Could an Erasable Internet Kill Google? 210
zacharye writes "As Google's share price soars beyond $1,100, it seems like nothing can stop the Internet juggernaut as its land grab strategies continue to win over the eyes of its users and the wallets of its advertising clients. But an analysis published over this past weekend raises an interesting question surrounding a new business model that could someday lead to Google's downfall. Do we want an erasable Internet?"
Definitely Not (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly, I think the impact on society of governments and organizations to rewrite history or remove history from the internet is a much more frightening concept than people being able to google your name and find out you were a twerp in your younger years.
Re:No, it would improve Google searches (Score:4, Interesting)
internet is already erasable..
but what _could_ kill google would be some law that stated that you couldn't make use of caches of sites... since , uhm, that's what it would take to change the current erasable internet into even more erasable, by somehow forcing people to not keep copies.
It's happened before. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you dry up the source of information that has allowed Google to dominate Internet search then it would hurt them financially. The biggest fear for them would be tougher privacy laws. Right now the Class Action E-Mail/Wiretapping case [lexology.com] doesn't look too good for them so there may be some changes in the future for gmail users. The NSA fiasco with Snowden means that more people are asking pointed questions and Google and all the others who make money off of your personal data have to do a little walk on the tightrope. On one side they've pushed legislators away from enacting tougher privacy laws but now they're information has been hacked by the NSA yet they condemn that. The only reason Google exists is that it can mine information efficiently. Throw a few lawsuits and some new legislation into that mix and it suddenly gets very cloudy for them. Take a look at Google Glass for example, [huffingtonpost.com] right now the thought of millions of people with always on cameras can become quite disturbing especially since you don't know where those images are going or what they may be used for. Sure there's the augmented reality take on it, but how will society take to it in the long run?
Re:No, it would improve Google searches (Score:2, Interesting)
"have left Windows Server 2008 R2"
Are you having a larf? Most of our systems have only just left Server 2003. At least 2008 has a functioning GUI wheras with S2012 MS wants you to manage everything remotely. A lot of our Server apps will never ever support MS Remote App managment and use a local gui to setup their config and operations. For some apps we deliberately disable remote access because of security concerns. Yeah I know that this sounds silly but these systems are used by people who are not users but abusers.
It will be 2015/16 before we go to 2012Rx if ever because of the latest MS price hike hase made us seriously consider going to RHEL. We don't use any Sharepoint, lookout or BizTalk crap on these systems.
Re:No. This headline is stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
They recently rolled out [pcmag.com] a fun new feature:
"If you're a Snapchat aficionado, it's worth your while to check out some of the app's enhancements, for they include a brand-new "Replay" feature that now allows you to re-view one of your previously viewed Snapchats a second time. Perhaps you didn't have your Snapchat screenshotting app ready to go the first time (or, worse, your physical camera).
Snapchat does build in a few caveats with the Replay feature. For starters, it doesn't appear as if you can close the app down and reopen it to view a previously viewed Snapchat. Any replay action you do has to be in one, singular instance — which eliminates our "load your screenshot app up" example from above. Additionally, you only get one Replay each day. Make it good.
Interestingly enough, Snapchat doesn't notify the party that sent you the original Snapchat that you've elected to view it a second time. That might be useful information for a sender to know, for no particular reason whatsoever (wink). "
Well, well. you mean to say that those magic disappearing 'snaps' don't actually magically disappear, it's just a couple of permission bits getting twiddled on the server and the client doing a (generally sloppy) job of deleting the local copy? Wow, you'll tell me that 'streaming a video' is actually the same as 'downloading it in ordered chunks and starting to watch the first ones while you wait for the rest' and not something magically different...
If anything, to be able to enable this 'feature' after the fact, snapchat is clearly storing much, much, more than their service would theoretically require (the 'snap' would have to live server-side until delivery; but could be purged immediately thereafter. It isn't.) They may be tapping into a desire for ephemeral communication that somebody like Google doesn't; but it's a facade, a deliberate deception to encourage people to put more sensitive information into the same giant pool of ever cheaper storage with some dubious path to 'monetization'.
A tax on advertising, though... (Score:5, Interesting)
The House Ways and Means Committee is considering making advertising non-deductable as a business expense. [adweek.com] That would take a bite out of Google.
There are good arguments for a tax on advertising. Most Americans are "spent out"; they're spending almost everything they earn. The US personal savings rate is near an all-time low of 2%. In that situation, advertising can't create new demand. It's just a war between advertisers. So that's a good place to tax.
Re:What we need is Google health care.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Google healthcare would boil down to "This node is uneconomic to repair, it has been sent for recycling and a failover node whose internet browsing habits most closely resemble those of the failed node has been dispatched to replace it. If any of your personal or professional relationships depended on the failed node, please try refreshing your browser."
Re:No, it would improve Google searches (Score:0, Interesting)
Apparently you are so young you were never forced to do research for a high school or College paper without the internet. You know those books and Encyclopedias 'older than 3 years are noise and rot that nobody has any use for' yet they were available and useful for a century before the internet appeared.
Senility must be creeping up on you, old man. Those books and encyclopedias were written with future usefulness in mind; random internet postings and slapped together web pages were not.
Re: Makes assumption that erasable internet possib (Score:4, Interesting)
Real time dynamically changing content. What I see on website X at 1:38:25 pm, is 100% differet from what you see at 1:39:25 pm
That is not realistically going to happen of course. In reality most things change on a more life-like pace that is easily archivable for anyone that cares, or even those that just collect for the sake of collection.
But even in your presented case, you don't have to archive every iteration. Just snapshots, or trends, or some kind of summary about what was and how it shifted. There is always the possibility of storing some permeable shadow of a thing, no matter how often you try to change it.
One last thought; the saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same" exists for a very valid reason...
Re:No, it would improve Google searches (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: No, it would improve Google searches (Score:2, Interesting)
Well I sure wouldn't mind it if Google would stop bugging me about using my real name... And no I do not want to be part of Google+ for the 10,000th time. I've already stopped using YouTube after it twice cleverly forced all of my comments to use my real name.
Stop being evil, Google.