Poll: Is it time for the government to kill Google?

[BrassButtons]

I'm not disagreeing with said choice, in fact I'm not disagreeing with companies collecting all that data. Just not one company collecting all that data.

Allowing one company to have that data is part of the choice people are making. My previous statements still apply.

Apart from anything else several people in this thread asked me for a citation on governments using this data, so many people don't even realise they are making that choice

That's their problem. I don't consider it the government's role to protect people from making bad decisions. I definitely don't consider it the government's role to prevent people from making decisions that are merely assumed to be bad, and that the person may have chosen to undertake after a careful cost-benefit analysis.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I clicked on this thread for the crazy, and boy, I got it.

Yeah, sometimes you see these threads and just watch it go on and on...

Yes, they have a certain degree of power. If they ever conspire to ruin my life, I'll just cease to internet and toss out my android phone. I can live without the internet. I just don't want to/have no reason to yet.

 

[Something Amyss]

Google are nice people. I haven't seen them do anything bad (yet) but only time will tell. I mean, it's hard to hate or fear a company that included this in their search engine.

I love their easter eggs, but that doesn't particularly assuage my fears.

Anyway, they probably should, but it's too late. Now the question is: is it time for Google to kill the government?

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

Google is kind of like Valve. Both have a frankly worrisome monopoly over what should be a competitive market, but neither has really gone full evil.

 

[n00beffect]

Firstly, I don't think any government or institution has the legal right/power to split up Google, other than Google itself. See, what people usually confuse about this whole 'conspiracy theory' bollocks, where there's 'one world leader, controlling the world' is that... this is nothing new, and it's no conspiracy. There's always been one massive empire controlling half the world (First it was the Romans/Ottomans/Mongolians; then it was the British) and it's always been open and well known. The only difference now is that instead of it being a government of some sort, it's a private company, namely Google, and instead of 'conspiring' over land and territory, they 'conspire' over our wallets, which, again, is nothing new or that shocking.

Secondly, talking about cutting the ties between the government (whichever government) and Google is all well and nice, but the problems is that it'll never happen. What do you think - those kings en emperors in the past always had a close eye on those crafty bankers and powerful businesses - that's how the world works. And if they don't do it openly, they'll do it behind the public's back which is even worse.

Frankly, what's the worst that could happen? You'll be shown advertisements to death? The worse I can think of, is if you're doing something even slightly illegal/detrimental to some big business\government body, then you can get *****-smacked by Google in a matter of seconds if they so wish, but corporations like that don't go after the small fish like you and me, so you've got nothing to worry about.

Also, we have to face the fact that if it's not Google it'll be someone else - it's inevitable. 'Money goes to those with money' that's how it is and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[BrotherRool]

[And I'm not making the call either really, I expressed an opinion I had of the situation and I think we can take away from this discussion that there was a resounding no from everyone else =D So I can't see it changing any time.

I still can't figure out what your point originally was. And I still haven't voted (for what it matters) because of this. What would splitting Google accomplish? Why should it be done? How did privacy ever come to be the crux of your argument? There is just so much I don't understand here.

Yeah I managed to sabotage my thread right from the title line It's a fact of the world that we will pay for most of our internet stuff we our information. That's okay. Where I began to feel uncomfortable is when a large portion of that information is owned with one company under one roof instead of being spread across multiple companies. If Facebook has my social network, Microsoft has my emails and Google has my search history then there's a limit to what any body can know about me. Presumably even government agencies would struggle to collate that data into solid users id's. But Google is rapidly approaching a position where they have information on a large part of the internet life of a large amount of people.

So if Google were to be split up into smaller companies, Youtube, Android, Google Search (they could probably have maps and all the tools too)... etc then the information is no longer under one roof and theoretically we'd still be able to enjoy all those services without needing a mass emmigration from Youtube or Gmail etc.


The worst part of what I've done is presumably I've had the exact effect that that trolling article a week or so back talked about and actively negatively harmed the idea of there being a privacy debate

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

They are far from having any kind of monopoly. They have plenty of competition.

 

[Twilight_guy]

You can't break something up as a monopoly if its simply the de facto biggest. For example, Just because Google is the biggest search provider doe not make it a monopoly. Other search providers like Bing and Yahoo exist, they simply aren't as popular. Now, the combination of various things make them a monopoly. Of course some of your cited things don't have anything to with that. An image of the world (which is usually provided by NASA) has nothing to with being a monopoly. Nor is owning an OS unless a significant number of people have it and it forces certain programs to be used. Coincidentally, seeing as how Google does not make phones, just android, an OS, both are involved in the same point. That aside, Google is big but I don't know if its a monopoly. Monopolies are generally business that railroad you into basically only being able to use there product because nothing else exists or is vastly inferior. Google owns a lot of the popular stuff but I don't think they have anything where nothing else exists that is comparable. There are alternatives to their products that are just as good (if less popular) and a person could theoretically completely avoid using Google products if they wanted to while still doing anything on the internet. (aside from watching cat videos on Youtube)

 

[jollybarracuda]

I'm actually kind of cool with what Google's doing. They remind me of those companies in movies that have all this magical money out of nowhere to be able to make cool shit. Except Google actually got their money by following decent business tactics and some clever design choices, which allowed them to create a self-driving car and mother-frakkin' sci-fi glasses. So no, Google seems like the only company actually trying to invent new things, and as long as they don't start getting into politics or anything, i say let them do their mad-scientist thing.

