Google=Goliath?

The internet’s Goliath is getting stronger everyday. Google now claims 58% of all searches on the internet, and that number is expected to climb higher every month until they reach near 100%. Even at 58%, Google has substantial control over the content users see, and what they buy. Their stock reflects this too. As of fifteen minutes ago, their stock is 684 dollars. An investor willing to pay $684 for one stock shows extreme confidence in the company. In fact, broker Credit Suiss predicts the stock will hit $900. Google is a sure bet to getting rich, right? History tells us no.

There are so many examples of companies being on top of the world then quickly finding themselves at the bottom of the heap. For one, the government broke up the AT&T monopoly years ago. If Google’s dominance continues, the government could very well do the same exact thing. Further, the technology industry is exceedingly volatile. Major players one decade easily find themselves spectators the next. In 1997, Dell CEO Michael Dell said if he was in charge of Apple Computer he would shut it down, and give the money back to its investors. He was saying Apple had no chance of competing. Today, Apple is worth more than Dell. In the mid 90s, Nintendo ruled the video game market with an iron fist. Today, they must fight for their survival against Sony and Microsoft. In the 1940s, Chairman of IBM Thomas J. Watson once said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” He obviously was dead wrong. I am trying to get my point across that Google’s dominance very well might be short lived. Nobody knows how people will find websites in the future. Traditional search engines might become obsolete. There is a saying that I feel is appropriate here. The Bigger They Are The Harder They Fall. David killed Goliath with a new invention, a slingshot. A new player could kill Google with a technological advancement.

Big Brother (cough cough Facebook cough) is looking over your shoulder

Facebook.com is digging its own shallow website grave. Through their actions to generate more revenue, Facebook.com is turning away their strongest users. According to an article reported in SiliconValley.com “Users decry Facebook tracking”, Facebook is now tracking their users online purchases-and reporting them to friends. If an item is purchased on Overstock.com for instance, the retailer will notify Facebook of the purchases, and Facebook will promptly display it in the mini-feeds of the consumer’s friends. The consumer is implicitly endorsing the product which in theory will create more revenue for the retailer. Facebook benefits from companies paying them for this service. So everyone is happy right? Nope. Many facebook users were extremely surprised when they saw their purchase was posted online. Personally, I had no idea Facebook was doing this. Facebook has added “stalkerish” features before, this however takes the cake. Like many of the students quoted in the article, I do not want my friends to know my online purchases. I could be buying something that is very private. The article mentioned what if the book Coping With Aids was displayed. After reading this article, I am seriously contemplating turning off my Facebook account.

Although I don’t like it, I believe Facebook has a right to do it. They provide a service, online networking. Since online networking is not a necessity of life and the service is free, Facebook should be able to do what they want. However, they should still respect the privacy rights of their users. Users should be better informed of the new feature. Facebook obviously did not do a good job since I go on every day, and never saw a message about this. Further, users should be able to turn off the feature if it bothers them. People often want their online purchases kept a secret. Besides the convenience of not leaving the house, many people buy items online they would be too embarrassed or scared to buy in person. Yesterday, I bought such a purchase. The purchase was perfectly legal, and I have a right to use it. Facebook defended its practice by saying it was only provided the information to “a small selection of a user's trusted network of friends.” I know Facebook does not seriously believe this themselves, because most people have a few hundred friends. A few hundred friends (or more accurately acquaintances or people you met once) is not a small trusted network. Of course I am not going to say what it was (who knows who actually reads this blog). My stomach dropped a little bit when I thought maybe for a second my purchase had been displayed. After investigating, I know it wasn’t. Further, I do not want my name and image implicitly endorsing a product I just happened to buy. If the company wants me to endorse a product, they should pay me directly, and I will even proudly tell all my friends in person I use. Overall, Facebook has finally gone too far. Even people with the slightest bit of intelligence realized when they signed up for Facebook they were giving up privacy right. Yet, should we have to give up them all? That is a decision everyone must make themselves. Personally, I am going to go delete my Facebook.

