
Do No Evil? Google’s Deceptive Practices Harm Consumers - joelhaus
http://blogs.forbes.com/ciocentral/2011/07/15/do-no-evil-googles-deceptive-practices-harm-consumers/
======
joelhaus
This article is so utterly biased, that I hesitated to post it. However, I
find it interesting how threatened the carriers feel by Google and after the
GLAAD/AT&T debacle[1], I hope that this casts some more light on the shady
lobbying practices of the big telcos:

 _From the Author's bio, Scott Cleland (<http://scottcleland.com/>):_

    
    
      "Chairman of www.NetCompetition.org, a pro-competition e-forum 
      supported by broadband interests"
    

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/accused-
of-a...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/accused-of-att-
astroturfing-glaad-withdraws-support-for-t-mobile-buyout.ars)

~~~
redthrowaway
Yeah, I see a whole lot of accusation and wild language about things everybody
knows, combined with gross misrepresentations about what Google actually says.
I don't think they've ever once cast themselves as philanthropists rather than
a business. They'll be the first ones to admit that their customers are
advertisers, not users. However, their primary claim is that focussing on the
user delivers a better product, and thus more users to advertisers. Everybody
wins.

The tinhattery in this article was pretty hard to read. Hosting this kind of
content isn't really doing much for the Forbes brand.

------
icarus_drowning
There is not a single example of "deceptive practices" in the article, merely
supposed "evidence" that those practices are likely. Whether or not that is
true, without any example to point to, the article is entirely evidence-free.

We have a word for that: it is _screed_. That's all this article really is.
One of the worst OP's I've ever read on HN.

~~~
yaakov34
It's an interesting OP in the sense that it shows that some big players are
trying to brew up trouble for Google using antitrust mechanisms. The screed
itself is not very informative (it's an attack piece by a lawyer for the other
side). Now, I would like to understand who "the other side" really is, and to
get an evaluation of what they hope to gain and what their chances are. It
doesn't seem that the other side is competing search engines, probably more
like competing advertisers.

~~~
icarus_drowning
I have to admit, I don't find it very "interesting" at all. I find it
irritating and sophomoric.

I'm very sympathetic to Google, but I do believe that they are entering
dangerous territory as they become more and more dominant. So I would like to
see a serious critique of their policies and practices.

This is not it.

~~~
yaakov34
I find it interesting not in the sense of "I thank them for sharing their
wisdom with me", but in the sense of "look what's massing on the horizon".

And as for Google's policies in practices, as users of their consumer
products, we're exposed to just one side of it. The money-making side of their
business is advertising, and they tend to be less of a "nice guy" about
_that_. Now, I have no idea how they compare with other advertising companies;
whoever hired the "consultant" that wrote the OP is also playing hardball.

------
vonSeckendorff
This reads like a high school essay. In 1200 words the author manages to raise
exactly one poorly backed point.

I've noticed lately the intensifying assault upon Google's citadel. I have
some conservative acquaintances who lecture me about Google's evil ways - from
how the company has attempted to destabilize the middle east to egregious
violations of privacy. Not once have I heard them harp on Microsoft, or DRM,
or Telcos. Frankly, I don't know where all this Google hate is coming from,
but it must be an orchestrated effort by threatened industries.

We're already seeing a battle front in the mobile market, where no doubt
spurious patents will be trumped up against Google. Anyone else care to chime
in on developing fronts?

------
hristov
Wow, an entire article talking about how terrible and corrupt Google is for
biasing their search results, without a single example of Google biasing their
search results.

------
Synthetase
I'm beginning to doubt journalistic integrity of Forbes. It seems to grant
industry mouthpieces get a soapbox to harm technology companies.

Between the SpaceX/Loren Thompson fiasco and this I'm taking any article from
them with a huge rock of salt.

~~~
redthrowaway
It's _blogs_.forbes.com, so it's basically the huffpo model of journalism.

------
Blend
I don't get it. I was hoping to find references to solid "proofs" and examples
on how Google is being deceptive. All I found was the statement that Google is
deceptive and an entire blog post dedicated to why deceit is bad (as if people
don't know).

------
franze
forbes.com, isn't that the site that sold dofollow-links via a well known
paidlink-network for years?

