Where is Google heading? This is absolutely scary!

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:41 pm

Listen to this:

http://epic.makingithappen.co.uk/ols-master.swf

Made a shiver go down my spine.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:15 pm

Yeah, I find the fact that the New York Times will be the only legitimate news source scary as hell too.

But seriously, what about this scares you? As far as meaningful news content, I think we are well on our way already. Try watching two of the major network nightly news shows back-to-back some evening. Here in the EST zone NBC is on at 6:30 and CBS is on at 7:00. If you do this, you will notice that they practically have the same exact stories from the same exact angle, and in the same exact order. It is as if each new organization polled it’s viewers to see what they wanted to hear and then gave it to them. Local news is even worse.

I’m not saying that this is ok. My point is that if the idea of GoogleZon.com bothers you, do something about it now, because it’s almost here.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:41 pm

I saw that a couple of years ago and what's bothering me now is that these guys got pretty close to where Google has gone over that time period.

Give it another 20 years, this won't be our country.

Immortal Lobster · Post by **Immortal Lobster** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:43 pm

Dedman wrote:It is as if each new organization polled it’s viewers to see what they wanted to hear and then gave it to them.

They do, ask CNN, thier not afraid to admit it, as im sure most other news agencies arent either

and yes, this is scary

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:44 pm

Dedman,

I find it scary that big companies will gain access to every aspect of people's personal lives (look at \"friendster\" as well as consumer preferences) by people willingly giving it to them because they overlook the consequences for the sake of satisfying their desire for convenience (e-trading) or attention (social networking).

You will be able to create and (ab)use personal profiles in a way that could make our worst nightmares come true.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:12 pm

i dunno man, this seems like heavy speculation to me.

Boo · Post by **Boo** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:48 pm

I found that quite scary, and it's definitely possible as well. Technology is getting integrated into our lives at an ever-increasing rate, but that was freaky...

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:57 pm

They left out the part about the great pig flight of 2009.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:19 pm

strange. i didn't find it scary, i found it empowering.

i noticed one error in it:

they said that Google's power is based on their tremendous commercial success.
This is not entirely correct from my point of view. From my point of view, i think Google(tm)'s tremendous success has been based squarely on their Idealistic outlook. It seems to fuel their every endevour. I don't see how anyone can compare Google to Microsoft, they have always shown themselves to be of entirely different goals. Microsoft's goals, just like Sony's and every other greedy company out there - are based on MONEY. Every innovation they provide is built primarily to provide profit. To me it seems that every one of Google's innovations has been to provide true USEFULLNESS.

the big companys love Proprietary formats. DVDs have region locks and copy protection. Sony has it's proprietary memorysticks. It's all to keep control, and as a result they provide less usefullness to the users.
Does Google(tm) do the same things? no. it seems that everything they do is to provide usefullness, the things they produce don't seem to have those kinds of greed inspired limits - Google as a company exudes innovation, it ENCOURAGES innovation - actively encouraging it's users to innovate and hack it's products to find new ways of using them.

And as we can see, Google's \"do no harm\" policy is paying off in spades. The other old school greedy multinationals could learn a thing or three from Google.

Google's success is not based on commercial success, it goes deeper than that. Because it's commercial success is in turn based on it's noble goals of innovation. Google is a success, because it's run by idealistic geeks who are dedicated to making things better by generously giving people what they want. Why was google such a popular search engine? Because it was completely free of human greed biasing their product.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:57 pm

Diedel wrote:Dedman,

I find it scary that big companies will gain access to every aspect of people's personal lives (look at "friendster" as well as consumer preferences) by people willingly giving it to them because they overlook the consequences for the sake of satisfying their desire for convenience (e-trading) or attention (social networking).

You will be able to create and (ab)use personal profiles in a way that could make our worst nightmares come true.

Understood. How many letters have you written your Congressmen and Senetor demanding legislation to stop the practice of data mining? Because until you, and everyone else who finds this scary demands their elected representative do something about it, it's all just a buch of bug business bashing.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:36 am

anti-trust anyone?

by the time something of this nature could happen... i expect that we would have a lot more laws and international policies on intelectual properties, copyrights, trademarks, and media restrictions.

i mean this idea is astounding... and don't get me wrong... the first time i saw it i went 'p-shaw whatever', now... it's a little more hard hitting. of course the future remains to be seen, but i have to say that i don't view this as entirely plausible at all.

let's stop for one second and think about the idea of 'epic':
how about wikipedia? how many people here view the wiki as a 'final source', wiki is a taste of 'epic' if you think about it, but in an encyclopedic nature, as opposed to news, and of course we all know that wiki is NOT the most accurate or trustworthy source on all things.