But as for whether or not I think they have a monopoly, eh, I dunno. Google's search engine has just become a part of our lives, and nothing else they really do has that same kind of astounding effect on the business industry. Their phone is no iPhone, is what I mean.

 

[Sylveria]

I think you need to look up the meaning of the words "Monopoly" and "trust" then try writing this article again.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

I'm not going to lie, I have a pretty hefty distrust of Google. By necessity I have a lot of Google branded services on my Phone but whenever possible I try to avoid using their services or provide blatantly false personal information when signing up (I think my gmail account lists me as a 75 year old woman from Vatican City named Bonibelle Q. Heftybloomers.)

I do all of this because Google has an unhealthy obsession with my personal information and I'd rather confound them whenever possible.

In terms of splitting up the company...I don't really know to be honest.

 

[BrotherRool]

I'm not disagreeing with said choice, in fact I'm not disagreeing with companies collecting all that data. Just not one company collecting all that data.

Allowing one company to have that data is part of the choice people are making. My previous statements still apply.

Apart from anything else several people in this thread asked me for a citation on governments using this data, so many people don't even realise they are making that choice

That's their problem. I don't consider it the government's role to protect people from making bad decisions. I definitely don't consider it the government's role to prevent people from making decisions that are merely assumed to be bad, and that the person may have chosen to undertake after a careful cost-benefit analysis.

Well trying to find out if I was making an assumption or not is what I tried to do and failed miserably at.

Your argument is probably the one thats persuading me the most. I've learnt a lot of things today about how not to structure debate topics and from now I will cut the silly titles and comics and flippant jokes let me assure you =D but because I've managed to create such a negative framing (and I really would like you to believe it was from me being a colossal idiot than any malice) I haven't managed to give people much of a cohesive impression of how I feel that would require a response, so I really do mean that I'm grateful for your response and so I really do mean these questions as questions, I'm not trying to be persuasive I'd just be interested to hear your opinion. Naturally I'd understand if you don't want to devote time to them, I was tempted just to stop looking at my inbox and pretend the thread never existed, so you not wanting to go into this would be more than justified,

The US and the EU do create privacy laws to restrict this sort of thing, do you disapprove of this behaviour? Would it be fair to take it that you disapprove of governmental anti-smoking campaigns or would that be okay on the basis that they aren't restricting choice but merely trying to be persuasive.

And I mean there are a lot of people who haven't made a careful cost-benefit analysis, and of those people who have and made intelligent decisions, may just not have been aware of the facts (the ppl asking for citations on the government stuff). Does that affect the decision? Or should the correct response just be to raise public awareness on these issues? And I don't know, to me it seems like this might exploit a weakness in our programming where we slightly overcompensate on short term goals over longer more nebulous affairs (there are plenty of people who wished they hadn't started smoking) so I'm thinking that maybe a government as a body of representative body has some responsibility to try and safeguard people, what would you say?

 

[DoPo]

[And I'm not making the call either really, I expressed an opinion I had of the situation and I think we can take away from this discussion that there was a resounding no from everyone else =D So I can't see it changing any time.

I still can't figure out what your point originally was. And I still haven't voted (for what it matters) because of this. What would splitting Google accomplish? Why should it be done? How did privacy ever come to be the crux of your argument? There is just so much I don't understand here.

Yeah I managed to sabotage my thread right from the title line It's a fact of the world that we will pay for most of our internet stuff we our information. That's okay. Where I began to feel uncomfortable is when a large portion of that information is owned with one company under one roof instead of being spread across multiple companies. If Facebook has my social network, Microsoft has my emails and Google has my search history then there's a limit to what any body can know about me. Presumably even government agencies would struggle to collate that data into solid users id's. But Google is rapidly approaching a position where they have information on a large part of the internet life of a large amount of people.

So if Google were to be split up into smaller companies, Youtube, Android, Google Search (they could probably have maps and all the tools too)... etc then the information is no longer under one roof and theoretically we'd still be able to enjoy all those services without needing a mass emmigration from Youtube or Gmail etc.


