Précis 2: “Google as Big Brother”

At google-watch.org, there is an article that engrosses one of the most popular web search engines to date, Google, which is not only part of a family tree of web executives and companies, but later received an award that lived up to its title. Here is yet another take of mine on “Google as Big Brother.”

When Google first started, it was one of the four most illustrious and acclaimed search engines. To this day, there are a whole lot more than four engines on the web, with the exception of about four that have the technology, steady hands, and know-how to slither the entire WWW on a routine outset. Google was finally dumped by Yahoo in February 2004, considering its transformation into a major search engine by its affiliates.  Yahoo’s affiliates, since July 2003, consist of Overture, Alltheweb, AltaVista, and Inktomi–all of which are now under Yahoo’s wing. Still, it is now likely that all of this artillery will put Yahoo out of its misery–that its request to make sure that everything’s organized seems to possess a top priority on their to-do list. Aside from that, Yahoo has proved that their main index search results thus far are up to par with Google’s. This has occured a year ago, and it stands true although some pay-per-click links were infiltrated by them into the main index.  One explanation as to why Yahoo has been successful is that Google’s main index has eminently fallen off since the first half of 2003, despite its freedom from paid results. Fascinating as it may seem, there is a 20% inflation between both Yahoo and Google’s first 100 results for the same exact search–and even so, Yahoo is undoubtedly reliable, just like Google, which happens to be the reason why there isn’t a lot of room at the top of the search results pile; even combining algorithms probably might come out with top-of-the-line results. Therefore, the depth of the search engine’s crawl is where the main difference lies.Just recently, Microsoft has materialized their own search engine due to their being trapped inbetween Overture, an advertising engine, and another search engine, Inktomi–both Yahoo property. Microsoft started an experiment based on a crawler of their very own in 2003; a couple of years later their new engine was launched. At any point whatsoever, they should expect to receive a back burner. If this should happen, even for a short while, and while they do deep digging, thus showing off a clean interface, Microsoft will do the same thing they did to Netscape–this time, it’s on Google. Google isn’t made up of any hidden ingredients–it’s certain that industries such as Google was composed of nothing but hype from the get-go. (In spite of there being any hidden ingredients, many e-commerce spammers now possess knowledge of the formula, which becomes a benefit-turned-drawback.) Many company engineers now possess the technology to arrange numerous search engines. Whether users can carry out their resources for deep, constant web crawls, and how their search engines can be used for profit.

From anticipating over these inquiries, it seems like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft are the only search engines for us. Teoma/AskJeeves is the last search engine worth viewing. They appear to be deliberate through expanding their crawl-through, especially with their unbeatable search engine technology. It’s still left to be experienced how far down and regularly they will have the means to dig into the database for websites, containing less than billions of pages.  For most websites, Google carries out about 75% of the external referrals, which lives up to its status as the big shot of all search engines. Designing websites apart from Google is just the epitome of impossible, and for other websites, challenging Google is a last resort. If all our hopes for luck are high, one of the other websites will soon be at odds. On the other hand, our websites will be uploaded to Google’s servers by that time, often like bloggers.com’s users–Google owns bloggers.com, and has been owning them since 2003.  Events such as this could very well lead to the web as we know it, facing a tragic demise.

Being aware of the hardships that common, self-determined webmasters go through is pretty much important. We must possess a full understanding of the hardships being bestowed upon Google to bear, considering its dominance. There’s a war of epic proportions taking place for the Web’s heart and spirit, and Google is the center of attention for this war–it doesn’t require a lot of chimera to realize this occurence. In any case, advertising revenue is the prize that the web site companies are keeping their eyes on in the midst of this arduous conflict. This level of confusion is observed by the pundits–they agreed that the advertising model where little ad messages known as pop-ups come out of nowhere, because of keyword searches and/or non-ad web page content. Take a search involving ‘Google Watch,’ for instance–it may end up showing ads to the right of the screen for wrist watches. This type of technique often serves its aim, despite its ineffective work for this instance. Average users are presumed to survey for given searches due to the countless, pixelated real estate elements contained in these results. To this day, close to approximately half (1/2) of each and every screen is backed up by Google’s paid ads, as opposed to its original, ad-free counterpart. It seems that everyone cannot wait to get their edacious hands on this fresh, new web advertising breakthrough, and Google never stops to make countless amounts of money.