... of course, i can't count on one hand the number of times i have seen people link it and quote it as 'gospel', so perhaps this isn't so far fetched. (i admit that i have beleived it in error myself)

i guess i am not really scared... if i don't trust a news source, i file it away in my head and ignore it until something more accurate comes along... i would hope we all do the same.

i would like to point out though, that our news is basically brought to us in a similar fashion already, in case you didn't already know, all of the news reporters, journalists, writers, editors, anchor-people, and the like are inherintly (believe it or not), PEOPLE, just normal EVERDAY PEOPLE. I know there is a difference between you and I reporting the news, and a 'qualified', 'trained' professional delivering what they want us to know, but really... PEOPLE!

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:31 am

roid wrote:strange. i didn't find it scary, i found it empowering.

i noticed one error in it:

they said that Google's power is based on their tremendous commercial success.
This is not entirely correct from my point of view. From my point of view, i think Google(tm)'s tremendous success has been based squarely on their Idealistic outlook. It seems to fuel their every endevour. I don't see how anyone can compare Google to Microsoft, they have always shown themselves to be of entirely different goals. Microsoft's goals, just like Sony's and every other greedy company out there - are based on MONEY. Every innovation they provide is built primarily to provide profit. To me it seems that every one of Google's innovations has been to provide true USEFULLNESS.

the big companys love Proprietary formats. DVDs have region locks and copy protection. Sony has it's proprietary memorysticks. It's all to keep control, and as a result they provide less usefullness to the users.
Does Google(tm) do the same things? no. it seems that everything they do is to provide usefullness, the things they produce don't seem to have those kinds of greed inspired limits - Google as a company exudes innovation, it ENCOURAGES innovation - actively encouraging it's users to innovate and hack it's products to find new ways of using them.

And as we can see, Google's "do no harm" policy is paying off in spades. The other old school greedy multinationals could learn a thing or three from Google.

Google's success is not based on commercial success, it goes deeper than that. Because it's commercial success is in turn based on it's noble goals of innovation. Google is a success, because it's run by idealistic geeks who are dedicated to making things better by generously giving people what they want. Why was google such a popular search engine? Because it was completely free of human greed biasing their product.

Give me a break, people use Google to search because it works better than anything else to search. People use Excel because it works better than any other spreadsheet program.

If Google didn't care about money, why would they become publicly traded? Why would they include ads in their search? I think people blend greed and business together too often, no one forces you to use DVDs or Windows or Google, you do so because you want the benefit of using them.

I don't see how "the Google grid" is anything different than what the Internet is now. "She can post anything and it's accessible to anyone."

The scary part then is that a computer can take actual news and distort it into what you want or are expective to hear? I think it's entirely possible but I also think that's a bit SkyNet-ish. For that to happen without anyone noticing seems pretty unlikely. It means we'd all have to be plugged into the same news processing engine, who says everyone must jack into "EPIC" and get their news there?

I think by 2014 the world will be a facinating place, but prophesizing a single company to be the end all be all will just end up in disappointment.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:44 am

Topher wrote:Give me a break, people use Google to search because it works better than anything else to search. People use Excel because it works better than any other spreadsheet program.

If Google didn't care about money, why would they become publicly traded? Why would they include ads in their search? I think people blend greed and business together too often, no one forces you to use DVDs or Windows or Google, you do so because you want the benefit of using them.

Yes google search is popular, WHY is that? Because it works great, WHY is that? Because it's historically been heavily protected from "pay per click" bias, unlike other greedy search engines (*cough* altavista *cough*).
i never said Google didn't care about money or power, they wouldn't be as huge as they are if they didn't think it advantaged their goals. I have not seen Google buy out anyone just so they could run them into the ground, quite the contrary - everything they aquire is integrated into the full Google empire and blossoms under their influence. The buyout of Keyhole(tm) to turn it into the immensely popular and useful Google-Earth is a prime example.

Topher wrote:no one forces you to use DVDs or Windows or Google, you do so because you want the benefit of using them.

I use DVDs because it's a monopoly, there is no competing format, DVDs are NOT great - they are ringbarked by region locking etc, but are the only choice! Do you think i ENJOY all my bought DVDs being region locked? Do you think i enjoy my movies taking up 10x as much space as they need to?
The DVD monopoly was designed into the format by the consortium.

Does Windows have a monopoly because they are the best? No, they have a monopoly because they engage in anti-competitive practices. If we had a choice we'd all be using something else - everyone hates Microsoft.

