Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The War Against Google

By Jeffrey Chester, TheNation.com. Posted April 4, 2007.


We should not leave decisions about how digital content is paid for and distributed just to Google and its ever-growing list of corporate competitors.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Why McCain and the GOP Are So Afraid of Discussing the Economy
Frances Moore Lappe

Democracy and Elections:
Seven Ways Your Vote Might Not Count This November
Steven Rosenfeld

DrugReporter:
Lunatic Drug Warriors Still Ignore Powerful Pot Science
Rob Kampia

Election 2008:
Weird Theology in Wasilla: A Look Inside Sarah Palin's Pentecostal Church
Bruce Wilson

Environment:
Boatloads of Trouble: How We Are Importing Our Way to Destruction
Stan Cox

ForeignPolicy:
The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It
Tom Engelhardt

Health and Wellness:
Pollution Can Make You Fat
Geoffrey Lean

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Leader of Anti-Immigration Movement Calls Issue a "Skirmish in a Wider War"
Eric Ward

Media and Technology:
Watch Rachel Maddow's Debut Show Launch on MSNBC Tonight: She Fights Lies Uttered by Politicians, Repeated by Media
The Masher

Movie Mix:
Does "Working Girls" Still Work?
Ariel Dougherty

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Rutgers Center Helps Women Enter Politics
Alison Bowen

Rights and Liberties:
On Top of Jail Time, Prisoners Now Face Fees and Surcharges
Emily Jane Goodman

Sex and Relationships:
What Republicans Can Learn from "Gossip Girl"
Sarah Seltzer

War on Iraq:
One Fifth of Iraq Funding Goes to Private Contractors
Willam Fisher

Water:
Is California on the Brink of Environmental Collapse?
Rachel Olivieri

More stories by Jeffrey Chester

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Fearful of the growing dominance of Google, some of the country's most powerful media companies are seeking to rein in the digital giant. Viacom's $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against Google's YouTube and the recent deal between NBC Universal and News Corp./Fox to establish a rival online video site have made the headlines. But this is just the beginning of a larger effort designed to weaken and undermine Google. The stakes are high, not only for Google and the other media conglomerates but for the future of the broadband medium and the public interest.

Privately, a number of media giants have been exploring ways to limit Google's growing clout in the advertising marketplace. Among the options, insiders say, is a possible federal antitrust case, similar to the 1998 case brought against Microsoft. Another avenue is possible actions against Google at the Federal Trade Commission over the company's interactive data-collection apparatus.

Representatives from Google's growing list of competitors say that unless checked now, Google will ultimately control most of the interactive advertising revenues for broadband. Industry insiders understand that control over ad revenues will give Google tremendous clout over the future of content online, since it will have the resources to fund whatever it desires. Consequently, Viacom's legal action against Google is less about copyright infringement over clips from The Daily Show appearing on YouTube than about cutting the search and advertising behemoth down to size.

Currently, Google garners nearly half of all US online searches. The company has also aggressively expanded its advertising services into newspapers, radio, television and mobile communications. As commerce, communications, entertainment and information further merge online, companies that control both the most popular sites and the interactive targeted-marketing (and data-collecting) apparatus will dominate.

The media industry now finds itself in a critical period of transition, which will determine what the financial relationships will be among the major content providers (such as Viacom), mobile and cable systems (such as Verizon) and advertising powerhouses (Google). Viacom chief Sumner Redstone knows firsthand how legal action can humble potential competitors. He successfully took on cable TV baron John Malone more than a decade ago in another well-known entertainment industry lawsuit. As with the case against Malone, Viacom's legal action against Google is not just about humbling a rival but also about getting the best deal for splitting revenues.

