Goggle covers eye, lets me see underwater.

Goggle does nothing!

Google Goggle, Google Goggle, oi oi oi!
Google Goggle, Google Goggle, oi oi oi!
Google Goggle, Google Goggle, oi oi oi!

/and now for girls jumping on trampolines

Facebook lecturing others on not being evil...

What Google's CEO may look like

I don't understand how using a popular product that a company provides to promote a less popular product that they'd like to do better is evil.

... I do think Google has a decent chance of losing this one, at least in Europe. There are precedent with Microsoft having to let people choose web browsers of choice when installing Windows over there. The equivalent here would be Google allowing people to opt out of google+ and integrate Twitter, Facebook, Myspace into it search result... which is frankly... why the hell not, that actually sounds kinda cool.

I don't understand how MySpace still has engineers.

Most articles that try to remind Google not to be evil about something really leave me unimpressed. Now, those Republican primaries? Evil all over that clusterfark.

Pants full of macaroni!!: [img.photobucket.com image 112x142]

"Be good, Google, be good!"

Wow, that's a blast from the past.

Nebulious: Most articles that try to remind Google not to be evil about something really leave me unimpressed. Now, those Republican primaries? Evil all over that clusterfark.

Do you check under your bed for Newt Gingrich before you go to sleep at night?

Next time, Google.

NEXT TIME!

"Hey, no fair! We were going to do that!"
"Look everybody, they're not respecting your privacy like we do here at facebook!"

Impasse: Facebook lecturing others on not being evil...

Seriously. WTF?

A challenger appears: Nebulious: Most articles that try to remind Google not to be evil about something really leave me unimpressed. Now, those Republican primaries? Evil all over that clusterfark.

Do you check under your bed for Newt Gingrich before you go to sleep at night?

Not on my side, but definitely the wife's side.

So Tiwtter did not renew the partnership with Google to allow the realtime indexing of their tweets the same way that Google+ traffic is indexed.

Now they want to complain that their tweets are not returned with the same vigor that the Google+ feeds are.



Let me know how that works out

maliklockett: So Tiwtter did not renew the partnership with Google to allow the realtime indexing of their tweets the same way that Google+ traffic is indexed.

Now they want to complain that their tweets are not returned with the same vigor that the Google+ feeds are.



Let me know how that works out

That was my thought as well.

No, I'm sure that before Facebook and Twitter did this, they contacted Google and asked to form a partnership where their results could be integrated too. Right?

I don't get why some people trust and love Google.
They are a giant advertising company who sell information about you and your habits.
This isn't evil, its just what they are.

Who didn't see what they are currently doing coming?
It makes perfect sense.

maliklockett: So Tiwtter did not renew the partnership with Google to allow the realtime indexing of their tweets the same way that Google+ traffic is indexed.

Now they want to complain that their tweets are not returned with the same vigor that the Google+ feeds are

I believe there was cost involved. I don't imagine Google are charging themselves to index their own stuff on their own advertising distribution platform. The complaint is that Google get it for free and others have to pay.

King Keepo: maliklockett: So Tiwtter did not renew the partnership with Google to allow the realtime indexing of their tweets the same way that Google+ traffic is indexed.

Now they want to complain that their tweets are not returned with the same vigor that the Google+ feeds are

I believe there was cost involved. I don't imagine Google are charging themselves to index their own stuff on their own advertising distribution platform. The complaint is that Google get it for free and others have to pay.

No, Google was paying Twitter and Twitter decided Google wasn't paying them enough. In fairness, I'm sure there's some actual cost to Twitter in having the server capacity to have every single Tweet indexed by Google.

Herr Flick's Revenge: I don't get why some people trust and love Google.
They are a giant advertising company who sell information about you and your habits.
This isn't evil, its just what they are.

Who didn't see what they are currently doing coming?
It makes perfect sense.

What are they currently doing that's so sinister? Where is the actual negative consequence to me? The only thing that's happening is the ads that I would have seen anyways are more relevant to my interests.

Google isn't any more an advertisement company than Facebook, Fark, or any other free site that makes money on advertising.

Trocadero: A challenger appears: Nebulious: Most articles that try to remind Google not to be evil about something really leave me unimpressed. Now, those Republican primaries? Evil all over that clusterfark.

Do you check under your bed for Newt Gingrich before you go to sleep at night?

Not on my side, but definitely the wife's side.

How Facebook can be a part of a website called focusontheuser.org is something from the bizarro world. Could there be a website that focuses less on providing a sensible, easy-to-navigate user experience?

Herr Flick's Revenge: I don't get why some people trust and love Google.
They are a giant advertising company who sell information about you and your habits.
This isn't evil, its just what they are.

Who didn't see what they are currently doing coming?
It makes perfect sense.



King Keepo: The complaint is that Google get it for free and others have to pay.

So the CEO of Google+ has to pay the CEO of Google in order for it to be legal?

merkey88: Herr Flick's Revenge: I don't get why some people trust and love Google.
They are a giant advertising company who sell information about you and your habits.
This isn't evil, its just what they are.

Who didn't see what they are currently doing coming?
It makes perfect sense.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

King Keepo: The complaint is that Google get it for free and others have to pay.

So the CEO of Google+ has to pay the CEO of Google in order for it to be legal?

