but lets recognize the real threats to consumers and the open Internet, at the moment, do not come from new media companies like Google, but from old centralized content providers like AT&T and Verizon.
By suggesting that Google is somehow going to 'take over the public Internet' you are pointing the finger at perhaps the most benign threat to the Internet, as we know it today. You ignore the real issues which could effect open content delivery; issues like Net Neutrality -- which none of the big portal operators have come out against, the overreaching and draconian use of copyright and patent laws to stifle technology and speech, and the closing of shared facilities for ILECs -- allowing local carriers to become monopolies in last mile delivery.
The future of the Internet promises more content, more diversity, and more democracy then any medium we have seen. All you have to do is generate the content; Google, Yahoo, or even Fox cannot block your adresses from being announced or revoke your DNS information. Counter to what you say progressives are using the new media more effectively then others, they are creating more content and using content engines, like YouTube, to spread their message. If you believe that Google will begin to censor content, then publish your own engine., but lets recognize the real threats to consumers and the open Internet, at the moment, do not come from new media companies like Google, but from old centralized content providers like AT&T and Verizon.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You Misunderstand My Point
Posted by: sean000
Comments are closed-
Emerging and disruptive - the internet is both
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 14, 2006 1:08 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 14, 2006 1:08 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In business terms, emerging technologies have no competitors in the marketplace, while disruptive technologies threaten the existence of a host of established businesses. The computer and the solar panel are derived from the same Bell Labs discoveries in the 50's (the same phenomena that allows a chip to store 1's and 0's also allows for solar-generated electricity). Billions of dollars went into uncounted new generations of chips, while there have only been three real generations of solar panels. One is emerging, the other is disruptive.
The internet is also disruptive to the traditional media business, however, and also to goverments who don't like the uncontrolled exchange of information. At the same time it provides uncounted new business opportunities, as well as a basic means of communication. It's worth noting that the Defense Science Board has called for the political control of the internet - their child has gone out of control. Similarly, China is trying to exploit the buiness opportunities while keeping a tight lid on information - investigative internet journalism is discouraged.
Let's consider for a second the physical system that the internet is made of - silicon-based microprocessors, fiber optics and electrical transmission. In fifty short years or so, we've moved from the first solid-state transistor to gigahertz chips.
Currently the internet is made up of many independent physical nodes of servers that communicate using a shared language. I think the worry is that certain interests would like to set up a 'central node' that all communication would pass through; the domestic spying system may be just such a beast, according to the AT&T story. It is a very short step from watching traffic to blocking traffic.
"Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room"
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html
Many companies have such internet sceening systems in place for all computers attached to their network. Now government offices are starting to do the same thing; the executive branch offices of the various departments seem to be blocking access to Democracy Now, according to one set of reports. Is that legal? Bill O'Reilly is good, Amy Goodman is bad - if our employees were to listen to both, they would experience unacceptable levels of cognitive dissonance.
Maintaining direct node-to-node connectivity seems to be the key to preserving an open-access internet.
The internet is also disruptive to the traditional media business, however, and also to goverments who don't like the uncontrolled exchange of information. At the same time it provides uncounted new business opportunities, as well as a basic means of communication. It's worth noting that the Defense Science Board has called for the political control of the internet - their child has gone out of control. Similarly, China is trying to exploit the buiness opportunities while keeping a tight lid on information - investigative internet journalism is discouraged.
Let's consider for a second the physical system that the internet is made of - silicon-based microprocessors, fiber optics and electrical transmission. In fifty short years or so, we've moved from the first solid-state transistor to gigahertz chips.
Currently the internet is made up of many independent physical nodes of servers that communicate using a shared language. I think the worry is that certain interests would like to set up a 'central node' that all communication would pass through; the domestic spying system may be just such a beast, according to the AT&T story. It is a very short step from watching traffic to blocking traffic.
"Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room"
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html
Many companies have such internet sceening systems in place for all computers attached to their network. Now government offices are starting to do the same thing; the executive branch offices of the various departments seem to be blocking access to Democracy Now, according to one set of reports. Is that legal? Bill O'Reilly is good, Amy Goodman is bad - if our employees were to listen to both, they would experience unacceptable levels of cognitive dissonance.
Maintaining direct node-to-node connectivity seems to be the key to preserving an open-access internet.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
GOOGLE SUCKS!
Posted by: hot_rad_man on Oct 14, 2006 2:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: hot_rad_man on Oct 14, 2006 2:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you use Google be prepared for what I am about to tell you. They have hired pigs from Bush's spy troop and Google logs all your searches and keeps them for the pigs to muse over and ferret out snippets of terrorism so they can arrest users who are doing too much searching. I stopped using Google when I discovered www.scroogle.com and they do not keep records of my searching. If they did I would be in a secret prison by now! So screw Google and go Scroogle!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» www.scroogle.org not scroogle.com
Posted by: crisman
Comments are closed-
you don't seem to consider...