Google has a monopoly because they are the best there is, and ever has been, and everyone KNOWS IT so they USE IT coz they want the best. All the other search engines sucked, most of them took "pay per view" bribes. Google may in the future be taken to task about opening up their trade secrets alla Microsoft - but as yet it isn't a hot issue - most people are all too happy with Google (who's happy about Microsoft?

, or the RIAA or MPAA consortium companys?)

Topher wrote:The scary part then is that a computer can take actual news and distort it into what you want or are expective to hear? I think it's entirely possible but I also think that's a bit SkyNet-ish. For that to happen without anyone noticing seems pretty unlikely. It means we'd all have to be plugged into the same news processing engine, who says everyone must jack into "EPIC" and get their news there?

I took it not so much that EPIC would skew the truth (although that kindof bias IS definitely a valid concern!) or only tell you what you want to hear in a "protect me from the truth" kindof way, but that it will tell you the truth in the method most accessable to you. it will concentrate on the facts you prefer to know.

i know i often read the news and i get annoyed that they go into great detail about something i have absolutely no interest in, while they skip over topics that i want to know ALL the intricate details about. Basically the news as it is broadcasted now is not well suited to me, and it'd be great if it was.

I agree that Google's looming humungous presence is frightening because of the possability for them to "do harm". But as i've seen it so far, they have been thoroughly dedicated to "doing NO harm", i'm nievely optimistic that it will stay that way.

Call me a closet socialist

.

Topher wrote:I think it's entirely possible but I also think that's a bit SkyNet-ish

i don't share your fear of the technological singularity, i look forward to it.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:50 am

What does \"pay per click\" have to do with working well? To the user pay per click and pay per view make no difference. People use it because the search returns the most relavent results, thus they can get away with only pay per click text ads because they get so much traffic.

I think you're dichotomizing companies into totally good or totally evil when the truth is much more blended. Isn't Google evil for not being open source? Or censoring results in China?

Altavista isn't totally evil, they had babelfish for free language translation. Sounds like inovation to me, even though it probably hurt language translation software sales. Yet it was a good enough idea that Google picked it up.

Google is a business too. Are Google-Earth and maps not a swipe at MapQuest? Is Froogle not a swipe at Amazon? Google video not a swipe at iTunes new video capabilities? I'm suprised no one has mentioned Apple, aren't they evil for requiring you to buy their computer along with the OS?

Come on, you can't say things like \"when Microsoft does something it's <bold> <italic> EVIL but when Google does the same thing it's super fantastic!\" and expect it to be true all the time. For every good thing Google has done you can name something bad.

No one forces you to use DVDs or software you don't like, so don't. Quit complaining about how bad things are when you're the one benefiting from their use.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:02 pm

roid wrote:Call me a closet socialist .

I think it's about time you came outa the closet, roidy.

Behemoth · Post by **Behemoth** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:08 pm

I cannot exactly say in light of events leading to a certain end or even beggining shall we say that this just presented us that i am completely worried about it, although i will say i do not agree with the fact that EVERYTHING all of your identity pretty much will be summed up online, and EASILY accesible to the whole entire world.

With that said i think that moving forward with technology is almost 99% always a good thing, will this be? i cant be sure we will just have to find out.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:16 am

Topher wrote:What does "pay per click" have to do with working well? To the user pay per click and pay per view make no difference. People use it because the search returns the most relavent results, thus they can get away with only pay per click text ads because they get so much traffic.

because if a company is paying to have their product show up higher in the results and the user isn't any the wiser - that's bad. pay per click ads are fine, perhaps my choice of words wasn't the greatest - what i'm talking about is when search engines take payment for raising one websites links higher in the search results - without marking them clearly as paid advertisements.

Topher wrote:I think you're dichotomizing companies into totally good or totally evil when the truth is much more blended. Isn't Google evil for not being open source? Or censoring results in China?

The Google China thing does bother me somewhat, i'm not a fan of China's government. Open source... no it's not a big thing for me. Totally good or totally evil? haha, gimme a break. But i do think most multinationals are quite evil, yet Google seems to be quite good.

Topher wrote:Altavista isn't totally evil, they had babelfish for free language translation. Sounds like inovation to me, even though it probably hurt language translation software sales. Yet it was a good enough idea that Google picked it up.

who cares if it hurts language software sales? as far as i'm concerned if Babelfish hurt language software sales, it's just technology making the langauge industry obsolute (just like the oldschool publishing industrys, i wish they'd just die already). Astalavista didn't copy any language software afaik they did nothing wrong with Babelfish - more power to em!. Babelfish was a free service that we all know the internet badly needed.

i fail to see how the user is disadvantaged by Babelfish.