However, Yahoo wants to gain market share in a revenue stream including various benefits such as pay-for-placement and pay-for-inclusion, rather than to engage in pure search algorithms, according to previous evidence. Microsoft might be on the same boat as Yahoo. As for Google, who are thunderstruck from the unexpected advertising income, they may be breathing down their own necks trying to figure out a reason why the other industries go to all that nonsense and risk to have the noncommercial sector infiltrated. Public-sector sites, including sites that have the domains .gov, .org, and .edu have no chance of supplying direct income, despite how repulsive, and macabre the web might look with out them. All of this hubbub over an improved, online ad market, taken over by specialists, is starting to seem like when AltaVista thought that its portals would be an improvement–they thought wrong. Thanks to Google’s first-place success, this realism made AltaVista fall to their knees, thus turning away from their wanting to help improve their web extrication. What’s even more worse–there hasn’t been one shred of interest in authorizing public-sector website specialized search engines. Seems as though every source of capitalism and establishment has kicked the bucket–the Library of Congress, Ford Foundation (known for doling out massive loads of money), the United Nations–even broad-minded European firms can’t cut it. There’s no way or chance that the Internet will ever survive, especially when it’s suffering from a nerve-wracking spam disease.

In the midst of yet another level, a conflict is being concocted over who will take hold of the reigning control over Google’s collectively limitless amounts of user data. Back then, consumer protection has been the subject for discussions including privacy issues and the web, and has continued to be the main interest. Since 9/11, however, a new threat has caused a fearsome invasion to privacy: the federal government. The problem was that Google never did anything to deviate a declaration for world user rights, compared to those of the Washigton spies who would have been better off with reliable access to Google Inc.’s user data. Many points of the war at this particular stage are left enigmatically unspoken. For starters, the Washington spies keep this discussion top secret, which is why the Congress has reincarnated the spies with improved ablilities, not allowing any hint of arguement over random issues. Even Google itself has kept their traps locked shut about important things. Not only that, Google Watch has remarked a recent dispute–which had much to do with the battle between real forces–but as of this moment, all we can point out is that this struggle could very well present itself, even in Google’s boardroom.

Yet another struggle has gone underway–this time, it not only involves privacy, but also old and new issues, such as consumer barriers and government observation. Questions as to the way Google, the central part of the web, treats user data begin to seem demanding, and whatever approach it upholds towards privacy endures hefty hints commonly for the rest of the web, and specfically, for other search engines. Disputes like these can also be known to some as ‘class warfare,’ mainly because of the grave complaint that Google Watch has with Google themselves that frequently gets put forward. This complaint has to do with the PageRank complications–a primary ranking algorithm, especially that of Google’s, doesn’t have much to do with web page quality, but rather, a web page’s ‘power popularity.’ Google and Google Watch’s ranking procedure is considered as anti-communal, in the sense that already-capable pages are scientifically given extra capacity to honor other pages as capable. Our beliefs aren’t based on the putridness of Google–rather, it’s splitting our single-course path in two, leaving them with major options to arbitrate on. About GoogleWatch, this site further strives to enunciate and declare Google’s locale, suggesting to the executives that they should analyze their deals. In carrying out this idea, we as users hope to take on a vital role in conserving the web as a useful information tool, not just for the upper-class individuals, but mostly for everybody.

To sum up, all these previously stated statements are the reason why we, among over 500 other individuals, elected Google for a 2003 Big Brother award.   In addition, there are nine guidelines connected to this election with a central focus on issues regarding its privacy: 1) Google and their illustrious cookie; 2) their recording of necessary information; 3) their indefinite retainment of all data; 4) Why they’re keeping their reasons for their user data needs top secret; 5) their hiring of spooks; 6) their Spyware toolbar; 7) why their cache copy is illegal; why Google isn’t very friendly; and finally 9) Google being a privacy time bomb. Like it was stated in the fifth paragraph, it is wise to possess a deep understanding of the hardships that a webmaster can go through despite the website’s dominance, and we should be cautious in searching what we need to search for on our browsers.

My précis on Net Neutrality

Here is my take on Anne Broache’s article, “Net neutrality  proposal revived in Senate,” which can be read at CNETNews.com.  Broache is a staff  writer, and in her article, she discusses a conflicting proposal in the Senate.  Under its command, this proposal obligates all network operators to live and adhere to its Net neutrality principles which were resurfaced sometime around a year ago.