Posted by: bonobo80 on Oct 14, 2006 5:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: bonobo80 on Oct 14, 2006 5:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what about wikipedia?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
xenomera
Posted by: xenomera on Oct 14, 2006 7:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: xenomera on Oct 14, 2006 7:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with marxalot ("They're trying to sell me things on the Internet"? "Zut alors!!")
I'm a bit of a lefty, but come on, somebody has to pay for this stuff. And part of the fun is seeing how the commercial forces (which will always be with us) react to various developments, and how the people on the net react to it. I guess I just don't mind if somebody asks me to watch a couple of commercials to see some original content. What is the problem? I don't have to buy the stuff.
Calling it some terrible conspiracy is just boring, and not very inciteful. I think I see your frustration, but please, get a little more sophisticated in your arguments.
I'm a bit of a lefty, but come on, somebody has to pay for this stuff. And part of the fun is seeing how the commercial forces (which will always be with us) react to various developments, and how the people on the net react to it. I guess I just don't mind if somebody asks me to watch a couple of commercials to see some original content. What is the problem? I don't have to buy the stuff.
Calling it some terrible conspiracy is just boring, and not very inciteful. I think I see your frustration, but please, get a little more sophisticated in your arguments.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The problem with more sophistry...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Article ignores those not in the West
Posted by: kingfelix
» RE: Article ignores those not in the West
Posted by: kingfelix
Comments are closed-
Just a quick note...
Posted by: adamk on Oct 15, 2006 8:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: adamk on Oct 15, 2006 8:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this article is doing is murking the real debate. Why you decided to focus strictly on Google, I'm really not sure. This article should focus on the "Five corporations" that you mentioned briefly in your article --Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest. These are the companies that are going to truly change the internet as we know it, by controlling the speed and portions of their networks they allow specific corporations and media content to take up the greatest bandwith, in other words, the net neutrality debate..
Google, on the other hand, is one of the few major players that has actually spoken out in favor of net neutrality, simply because it is in their vested interest. The higher amount fo bandwith they are allowed to have in networks, the higher quality content they can offer, i.e. services like YouTube. To lump Google in with Viacom, News Corp, and Microsoft shows a vital misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the real issues here. These companies/corporations are on different sides of the fence.
Google, on the other hand, is one of the few major players that has actually spoken out in favor of net neutrality, simply because it is in their vested interest. The higher amount fo bandwith they are allowed to have in networks, the higher quality content they can offer, i.e. services like YouTube. To lump Google in with Viacom, News Corp, and Microsoft shows a vital misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the real issues here. These companies/corporations are on different sides of the fence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes, net neutrality is the issue
Posted by: LeftWright
Comments are closed-
Fun on the internet
Posted by: Smiggsy on Oct 15, 2006 12:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Smiggsy on Oct 15, 2006 12:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YouTube is the most fun I've had on a PC connected to the web since email. Though I fear that the purpose & means by which it was invented - sharing stuff - a notion not readily espoused by the corporate knob, will be ruined by the new owners.
The inventors deserve every cent they got. Good for them!
For the rest of us it's a bit of shame that it will now be twisted into something its not supposed to be to justify the price tage.
The inventors deserve every cent they got. Good for them!
For the rest of us it's a bit of shame that it will now be twisted into something its not supposed to be to justify the price tage.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Much Ado About Nothing
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 15, 2006 3:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 15, 2006 3:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it was a bit ridicuolous that the founders of You Tube got so much money, over 1.6 billion for it. But, that just shows you the values of a society that can pay teachers peanuts and for entertainment pay megabucks. At any rate, I don't see how this will really hurt the medium of the internet either. The net neutrality issue is far, far, more serious. And, as another poster noted, issues such as Digital Rights Management (DRM), where music sellers want to sell you music heavily restricted from being shared is also important. And, yet other issues are also significant, such as being annonymous on the internet, identity theft, government spying on traffic, etc. Therefore, to worry about Google buying YouTube I think is much ado about nothing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
This article is rediculous
Posted by: GVon on Oct 15, 2006 9:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: GVon on Oct 15, 2006 9:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article implies that google is a company who is, or is about to, start using its search technology, advertising technology, and data logs to indoctrinate the masses, and harm independent media. This simply is not true, for a variety of reasons, which is very apparent when you research the nature of these Google technologies.