Time Warner, Viacom, Fox, Google and the others are really arguing about the role that interactive advertising will play in determining the future of digital content and its distribution: Who gets the lion's share of revenues from ad and content sales? How much access can advertisers have to our personal data? How much advertising can they send our way? To what extent can media giants control the monetization of our eyeballs and our psyches? This is also everything about pleasing the biggest deep-pocketed advertisers, who don't want to see their ads adjacent to videos that might undermine their message. Google has already implemented a technology fix to prevent unwanted content from appearing on YouTube and other sites. Its "advanced content identification architecture" is designed to insure major program producers and advertisers that it can identify and remove any problematic content.

There is real danger that the media buzz around disputes like the Viacom suit and the new NBC-Fox online venture will obscure real concerns about privacy and other rights we have as consumers of online content. As media powerhouses seek to make the new digital landscape a better environment for large advertisers, those who care about the potential of broadband to serve the public interest should be engaged in the debate. We should not leave decisions about how digital content is paid for and distributed just to Google and its ever-growing list of corporate competitors.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: lawsuit, nbc, youtube, viacom, google

Jeffrey Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy (www.democraticmedia.org).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Google Monopoly
Posted by: Wassermann on Apr 4, 2007 1:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that we should be increasingly worried nowadays given that Google is BY FAR the world's largest search engine, with no other company/competitor even coming remotely close to matching Google's unabashed dominance on the Internet (though some European companies are currently working on viable alternatives). Google also has customized search sites in dozens of languages and tailored to dozens of countries (google.de, google.fr, google.ru, google.cn, google.it, the list goes on and on -- strangely enough though, the Japanese Google is google.CO.jp…CO for COMPANY, as in google.[COM]pany in the U.S.), and I assume that they are largely dominant in those 'markets' as they are in the USA.

Even Google's supposed "competitors" all now seem to be 'enhanced by' or 'powered by' Google (as shown by the nifty little badge located to the right of so many search engines these days), thus making them nothing more than Google clones; who knows how many smaller search engines have now been swallowed by the ‘Googelith.’ I won’t be surprised if even Wikipedia's in-house search engine doesn't soon become 'enhanced by' Google. How has Google managed to transform the browsing of the Internet in to a business (one of the world's largest and most obscenely profitable) given that it didn't begin that way? Do the words "Internet" and "business" even belong together in the same sentence when we web surfers aren't even trying to buy anything 99% of the time that we are using Google? Shouldn’t it be google.ORG instead of google.COM; or maybe google.cor might be best, since Google is technically now a corporation and is thus “publicly held,” though we all of course know that this is indeed not the case given the price of the site’s shares.

Doesn't this trend (the 'Googlization' of other search engines on the web) worry anyone else, especially governmental agencies, law firms, colleges/universities, scholars/researchers, etc.? Doesn't Google's ''undisputed'' pre-eminence on the Internet actually ''threaten'' the free-flow of information or ''impede'' the so-called 'marketplace of ideas,' (given that Google IS truly nothing more than an electronic marketplace/business that also happens to be the world's largest search engine: raking in BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars a year on ads that people hardly pay attention to, much less click on). I thought that capitalism (remember: Google is still overwhelmingly a privately held company) required competition; however, it's clear that Google currently HAS no competition. This is why it seems that it is now a blatant monopoly (which is against American law) and, when it comes to the Internet especially, this could be a bit dangerous or 'shady' if you know what I mean. Does anyone else agree? Where are the anti-trust lawyers when you need them?!