Topher wrote:Google is a business too. Are Google-Earth nd maps not a swipe at MapQuest? Is Froogle not a swipe at Amazon? Google video not a swipe at iTunes new video capabilities? I'm suprised no one has mentioned Apple, aren't they evil for requiring you to buy their computer along with the OS?

I fail to see how the user is disadvantaged by any of this. As far as i'm concerned Google's products are better. Map-quest sucked, do you still use it or do you use something better thesedays? Keyhole was good, but it's payment schemes limited the amount of users - therefore it's community (and therefore sources of user innovation) was quite limited. I don't use iTunes so i don't know much about that, but the iPod seems really cool no? Why is it so popular? Because it's what everyone wanted - a compact spacious device to store data and play mp3s. It's exactly what everyone wanted - with afaik none of the copywrite annoyances that the publishing industrys want all of us to integrate into our devices to stop us using them as easily as we do.
but otherwise i'm not much of an Apple(tm) fan, they charge too much for their stuff - which limits their user (and innovation) base.

Topher wrote:Come on, you can't say things like "when Microsoft does something it's <bold> <italic> EVIL but when Google does the same thing it's super fantastic!" and expect it to be true all the time. For every good thing Google has done you can name something bad.

No one forces you to use DVDs or software you don't like, so don't.

I am forced to use DVDs, i am forced to use Windows.
People are prettymuch forced to use Google thesedays, so i suppose they could complain. Strangely their voices arn't too loud - i guess coz most people just love Google.
I don't like DVDs or Windows because of their limitations: i don't like region encoding, copyprotection, or the stupid file system formatting on video DVDs and i'm sick of the bloaty security measures Windows goes to to protect itself from my (the user) prying eyes.

Topher wrote: Quit complaining about how bad things are when you're the one benefiting from their use.

no

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:13 am

roid,

a) Google's search results currently are also distorted by paid entries.

b) You may not know it, but Yahoo had been employing the Google search method for a few years, too (licensed, or re-programmed, don't ask me). Didn't help them. Google is swamping the market with successful new business ideas currently however - these guys are incredibly creative.

c) MS has not become so big only by harrassing the competition. They have competitive products. Windows is easy to access. Linux is still something for experts. OS X is too expensive (because of the hardware, not the software). And if you look at how Apple goes with DRM, you will start to wonder whether MS isn't the better choice.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:54 am

Diedel wrote:roid,

a) Google's search results currently are also distorted by paid entries.

Not distorted. They are visibly labeled Ads, they are not purposefully mixed into the search results to make the user think he is looking at a legitimate search result. That would be distortion - the user mistaking a paid advertisement for a legitimate search result. It ain't happening on google

Lobber · Post by **Lobber** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:35 pm

Won't happen

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:29 pm

roid wrote:
Diedel wrote:roid,

a) Google's search results currently are also distorted by paid entries.
Not distorted. They are visibly labeled Ads, they are not purposefully mixed into the search results to make the user think he is looking at a legitimate search result. That would be distortion - the user mistaking a paid advertisement for a legitimate search result. It ain't happening on google

What's the difference? If the first three pages are full of ads, you will still not get what you're looking for at place #1.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:03 pm

Diedel wrote:
roid wrote:
Diedel wrote:roid,

a) Google's search results currently are also distorted by paid entries.
Not distorted. They are visibly labeled Ads, they are not purposefully mixed into the search results to make the user think he is looking at a legitimate search result. That would be distortion - the user mistaking a paid advertisement for a legitimate search result. It ain't happening on google
What's the difference? If the first three pages are full of ads, you will still not get what you're looking for at place #1.

The google ads are off to the side, or at the top highlighted in a different color. If you click "I'm feeling lucky" you get the first search result, not the top ad.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:51 pm

As I mentioned earlier, I saw this about a year ago. A good friend of mine showed it to me and pointed out that it's not intended as \"This will Happen as Stated\", but rather they were postulating where on-line news and media were heading. They used two of the largest \"media mongers\" (and I say that loosely) as a medium to convey the idea. It is rather startling how big and how fast Google has grown. He and I talk this over for a couple of hours and came to the conclusion that no, google wasn't going to become \"illuminati\" or big brother, but that it is very likely that news will be tailored to the individual to give them what they want. As Dedman mentioned, the news it wholesalely being controlled now as it is by the AP. (plus or minus a few local spins.)

While knowledge might be \"power\", it's the person dishing out the slop in a soup kitchen that's in control.