The worst part of what I've done is presumably I've had the exact effect that that trolling article a week or so back talked about and actively negatively harmed the idea of there being a privacy debate

That would have been your OP, I don't know why you felt like bringing up the markets they have.

Still, though, if you're worried about the government looking in at you...it's actually better if Google exists as it is. OK, you're still in danger of data leaks but in context of the government (or other agencies?) contacting and collecting information it's better to have a more complete picture present. You do run into some problems if using partial or incomplete data and drawing conclusions for that. A very simple illustration of that in work - somebody has been searching for "jihad" and "bombs" you could flag them as suspicious or worse yet act upon those suspicions. But that's a conclusion based on just part of the whole - the person could be an author and researching stuff for their next book. Which is not apparent from the initial data set. In a similar manner, separating the data out would mean it's easier for you or somebody else to be identified as a potential threat. And this is when the government would step in - they would either get more information about you - the very thing you didn't want happening, or they would act, which is something else you don't want happening.

Simply put, the issue with the government getting information is with the government, not Google. As I said, they will also contact your ISP and most are required to give out all the information about all the traffic - stuff even Google wouldn't have. Also, as I said, some government agencies could and do resort to other methods of gathering information (and not only) completely bypassing what's legal or not.

I would be worried about other leaks of information if Google prove to be a threat to it. So far they haven't shown many signs to, though. Facebook on the other hand? Oh yeah - those +1 for Google's social media were late to the party - Facebook like buttons did it first way before. And Fb has been gathering even more info. Which is being sold off to who knows who. And, of course, Fb itself is a ridiculous privacy risk even for free [http://www.weknowwhatyouredoing.com/]. Or you could go full on and make a simple app or something to get access to even MORE data, collect it and then practically give it away for free to people interested. I mean 0.0005 US cents for your info - it's an absolute steal for that price, right? [http://talkweb.eu/openweb/1819]

So yeah, Google could be a threat but there are way bigger out there. It's not much worth worrying for what could be a problem if we haven't fixed what we have already.

 

[John the Gamer]

Well the USA has a military more powerful than most other nations combined, has a large economy and a huge stockpile of nukes. Should we divide it into smaller bits because that would be 'more fair'?

Companies getting big and powerful is what capitalism is all about. If you don't like it, move to Cuba or something.

 

[Marowit]

Last time I checked I was able to find all of google's source code and do whatever I wanted to it. I also haven't been forced to pay for any product or service I haven't wanted to. Their superior quality of said services/products has been what made me purchase an android-based smart phone, use chrome, google-search, etc...Not to mention they can't go until I get google fiber internet and laugh manically as Comcast crumbles under their inability to actually compete with a better product.

So, no I don't think it should be broken up until they start practicing unfair business practices. They're one of the 'good' companies in our world right now, and I'd hate to see them get broken up for being head and shoulders above their peers.

 

[BrotherRool]

That would have been your OP, I don't know why you felt like bringing up the markets they have.

Still, though, if you're worried about the government looking in at you...it's actually better if Google exists as it is. OK, you're still in danger of data leaks but in context of the government (or other agencies?) contacting and collecting information it's better to have a more complete picture present. You do run into some problems if using partial or incomplete data and drawing conclusions for that. A very simple illustration of that in work - somebody has been searching for "jihad" and "bombs" you could flag them as suspicious or worse yet act upon those suspicions. But that's a conclusion based on just part of the whole - the person could be an author and researching stuff for their next book. Which is not apparent from the initial data set. In a similar manner, separating the data out would mean it's easier for you or somebody else to be identified as a potential threat. And this is when the government would step in - they would either get more information about you - the very thing you didn't want happening, or they would act, which is something else you don't want happening.

Simply put, the issue with the government getting information is with the government, not Google. As I said, they will also contact your ISP and most are required to give out all the information about all the traffic - stuff even Google wouldn't have. Also, as I said, some government agencies could and do resort to other methods of gathering information (and not only) completely bypassing what's legal or not.

I would be worried about other leaks of information if Google prove to be a threat to it. So far they haven't shown many signs to, though. Facebook on the other hand? Oh yeah - those +1 for Google's social media were late to the party - Facebook like buttons did it first way before. And Fb has been gathering even more info. Which is being sold off to who knows who. And, of course, Fb itself is a ridiculous privacy risk even for free [http://www.weknowwhatyouredoing.com/]. Or you could go full on and make a simple app or something to get access to even MORE data, collect it and then practically give it away for free to people interested. I mean 0.0005 US cents for your info - it's an absolute steal for that price, right? [http://talkweb.eu/openweb/1819]

So yeah, Google could be a threat but there are way bigger out there. It's not much worth worrying for what could be a problem if we haven't fixed what we have already.

Those are very good points. Particularly with that my issue should have been with the governments.