In fact (I'm not insinuating that they do this) but the people at Google could '''''EASILY''''' block and/or erase very controversial or 'socially threatening' sites from its servers that it doesn't want the world to see or notice, i.e. websites that some might deem threatening to the 'social order,' sites with instructions on how to make weapons, sites with information on notoriously reclusive yet very powerful people/groups, and so forth. Or they could just as easily bury these ‘controversial search results’ on the 999th page of results that no one will obviously ever reach, thus keeping them very-very low in the results even if they contain highly relevant and useful information (even if these ‘Google-hidden’ sites are indeed 'controversial' or considered 'socially dangerous' it doesn’t mean that they do not deserve to be placed much higher in the results, that they aren't aren't valid and useful and deserve to be seen).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Google Monopoly (cont.) Posted by: Wassermann
» RE: Google Isn't a Monopoly Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Google Isn't a Monopoly Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: The Google Monopoly Posted by: rm6990
Wikki to the rescue
Posted by: rwmk12 on Apr 4, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently Wikkipedia.org is going to launch a new search engine, since Wikki is also weary of Google's impartiality. So, concerns about Google should be geared more towards its ability to maintain its marketshare, rather than its total domination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Just Love a Company that's not really all that bad
Posted by: chomsky on Apr 4, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever see their cable TV channel, Current TV? That channel shows nothing but quality videos from independent journalists, it's the only thing on TV really worth watching.

As much as I hate super-corporations (such as Walmart, Viacom, Microsoft etc), I don't think it would be so bad if these companies behaved more like Google.

The question is, as Google becomes increasingly more powerful, are they going to start behaving more sinister? Are they going to reverse their philosophy and start making more painful instead of easier for it's consumers? Perhaps, but that is just speculation. All of the evidence so far points to Google as a maverick among the super-corporations, a benevolent giant amongst the others. Just look at what they've done so for the web searching, independent media, online video, and even advertising.

I revile most advertising, but Google's approach makes it far less obnoxious and more useful. They just place little text ads in a separate box related to exactly what you just searched for. That's infinitely better then the random sex pill advertisements I get bombarded with on every other corner of the Internet and cable television....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Google works.
Posted by: CriminallySane on Apr 4, 2007 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the reality of it. If you want to supplant Google, do what they do better than they do.

When that happens, they'll take second place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can You Spot The Difference?
Posted by: Mop Cheese on Apr 4, 2007 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We should not leave decisions about how digital content is paid for and distributed just to Google and its ever-growing list of corporate competitors."

"We should not leave decisions about how people do things voluntarily just to people and the people they do it with."

"We should not leave decisions about sexual lifestyles just to two consenting adults."

The fact is, google got where it is now because it was good at meeting the needs of others. You can't stop people from doing things voluntarily just because you don't like what they're doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

u know the sayin' ?
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Apr 4, 2007 6:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if u cant beat em, join em, and if you cant join em, sue em.

Google is the BEST search engine, by far, and since they know they cant beat em, they are trying to sue and use that special antitrust law, which mind you, is never used against the real predators (banks, oils companies, cable etc).

Google has such a large % of market shares because they're the best, nobody tries to sue Apple over holding 80% mp3 players market why sue google ?? Maybe cuz they are relatively new comers and despite being rich have few friends in the establishement ?

Maybe Google should start "sharing" with the white house assholes ?

Anyway.


FUCK YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES !

Google 4tw !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Don't be Evil"
Posted by: Don Garb on Apr 4, 2007 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is Google's motto. Which is probably why they're better, and are beating the competition. Nothing inspires talented people more than being on the side of the good. Psychopaths control far too much of the world as it is. And the thing about psychopaths is, they are always derivative. They don't create new things, they just "acquire" things that other people have created. As long as Google stays clean, they will dominate. I don't feel sorry for the rest of the pack of stinkers. Take a look at corporate news today. Is there really nothing more interesting going on in the world than Anna Nicole Smith? The idea that the public demands this shit is a lie put out by the psychos to excuse their manipulating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Google is NOT your friend.
Posted by: Neiljohn on Apr 19, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having been visited by plain clothes cop's for making a comment in a newsgroup that didn't fit their idea of 'suitable for public knowlege', nothing illegal or offensive unless your a police driver who doesn't care about others when driving on duty, on the back of Google Groups keyword scanning and 'informing' I have nothing but contempt for Google.

I won't use msn or yahoo much either now, often even meta searches using dogpile are little better, but then sh** in results in sh** out so often on the net now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]