Repo Man · Post by **Repo Man** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:25 am

roid wrote:The Google China thing does bother me somewhat, i'm not a fan of China's government. Open source... no it's not a big thing for me. Totally good or totally evil? haha, gimme a break. But i do think most multinationals are quite evil, yet Google seems to be quite good.

Google's decision to lick the jackboots of Beijing's thugs was driven by the exact same thing that causes you to believe most multinationals are evil: the love of money over all else. Money is neither evil nor good, but "the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil."

I cannot agree more with this commentator,

Joseph Farah wrote:Google has clearly chosen sides in the struggle for freedom in the world. It has chosen the side of slavery – and higher profits.

Google: Enemy of freedom

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:30 am

you couldn't agree with him more?
man, i read that editorial and thought he was an extremist anti-progressive.

That Editorial wrote:But the bottom line and the continuing appeal of communism with weak-minded "progressives" like those who run the company, won the day.

heh, the man you couldn't agree with more, whatever. anyway, lets leave extreme-conservative-wonderland and come back to reality shall we:

you must know China's internet censorship policys. They censor their internet access, you can't access certain websites - they block them. Few years ago you probabaly remember they would sporatically put Google's website on it's national blocklist coz it's ability to search out content that China wants blocked. Google's option was to either be completely blocked by China, or to comprimise. They didn't take a stand against China's policys - some think they should have - but instead they bowed to their demands and made up a special Chinese censorship friendly (bleh!) version of Google.

Joseph Farah says it's about the struggle for freedom in the world, perhaps. Obviously Google doesn't see it in such Grand terms. (or they are evil bitches who just don't care

)

Repo Man · Post by **Repo Man** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:20 am

roid wrote:heh, the man you couldn't agree with more, whatever. anyway, lets leave extreme-conservative-wonderland and come back to reality shall we.

Argumentum ad hominum. *sigh* Alas, I expected too much from you. When this so-called progressivism finally comes full circle to bite you in the rear, you will probably be the first to complain.

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:01 pm

Fuckin conspiracy theorists...

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:02 pm

That's funny, it edits a 6 letter word as 4 letters.
heh!

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:41 pm

roid wrote:Google has a monopoly because they are the best there is, and ever has been, and everyone KNOWS IT

Actually, I agree with both sides of this debate.
I think Google is on it's way to becoming an evil empire. It has unbelievable amounts of power and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

BUT!

There IS a major difference between MS and Google. Windows has never worked well. Google always HAS.

This gives Google a major advantage in the evil empire business. Because folks are really just much more tolerant of an evil empire if it happens to be WORKING. I mean, imagine THIS scenario...

ObiWan: Come Luke, we must help the rebels, destroy the emperor, and bring freedom to all!
Luke: I dunno. Taxes are low, the Gross Galactic Product is up, You can buy droids CHEAP, inflation is down and the unemployement figures have never been so low. Not to mention that the storm troopers have pretty much eliminated crime. No, sorry old man, Keep the saber thingy, I think I'll just go back to the farm and count how well my stock portfolio is doing...

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:06 pm

heh, I guess I'm the only one that find this funny. FFS, its satire! Its like watching Demolition Man all over again.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:41 pm

MD-2389 wrote:heh, I guess I'm the only one that find this funny. FFS, its satire! Its like watching Demolition Man all over again.

speaking of which ... i have been craving taco bell lately.

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:49 pm

Y2K!!!!!

Seriously... Digital media is starting to bother me. People make too big a deal over an ethereal jumble of electrons that can be utterly wiped out by a flick of a switch. I care as much about this as I care that Alex Rodriguez makes more in one season than some 3rd world countries' gross domestic products.

Poor grammar, and run-on sentences aside, go outside and get some fresh air... Before Googlyzon merges with that too.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:29 pm

Repo Man wrote:
roid wrote:heh, the man you couldn't agree with more, whatever. anyway, lets leave extreme-conservative-wonderland and come back to reality shall we.
Argumentum ad hominum. *sigh* Alas, I expected too much from you. When this so-called progressivism finally comes full circle to bite you in the rear, you will probably be the first to complain.

Actually the "progressives" have always been the norm. "conservatism" was the first modern counterculture which started back in the 1800s. The conservatives are the new kids on the block, not the progressives. Unless you are talking about the new counterculture that started in the 1970s as an emulgum of the feminist movement, new spiritual movement, green movement and consciousness movement etc - the NEW progressives / cultural creatives.

Joseph Farah did have some interesting points to make, but i also wanted to communicate my appall at his simplistic "conservativism is the only way, progressives are mentally deficient" stance. Extreme views based on hatred for the opposition like that piss me off.

Where is Google heading? This is absolutely scary!

Where is Google heading? This is absolutely scary!

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: