Doctorow: Rivalry Keeps Google From Doing Evil 113
An anonymous reader writes "Writer and activist Cory Doctorow says competition keeps Google behaving ethically because it believes there are benefits to be had. However, as it moves into sectors where it faces fewer rivals this may not always be the case. 'It actually seems to be a quality metric. They believe they can attract customers, independent software vendors, resellers and an ecosystem around them by not being evil,' he says. 'Where they operate in narrower, less competitive markets — like where they’ve become an Internet service provider, for example — they abandon those commitments.'"
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
With reading TFA, I'm assume their fiber business is being referred to and their blocking 'Servers', which most other ISPs do. If that's the objection, it seems that that rule is only so a subscriber with an unlimited bandwidth plan does not run their own ISP on their connection. It seems quite fair, although there are probably a few other ways to enforce that than the more general ban, which I understand they do not enforce (also like most other ISPs).
I've rarely seen Google approach evil other than some of the push with Google Plus, which I think is at least bordering on it, like embedding 'join Google Plus' function in a YouTube 'play' button.
Re:Google Do Do Evil (Score:5, Informative)
Right, Google's problems with evil are more on the ad side. They paid extortion to the tune of $500,000,000 as a penalty to the Department of Justice to keep Larry Page out of jail when Google offended the pharmaceutical industry cartel. That amount was sufficient to match the bribes paid by the pharmaceutical industry, and since it shut down most internet pharmacies being found via google, they didn't pursue the matter further.
There, fixed that for ya.
Re:I remember this story (Score:2, Informative)
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/07/30/2322253/google-argues-against-net-neutrality [slashdot.org] its a dupe.
The original complaint I filed with the FCC, then the Kansas Attorney General, and then back to the FCC is here-
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf [cloudsession.com]
Another slashdot echo of the EFF's take is here-
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/08/13/2148245/eff-slams-google-fiber-for-banning-servers-on-its-network [slashdot.org]
Its the same dumb points from anonymous cowards.
Ad hominem much tuppe666? My name is Douglas McClendon.
Google want to charge businesses for attaching servers to the internet...and yet this has been twisted into a Net Neutrality argument,
Here is my twist, I'll just post a paragraph from 10-201 (aka 'Net Neutrality')
FCC-10-201 Paragraph 13 (see appendix B for the entirety) ...
(Under Section Heading:)
The Internet’s Openness Promotes Innovation, Investment, Competition, Free Expression, and Other National Broadband Goals
13.
Like electricity and the computer, the Internet is a "general purpose technology" that enables new methods of production that have a major impact on
the entire economy.(12) The Internet’s founders intentionally built a network that is open, in the sense that it has no gatekeepers limiting innovation and
communication through the network.(13) Accordingly, the Internet enables an end user to access the content and applications of her choice, without
requiring permission from broadband providers. This architecture enables innovators to create and offer new applications and services without needing
approval from any controlling entity, be it a network provider, equipment manufacturer, industry body, or government agency.(14) End users benefit
because the Internet’s openness allows new technologies to be developed and distributed by a broad range of sources, not just by the companies that
operate the network. For example, Sir Tim Berners-Lee was able to invent the World Wide Web nearly two decades after engineers developed the
Internet’s original protocols, without needing changes to those protocols or any approval from network operators.(15) Startups and small businesses
benefit because the Internet’s openness enables anyone connected to the network to reach and do business with anyone else,(16) allowing even the
smallest and most remotely located businesses to access national and global markets, and contribute to the economy through e-commerce(17) and
online advertising.(18) Because Internet openness enables widespread innovation and allows all end users and edge providers (rather than just the
significantly smaller number of broadband providers) to create and determine the success or failure of content, applications, services, and devices, it
maximizes commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key national challenges -- including improvements in health care, education, and
energy efficiency that benefit our economy and civic life.(19)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf [fcc.gov]
by changing the definition of Net Neutrality "discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] . I'm just shocked its not an Ars Technica...maybe they are still defending the iPhone launch.
And here, I will emphasize a quote from Vint Cerf, about what IPv6 _ought_ to enable
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Every ISP I've ever used has had a "no servers" clause in their TOS. They also don't tend to enforce it, as I generally run SSH, etc. From what I can see, Google is no different other than having what looks like a well funded FUD campaign targeted at them. It's good to keep an eye on them, but I think they get a lot more abuse and a lot less praise than they deserve, compared to pretty much everybody else at least.
Re:Monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
And in terms of Evil, Google complained that they couldn't query public posts on Facebook while Bing can, but can Bing or anyone else query public posts on Google Plus? Of course not. Are they opening Google Plus APIs to third party app developers so users can cross-read and cross-post content and comments from other networks? Of course not. I strongly suspect that Google circa 2005 would have done differently. But now that they've settled further into their position as an juggernaut, they've started to take pages from the Microsoft play book.
I still trust Google more than I trust Microsoft. But the gap in credibility between the two companies is narrowing.