Look at the requests some of them make to get stuff taken off search engines and blog posts.
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/

Germany actually ordered google to remove links to website defaming a politicians wife. People in the UK tried to get sites blocked that criticised the police. And Thailand asked for videos to be restricted from Youtube for criticising the monarchy. I guess if countries create laws that allow them to do this, then splitting the power isn't really going to do anything at all (particularly with the ISP thing you mentioned)

 

[SlaveNumber23]

I don't understand why Google being such a large company is a bad thing. For one the idea that they would 'take over the world' is completely absurd, why would anyone in their right mind want to do that? You are the boss of one of the most successful companies in the world so you try and 'take over the world'? No, you retire and you spend the rest of your days flying helicopters or swimming in chocolate or whatever you find fun. Taking over the world is too much work.

Why is a company regarded as evil simply because it is large and powerful? They made it to the top because they did a damn good job, not because they shot anyone who didn't buy their products. Would Google 'taking over the world' even necessarily be a bad thing? Maybe they want to help the world out and make it a better place.

 

[renegade7]

Google has no competition because they are the best at what they do. That's really it.

They're a good company, they shouldn't be punished for that.

 

[lechat]

just wanted to add that the google motto is "don't be evil"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

 

[Griffolion]

Google controls:
*50% of smart phone usage - It's actually more 70%, and they did that by creating a fantastic, open mobile OS that everyone can use

*20% of web browser usage - And they did that by creating a fantastic web browser that meets peoples' needs for browsing the web

*The majority of internet searches - And they did that by creating a fantastic search engine and constantly refining it to stay ahead of the competiton

*One of the biggest email providers in the world - And they did that by creating a simple, easy to use service that is quick, no nonsense, and can tie in to other accounts

*Pretty much all internet videos - They saw YouTube as a good business opportunity, bought it, and took it further than I imagine the original creators ever dreamed; a world of videos of all kinds freely available but for some 15 second adverts that we've been putting up with on TV's since their inception

*A large chunk of all advertising on the internet - And they did that by creating a competitive advertising package coupled with their search engine (see above)

*One of the largest providers of website statistics - This ties into their search engine business, no need to mention anything here

*The most popular map/route making software - And they did this through years of hard work and dedication to making this sort of information universally accessible

*A image map of the entire world - See above

*A video map of large sections of all the streets in the world - It's not a video map, it's a special type of panoramic shot, and again, see above, that stuff takes work

*Their own social network - That pales in comparison to the kind of accessibility and penetration into your life Facebook has

*Their own PC OS - That's actually incredibly good, [a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3423205/acer-reports-strong-chromebook-sales-as-windows-8-falters/"]judging by recent sales figures[/a]

Google's products are wanted, simple. Kill them, you disrupt the lives of millions of people globally.

Scenario:
So, how do I get to the meeting? I'll just take a look on Google Maps. Oh, hang on, I don't have Google Maps anymore, because someone paranoid about Google having "too much power" has decided to kill the service. Great, what do I use now? Well, let's search Google Play for a new mapping solution, most likely the Tom Tom app that goes for £30. Oh, hang on, I can't do any searches on Google Play, because the searches use the same technology as the main search engine. And some paranoid person has killed the search functionality, too. Oh, hang on, why am I even going through this in the first place as I don't have a damn smart phone anymore, because someone's killed Android, because Google clearly has too much power with Android.

This only means one thing. No, please no. I'm going to have to use an... iPhone.

And I'm going to have to use... Apple Maps.

Which makes total sense, we should totally kill off Google, they are unbelievably evil. What, with their multiple contributions to the world, giving people the best search engine available, one of the best email clients available, a free to use mobile OS that has led the most forward innovations in mobile history, a world of free entertainment, a service that allows me to reliably get to almost anywhere in the world via road, bus, walk or train. And they make their money majoritatively off advertising I barely ever see? Well, I'm having a hard time not Godwining this whole thing right here...

But yeah, we should totally keep Apple alive. The company that seeks to control their users with what they deem to be appropriate, both in user interface and in content. The company that likes litigating the competition out of the market for a hobby. The company who claims innovation and originality for a number of things invented and done far before they ever did anything like it. And while we're here, we should also totally keep Microsoft alive too! The company that hasn't really changed since the mid-90's. The company that probably has more control over things than Google does. The company that seeks to shaft you for everything they create, and then slate the competition because it's free.

-

And this whole "government" thing. If not Google, it will be any other corporation getting their "hand forced" by governments world wide. If secret services want you, they'll get you, with or without Google or any other information holding corporation.

And finally, aside from the few things they've done to garner a response from the courts (like the whole wifi thing that could, at worst, be described as mildly dickish), Google have never been anything but good. On the whole, I see the landscape of the tech world, and I'm glad Google's in the position its in, and not any other company we see currently.