To start off, there are two main subjects in the article—Olympia Snowe, Maine Republican Senator, and Byron Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat Senator.  They joined forces in order to reintroduce an exact, duplicate rendition of a bill which met its demise a while ago (about a year, give or take).  This bill is known as the IFPA (Internet Freedom Preservation Act), and according to Snowe’s statement, its renewal will break further ground in leaving the Internet up to its loyal users, and safeguarding it from unsuspecting attendants.  Not only that, there is one definition surrounding the idea of net neutrality—it’s the concept in which network operators (i.e. Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, etc.) aren’t allowed to arrange/procure any content/services (or charge extra fees) from certain Web sites—such as YouTube, Gametrailers.com, Screwattack.com, and others—those that contain close-to-vital information at their disposal.  At this point, a subdued affair such as this skyrocketed to the public, following a warning sent out by telecommunications administrators not too long ago.  In order to

 compensate for huge advances in their framework, these people should be enforced to sell

 for extra for premium placement in their network(s).

This fiasco led to a big drive, involving Internet companies, consumer groups, as well as high-profile backers and technical pioneers (including celebrities) who are ordered to run grassroots campaigns calling for federal regulations holding up this type of routine.  According to them, the sweet taste of freedom that the Internet users have been pleased with is being robbed of by the insidious labor that is prioritization.  Its opponents have altercated that there isn’t any trace or portion of evidence

of conflicts involving discrimination, and that these new principles would put an enormous dent on innovation.  In addition, the Snowe-Dorgan legislation will stop at nothing to deadbolt network operators from 1) blockading/denying access to Internet content/services, and 2) from circumventing and ruling out connections with external devices by consumers to the abridged network, including the passing-over of security and other purposes that implicate consumer protection.  The only approach that this might occur is through the permission of compiling content, applications, and/or services—which can be accomplished for each and every type of particular service free, not including any fees.  In other words, a network operator (i.e. Verizon) could then construct a pipe, in order to borrow any/all user-activated video content from any/all user-activated video website(s).  These include not only YouTube, but also GoFish, Google Video, and others, but to procure this content, the pipe needs to be available, and for free.

 

Furthermore, all broadband companies, as stated and advised by the bill, which hollows out Net neutrality, have to give customers the choice of buying broadband service by itself, and should there be any accusation or grievance derived from its (the bill’s) obligations, the FCC might make their decision in enforcing them.  The FCC also came across one decision—to attest to AT&T’s Net neutrality conditions.  AT&T, who has financed a merger tie with BellSouth, also maintained that conducive to breaking off the partisan over the deal’s authorization and continuing on resisting the concept dictating Net neutrality, it gave out its concessions first, and not only that, a couple of voting Republicans—Chairman Kevin Martin & Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate, opposed to their Democratic FCC colleagues—also pointed out that it wasn’t their concern in the most broad applications of Net neutrality conditions.  Going back to the Snowe-Dorgan bill, the telephone industry (i.e. Verizon, AT&T), belittled its re-emergence; according to U.S. Telecom Association president, Walter McCormick, he stated that companies investing in customized Internet service is against the law, as government regulation would succinctly have it, and that it might lead to our loss of advances in home health monitoring, greater financial transaction security, new choices in entertainment, and opportunities involving/surrounding telecommunications. 

 Six (6) Democrats—Senators Boxer, Kerry, Harkin, Leahy, Clinton, and Obama (no Republicans besides Snowe)—have co-sponsored a renewed effort carried out by consumer advocacy groups.  What’s more, a Consumers Union senior policy analyst by the name of Jeannine Kenney implied that a national policy in which all consumers, not only the wealthiest ones, will be provided with the most affordable access to all direct, non-stop Internet benefits, is the turning point/first step in legislation.  The moment that the Senate duo introduced the same diction as an amendment from last year, connected to a bill involving massive communications, it met a grievous, catastrophic failure due to an 11-11 vote that was predominantly along party lines with the Democrats’ favoring votes.  The bill’s chances might be skyrocketed— despite their non-assurance for the fresh aroma of victory—with the Democratic side’s majority carried out to them this year.  In the Senate, ultimately, 60 votes are needed to blockade the filibusters that often bring contentious bills to a standstill.  Subsequently, Rep. Edward Markey (House of Representatives) is looking forward to bring back a Net neutrality proposal of his very own, which struggles to aim for the corresponding guidelines to the Senate rendition, but the Republican-controlled chamber took a stand and brought the abridged bill to its ill-fated subjugation.  On Tuesday, a Massachusetts Democratic aide, methodically named, and referred to, a chairman of a House Internet and telecommunications sub-committee, and he cited that it now, it wasn’t comprehensible as to when this particular action might come into play.

In my opinion, there are some serious risks involving surfing the net and using other broadband services.  On a final note, we should all be careful about how we use the Internet and its services, because it might lead to crucial, desperate conflicts, such as the depletion of advances in our best services ever offered—health, entertainment, internet/cable, and most of all, security.  As Internet surfers/users, we don’t deserve this type of chaos and pandemonium.