Google's search technology is fundamentally without political, corporate, or personal bias of any kind. Despite what many people believe, there isn't a group of people at Google who decide what should and shouldn't be in the results any one search query. If you do some reading on the subject, you'll find that there search results are the generated from what's called 'robots', which are programs that scout and catalog every website on the internet in real time. Web page ranks are determined by how many websites link to them, weighted by the rank of the web page. The entire process is done with sophisticated and well designed algorithms, and not done by people. This way search results are determined by the will of the Internet as a collective, and not by a group of people with a specific agenda, except in the rare cases of "google bombing."
The moment Google stops generating search results this way, and starts altering the results themselves based on personal or political or corporate biases, I suspect the loyalty and support of their user base would be destroyed by public outrage.
Google's targeting advertising is equally devoid of personal or political bias. They use very intelligent and well designed algorithms to deliver advertisements based on your interests. The data they collect is not analyzed by a group of people who are invading your privacy. It is collected and analyzed by sophisticated computer algorithms that determine what type of advertisements you would be interested in seeing, based on the content of web pages you are looking at. The accuracy and apparent intelligence of these targeted ads often give you a paranoid Orwellian feeling, like they read your mind. But advertisement targeted to your interests is nothing new, they are just doing it with sophisticated computer programs that are really good at guessing what you want. This leads to less irrelevant advertising, making the ads less annoying, and more useful. No person is studying you or your web surfing habits to determine these results, its all done by computer programs. And no one is forcing you to click on the ads, they are clearly marked as ads and very easy to ignore.
Google is also actively supporting independent media. Google, along with Al Gore and many other people, created Current TV, the shining star for diverse, independent, and people empowering content on cable television. Their creation and support of Current TV speaks a lot about Google's contribution to independent media.
I think there are corporations that use the media to support political agendas, strangle independent voices, and indoctrinate the masses. One in particular that I feel deserves and needs this negative attention is Viacom. But Google is in a category of it's own; its the one corporate media giant who is using its power and influence to help empower the voices of the many. Google is a valuable ally of independent media, and I feel that this article's preemptive strike against Google is unmerited, poorly researched, and unhelpful.
Google's search technology is fundamentally without political, corporate, or personal bias of any kind. Despite what many people believe, there isn't a group of people at Google who decide what should and shouldn't be in the results any one search query. If you do some reading on the subject, you'll find that there search results are the generated from what's called 'robots', which are programs that scout and catalog every website on the internet in real time. Web page ranks are determined by how many websites link to them, weighted by the rank of the web page. The entire process is done with sophisticated and well designed algorithms, and not done by people. This way search results are determined by the will of the Internet as a collective, and not by a group of people with a specific agenda, except in the rare cases of "google bombing."
The moment Google stops generating search results this way, and starts altering the results themselves based on personal or political or corporate biases, I suspect the loyalty and support of their user base would be destroyed by public outrage.
Google's targeting advertising is equally devoid of personal or political bias. They use very intelligent and well designed algorithms to deliver advertisements based on your interests. The data they collect is not analyzed by a group of people who are invading your privacy. It is collected and analyzed by sophisticated computer algorithms that determine what type of advertisements you would be interested in seeing, based on the content of web pages you are looking at. The accuracy and apparent intelligence of these targeted ads often give you a paranoid Orwellian feeling, like they read your mind. But advertisement targeted to your interests is nothing new, they are just doing it with sophisticated computer programs that are really good at guessing what you want. This leads to less irrelevant advertising, making the ads less annoying, and more useful. No person is studying you or your web surfing habits to determine these results, its all done by computer programs. And no one is forcing you to click on the ads, they are clearly marked as ads and very easy to ignore.
Google is also actively supporting independent media. Google, along with Al Gore and many other people, created Current TV, the shining star for diverse, independent, and people empowering content on cable television. Their creation and support of Current TV speaks a lot about Google's contribution to independent media.
I think there are corporations that use the media to support political agendas, strangle independent voices, and indoctrinate the masses. One in particular that I feel deserves and needs this negative attention is Viacom. But Google is in a category of it's own; its the one corporate media giant who is using its power and influence to help empower the voices of the many. Google is a valuable ally of independent media, and I feel that this article's preemptive strike against Google is unmerited, poorly researched, and unhelpful.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This article is rediculous
Posted by: Stephane
Comments are closed-
I have bigger problem folks
Posted by: jpinder on Oct 16, 2006 8:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jpinder on Oct 16, 2006 8:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And then there were earthquakes, tornadoes, famine, disease and war. It’s just the internet, you fear mongers. Visa, ebay, radio shack and worse, my government has some of my info so why should I care about myspace and ilk. Please, I have bigger problems.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Will Google Take the Internet Over the Cliff? NOT VERY LIKELY
Posted by: Artaraxl on Oct 16, 2006 11:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Artaraxl on Oct 16, 2006 11:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google's one of the good guys. And there are plenty of AlterNetives to YouTube.
