Forbes article referenced by Wikipedia:
>> At Alphabet’s annual meeting in June, multiple shareholders criticized the fact that Page did not show up given that he and Brin have more than 50% of the company’s voting power, thanks to Alphabet’s multi-class stock structure. That structure will not change despite the management shift, the company said.
Can control ever be wrested from majority voting power owners? Page and Brin, Zuckerberg, et al.?
Note that some of the above list might include illegal /immoral acts. Depending on what you do you might find success.
The reason VCs don’t do this is the companies that become the 1000X outliers generally have the Super-shares.
How much do "we" own Google
Google Shares owned by GWEI: 819
Amount of USD: 405.413,19
Adsense-Page Impressions: 37.538
Google Ownership Counter
202.345.117 Years until GWEI fully owns Google.
Google Share Price*
Current Google Share Price : 495.01 USD
There is an interesting question here of how much money is someone willing to let "sit there" which is growing slowly vs taking it and doing something with it.
One of the more interesting times of my life so far was during the dot com bubble because I got to see a lot of people suddenly feel like they had more money than they ever imagined they would. I observed that the response was always uniquely personal. From a friend who bought 737 jet, only to file bankruptcy a year later, to folks who converted things to bonds and other assets and otherwise didn't change all that much, to people who lived a life of inconvenience only to have their family inherit a huge chunk of wealth when they died.
I suspect that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to predict how someone would actually respond.
How far will the recursion go?
We generate money by selling iOS apps on a network of hidden developers. With this money we automatically buy Apple shares. We buy Apple via their own app store! Apple eats itself - but in the end "we" own it!
We generate money by selling goods on Amazon on a network of hidden affiliates. With our profits we automatically buy Amazon shares. We buy Amazon via their own marketplace! Amazon eats itself - but in the end "we" own it!
If your goal is to takeover a public company, just start a GoFundMe and let people donate money to you using any source they want. That is a far better way of achieving your goal, as compared to accepting "donations" only via AdSense. Though I suppose that is far less "hip", so it'll never catch on.
As a result, I suspect that a "half-baked idea that will never amount to anything" was the author's intenion, and that your opinion probably is no more unpopular than those who doubt the chicken really wanted to get to the other side.
Reading more, it actually gets even worse. Apparently the artists were using a bunch of click bots to inflate their ad revenue, and they were boasting about gaming Google's anti-fraud systems to do so.
It's one thing to speculate on taking over a company through unconventional means, but gradually chipping away at a company using the very thing that powers it is pretty interesting. It's hard to imagine doing that in 2005, even harder to imagine doing it now.
Doesn't help that online ads have a certain arcane quality about them. It's crazy that you can make money from a blog just by creating an AdSense account.
"We use our AdSense revenue on a secret network of sites, 80% of which goes to buy stock in Google, the other 20% goes towards buy Gcp cloud compute that runs a network of bots that are browsing and clicking our ads this generating higher and higher ad revenues to reinvest"
Now if you could make that work, Google really would eat itself.
Most tech companies have pretty good defences against that sort of thing. High gross margins mean when your involvement increases sales on their platform, their P&L figures look a lot better. High P/E ratios mean every time their P&L figures look unexpectedly better, the value of all the stock you haven't bought jumps by a lot more.
Then again if you yourself are a fashionable web company, maybe it's different, especially if you buy more shares in the platform company you're dependent on by selling off your own stock. Wonder how much of Facebook Zynga could have bought when it was supplying 19% of Facebook's revenue....
Your "silly parallels" make great points. In the "app store" analogy, it's not "apple eating itself", it's developers donating time to create apps who's profits are then used to purchase Apple. So it's a network of volunteer developers eating Apple, not "Apple eating itself".
In the case of GWEI, it's a network of blogs who are hosting the adsense code that is funding this project. I'd imagine the equivalent is "the developers of whatever is on these sites" are, again, donating their time to purchase shares of Google.
After all is done, you can apparently provide your contact information and a portion of the shares collected will be distributed to you but that feature is disabled.
Change it up a little bit and instead give the shares to the creators of the sites gaming the system. Now the developers aren't donating their time, they're working in a business and investing all of the profits in the company that's paying them (in delusional hope that they'll somehow be able to purchase all of the shares).
That's a whole lot more boring, and adding "delusional/somehow" was likely unnecessary. At the end of the day it's people doing (probably a substantial amount of) work to earn money, it's not a magical "self-powering" system (as Google Will Eat Itself implies).
Either way, if the site creators' purpose (or one of their purposes) was to provoke thought as a functional "art piece", it's very cool (sincerely). If it was to make a point of some kind, it's lost on me. If it was to actually own all of Google, this way ... well, good luck with that?
 I didn't see that coming when I wrote that sentence; no pun intended.
 Guessing the "network of sites" is landing pages or similar bunk that starts around page 3 of any sufficiently rare search term. Perhaps it's written up on the site and I didn't dig far enough.
 I'm not terribly clear on how that is supposed to work.
Conceptually, their aim was to use bots to generate traffic that results in ad revenue and then use that revenue to buy Google shares.
Google has technology that detects these patterns and flags them, and the ad revenue from flagged traffic is not paid.
Their website doesn't seem to load well so WP: → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubermorgen
They also caused quite a stir with a satirical website called Vote Auction where people could sell their votes to the highest bidder. → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voteauction
That's the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. The "paintings" in the series are just the number of liters dumped in the spill:
Does anyone remember when this was called the Slashdot effect? Being Slashdotted.
I am no longer affiliated with AtlantaWebHost.com. The company was bought in 2005 and is still running as a boutique provider.
To this day, I'm still pretty handy with crimping ethernet cables :-) I mostly just do it in my own home and homes of friends if asked for help.
Supposing this was a typo, I'll trade you for one "rear window defrogger" and half a "string loaded door".
So surviving front page on HN for a blog post served from home connection should be trivial unless you disabled caching somewhere.
Clearly a European, because of the use of "." instead of "," for thousand separators.
It almost looked like an IPv4 address.
Well, neat idea. Only ~200M years to go. Good luck!
HN is in love with the old web lately!
And I understand, the "new" web is just a boring, commercial and "colorfully" grey. Also, too much JS.
People seem to want to return to that sort of more innocent time since we just crossed 1K users.
Hey, it's been a while but... wait, there was something with bugging-ads... P-:
Google Ownership Counter
202.345.117 Years until GWEI fully owns Google.
I thought websites paid Google to have their ads on their ads network. Isn't that how Google makes the bulk of its revenue?
More info here: https://www.google.com/adsense/start/
> I thought websites paid Google to have their ads on their ads network. Isn't that how Google makes the bulk of its revenue?
Google will pay 3rd party websites to display ads from their network, which is probably what this site is using.
I believe that was one of their first ad products: text ads displayed on third party websites that targeted to website content. At the time, web advertising consisted of loud, garish banner ads, so Google's ads had a pretty good reputation.
GWEI sends money to google, to have them runs text advertisements.
These advertisements will say "please send money to GWEI"
Some of this money will be used to buy additional advertisements. The rest of it will be used to buy GOOGL shares
EDIT: The above text is wrong. GWEI reference a "network of hidden websites", and I guess I don't really know what that means.
> Amount of USD: 405.413,19
Is that ~$405 or ~$405413?
What about the hosting costs?
The currency formatting you have a question about is European formatting.
On gas stations, the superscript is indicating tenths of a penny, rather than pennies.
That latter practice is not exclusive to the US. This sign is from Germany or Austria I believe (LKW is German):