Are you really arguing that google is not an ad delivery service?

randroid: Are you really arguing that google is not an ad delivery service?

Are you really saying that CBS can't advertise it's TV shows during sporting events it broadcasts?

merkey88: randroid: Are you really arguing that google is not an ad delivery service?

Are you really saying that CBS can't advertise it's TV shows during sporting events it broadcasts?

You bolded "who sell information about you and your habits." and asked for a citation. That's like me demanding a citation that CBS has commercials.

I just want to know who they are selling my information to. I'm not saying they don't use it, but it's not like my inbox suddenly gets filled with emails to Home Depot and Lowes when I search for lumber or paint.

merkey88: I just want to know who they are selling my information to. I'm not saying they don't use it, but it's not like my inbox suddenly gets filled with emails to Home Depot and Lowes when I search for lumber or paint.

They don't directly sell it, but "your data" is the foundation of their service. People use their marketing service because they have extensive user data that allows effective ad targeting. Hence, google is selling "your data". Without "your data", google is useless to advertisers. If you want to argue that since google isn't physically handing your data over to people in exchange for money, then I guess you got me. But I'd rather not argue semantics.

Ever notice the ads in your gmail are about things being discussed in the message? I.E. Home Depot ads in an e-mail telling the S.O. to mow the lawn?

randroid: They don't directly sell it, but "your data" is the foundation of their service. People use their marketing service because they have extensive user data that allows effective ad targeting. Hence, google is selling "your data". Without "your data", google is useless to advertisers. If you want to argue that since google isn't physically handing your data over to people in exchange for money, then I guess you got me. But I'd rather not argue semantics.

I think that's a pretty damn big distinction, in that the company buying advertising space never actually sees any of your information.

redpanda2: randroid: They don't directly sell it, but "your data" is the foundation of their service. People use their marketing service because they have extensive user data that allows effective ad targeting. Hence, google is selling "your data". Without "your data", google is useless to advertisers. If you want to argue that since google isn't physically handing your data over to people in exchange for money, then I guess you got me. But I'd rather not argue semantics.

I think that's a pretty damn big distinction, in that the company buying advertising space never actually sees any of your information.

hy·per·bo·le [hahy-pur-buh-lee] noun Rhetoric.

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait an eternity."

I don't really see a problem with this. If Facebook and Twitter are upset, they can create their own search engines and use it to advertise their own products.

DVDave: I don't really see a problem with this. If Facebook and Twitter are upset, they can create their own search engines and use it to advertise their own products.

If Opera and Firefox are upset, they can create their own OS and use it as default web browser for their own products.

Just to be cleared, I totally agree with you, but European dudes in charge probably don't.

Simple...use another search engine. I think there was one called "Bling" or "Bong" or some other hippidy-hop sounding nonsense.

Seriously, it's their search engine. If they wish to promote their other products that's their wish...may be 'evil', but it's their right..
Facebook (by proxy) accusing anyone of 'warping' the internet is comedy itself...

Masso: DVDave: I don't really see a problem with this. If Facebook and Twitter are upset, they can create their own search engines and use it to advertise their own products.

If Opera and Firefox are upset, they can create their own OS and use it as default web browser for their own products.

Just to be cleared, I totally agree with you, but European dudes in charge probably don't.

Precisely. Did anyone get upset when Microsoft pre-bundled Windows 95 with Internet Explorer?
Oh, wait...nevermind. Bad example. I'll come back later and try again.

A challenger appears: I don't understand how using a popular product that a company provides to promote a less popular product that they'd like to do better is evil.

Three words: Microsoft. Internet. Explorer.

That is all.

IlGreven: A challenger appears: I don't understand how using a popular product that a company provides to promote a less popular product that they'd like to do better is evil.

Three words: Microsoft. Internet. Explorer.

That is all.

My main problem with IE was that it sucked, infected computers with viruses, had horrible permissions, and kept asking to be made the default browser even though I hadn't run it (because so much stuff in Windows back then ran IE and ignored that I had set Mozilla as my default browser).

The fact that it was impossible to uninstall because it was part of the core of the operating system was annoying, but if all of the above was false I never would have cared.

Google ads are blockable with one of the most popular Firefox addons available. And if you don't block them (I don't) they don't screw up your computer.

Google is the new Skub.

IlGreven: A challenger appears: I don't understand how using a popular product that a company provides to promote a less popular product that they'd like to do better is evil.

Three words: Microsoft. Internet. Explorer.

That is all.

Is there any evidence that Twitter and Facebook asked to be included in the new search and were denied? Because my opinion on who the actual dickbag is in this situation really hinges on that question.

And I went out turned off the Google + results in my searches because I already know what my friends are saying about a particular topic. I don't need to Google to remind me.

Herr Flick's Revenge: I don't get why some people trust and love Google.

Google Maps
G mail
Android
Worlds best employer
Most useful search engine
YouTube
Google Chrome
A shiatload more

I don't love or trust them... but they have given me more than any other corporation.

redpanda2: Is there any evidence that Twitter and Facebook asked to be included in the new search and were denied? Because my opinion on who the actual dickbag is in this situation really hinges on that question.

Actually, they both made deals with Bing because Google wouldn't pay them enough to include their results.

I still don't see why this is evil.