To wit:
Ten video sharing services compared
To wit:
Ten video sharing services compared
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
What?
Posted by: joeblo on Oct 16, 2006 4:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: joeblo on Oct 16, 2006 4:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this a joke similar to the article posted about how myspace makes it easier to register domain names and makes people stupid?
Why does the predominance of articles on alternet address its audience as if they were simpletons?
In the public interest? As long as the 'public' thinks the internet is comprised of individual sites; google, myspace, etc, then this kind of BS will pass as authentic. The only thing that is going on is that the internet is being formed into Americas other favorite pastime, you are replaceing one phosphor tube(TV) for another(PC). The PC is NOT TV!!! Dont like what you see, post your own. Break out of the box people, this is a TWO WAY MEDIUM.
Just because you felt it necessary to submit to an authoritarian experience on the internet, doesnt mean that the 'problems' you see are real. You are just reaping what you have sown, stop blaming everyone else and step up to the plate and educate yourself.
Why does the predominance of articles on alternet address its audience as if they were simpletons?
In the public interest? As long as the 'public' thinks the internet is comprised of individual sites; google, myspace, etc, then this kind of BS will pass as authentic. The only thing that is going on is that the internet is being formed into Americas other favorite pastime, you are replaceing one phosphor tube(TV) for another(PC). The PC is NOT TV!!! Dont like what you see, post your own. Break out of the box people, this is a TWO WAY MEDIUM.
Just because you felt it necessary to submit to an authoritarian experience on the internet, doesnt mean that the 'problems' you see are real. You are just reaping what you have sown, stop blaming everyone else and step up to the plate and educate yourself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Paranoia?
Posted by: cynicaloptimist on Oct 17, 2006 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: cynicaloptimist on Oct 17, 2006 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like The Nation, and respect what Digital Democracy is doing, but this article is filled with half-truths and hyperbole. First of all, the Internet was not created to "serve the public interest" (what has?) -- it was created by the DoD to help fight wars. And second, I'm not sure what makes the author think we don't already live in an "inherently conservative and narcissistic political culture, in which the interests of the self and the consumption of products are the primary, most visible, media messages." Of course we should do something about it -- some people already are. But you're not going to change Capitalism overnight.
And I don't have to "imagine nimble, creative enterprises willing to experiment with new business models" because it is happening on the Internet already -- that is exactly what YouTube, SustainLane and countless other sites provide. I also don't have to "imagine progressive organizations making smart deals with a variety of providers to carry this content deep in the heart of the digital distribution system" because they are already doing just that -- I get my Democracy Now! podcast from iTunes every morning, and my AlterNet headlines from my Google Reader.
It is also important to distinguish between the media owners from the media conduits, both of which are becoming a distressingly few companies and should be closely watched by both the FCC and the public. But Google is neither a media owner (they create no content) or a media conduit (they have no delivery mechanism), so I'm not sure how using it as an example supports the author's argument.
Socially responsible advertising is a noble but elusive goal, and we have a looong way to go. In the mean time, I can certainly ignore irrelevant ads and I sorta look forward to the day when every ad I am subjected to is handpicked for my interests: does that make me narcissistic or more efficient?
And I don't have to "imagine nimble, creative enterprises willing to experiment with new business models" because it is happening on the Internet already -- that is exactly what YouTube, SustainLane and countless other sites provide. I also don't have to "imagine progressive organizations making smart deals with a variety of providers to carry this content deep in the heart of the digital distribution system" because they are already doing just that -- I get my Democracy Now! podcast from iTunes every morning, and my AlterNet headlines from my Google Reader.
It is also important to distinguish between the media owners from the media conduits, both of which are becoming a distressingly few companies and should be closely watched by both the FCC and the public. But Google is neither a media owner (they create no content) or a media conduit (they have no delivery mechanism), so I'm not sure how using it as an example supports the author's argument.
Socially responsible advertising is a noble but elusive goal, and we have a looong way to go. In the mean time, I can certainly ignore irrelevant ads and I sorta look forward to the day when every ad I am subjected to is handpicked for my interests: does that make me narcissistic or more efficient?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
PROGRESSIVE WIRE
Stop the Execution of an Innocent Man!
DNA testing could free Hank Skinner before Feb. 24 execution date.
Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
Can Obama and Dems Overcome the Right's Talk Radio Monopoly?
Why We're Addicted to Disaster Porn