Internet Censorship

Currently, Google and other popular search engines are struggling with the idea of when censorship is acceptable. According to an article published on WashingPost.com Google Israel Head Rejects Censor Role, journalist Regan Doherty reports Meir Band refused to remove anti-Semitic material from its search results. Google believes the right for people to view controversial material is more powerful than the harm the content might bring. Google said they only remove content from their search results when it is ordered by a court. An example of a possible removable site would be a copyright infringement. Not everyone agrees. According to Christopher Wolf, chairman of the International Network Against Cyberhate, "The law is simply one tool in the toolbox for dealing with hate speech” (Doherty). He believes that the internet industry (i.e. Google) should remove litigious material voluntarily. I agree with him that the law is only a tool in dealing with hate speech-not the end all, yet I believe he is completely off base about Google having to voluntarily remove things. The task is too big, and too problematic. It would also infringe on internet users rights all over the world.

Although, I despise hate filled material they should remain accessible. If Google removed anti-Semitic material from Israeli viewers, experts predict there could be a “spillover” effect. Since the web works on a world wide scale, citizens of other countries would not be able to view the material either. Therefore if every government protested some form of material, the internet would be significantly more hampered and less educational than it is now. Recently, I did a project on hate groups which required me to go to contentious websites. It was beneficial for me, because I was able to use primary sources in my paper. Further, it would futile to try to remove racist material from the internet. Individuals are able to create new websites too easily. If one is taken off, it will just reappear under a different user name. Also, police and other law enforcement agencies often monitor these controversial websites to make sure nothing radical is being planned. If the websites are harder to access, they wouldn’t be able to do this. I could not be more proud of my favorite search engine. Google believes firmly in the rights of internet users which is a good thing for everyone.

Google getting to know me

Its an axiom of good business to know one’s costumers. If a business knows what its customer’s want, they can deliver. In the old days, a store owner would put names with faces, and remember what was purchased. Today, websites track content researched and page surfing routes to do the same. Experts disagree where to draw the line between acceptable and not. Consequently, the FTC is holding a special two-day review of “behavioral advertising” that is utilized by huge companies such as Google, Yahoo!, and other search engines (Davies).
Federal regulators are interested in the issue as privacy groups advocate for more consumer rights. Federal Trade Commissioner Jon Lebowitz stated at a recent meeting, "Your online experience seems private, but you never know who's peering over your shoulder" (Davies). Behavioral advertising can include how websites remember what you searched for the previous time you visited the website through cookies, or scanning content such as email for keywords and thus displaying related ads. The giant search engines like Google, and Yahoo! defend they only hold information for 18 months, and consumers actually like it because they do not have to view absurd ads. Also, the advertising revenue enables great free services on the websites.
I personally am very torn about this practice. I use Gmail, which is run by Google. I get to use it for free with unlimited space. In return on the right hand side of my screen are advertisements that are supposed to target my spending behavior. So in a recent email my mom mentioned the word “flu”, and google displayed all the places in the area I could get a flu shot. On one hand, I hate the fact that Google tries figure out my consumption patterns. I also am not sure if Google will keep this information to themselves or if they will be willing to sell it to someone else. At the same time, I love gmail. I have my umass email account forwarded to their because of the great search feature, and the ease of the interactive userface. There is a saying in economics “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” The idea applies well here because in order for me to enjoy the great service, I have to give up something, in this case privacy. I suppose the advertisements are not a big deal since I trained myself not to look there. Yet, I wonder how else they can target me. In the terms of services, they say “No human will read the content of your email in order to target such advertisements or other information without your consent, and no email content or other personally identifiable information will be provided to advertisers as part of the Service.” This is really good, but they go on to say “We may combine personal information collected from you with information from other Google services or third parties to provide a better user experience, including customizing content for you.” I am apprehensive of who these third parties are, and what content relating to me they are talking about. This sparked my curiosity about just how good this software is.
I tested the software by sending an email to myself with only one sentence “I want to invest in donkeys.” Eight ads were displayed when I opened the email. Although they all related to investing, none were about investing in live stock. The software has its limitations, but its only time before it will be able to tell where to buy a donkey in Amherst, Ma. I will continue to use Gmail, and am nervous about the day when I will never have to search for anything. The information will come to me.

Davies, Frank. FTC reviews adds shaped by online use. SiliconValley.com Nov. 2, 2007
retrieved online November 7, 2007.