When Google meets with Congressional staffers, hoping to convince US lawmakers that it's nothing but good for the world, the web giant likes to say that it believes in openness. "Open is better than closed," the company says. Open "enhances competition" and "encourages innovation." But if you ask the company to discuss its …
Where openness is most important
"In the areas where openness is most important - its ad system and its data-retention policies that feed its ad system - Google is preternaturally proprietary."
With all due respect, Google's ad system is NOT where openness is most important. Where openness is MOST important is Google Health -- how they "protect" that information, who has access to it, what measures are in place to verify the authenticity of people who are allowed to access it, who can change it, how it can be changed, etc. That's much more important that anything ad-related. Personally, I'd love to know how Google can get away with storing people's medical records without complying with federal regulations governing the storage of those records (HIPAA for US citizens).
Having said that, I do agree with the rest of the article. Google's general lack of openness is even more concerning when they start linking all of their different projects (linking your Gmail, Docs, searches, etc). It's an advertisers dream come true.
Nobody is forcing advertisers to use Google
Don't like to use Google Ads? Don't buy em!
Think they're too expensive? Don't buy em!
If you don't think that penis cream is going to give you a nine-incher then don't buy it.
It is one thing to fret about third world workers being exploited by some Evil Empire, or some old gran being duped out of her nest egg by a fraudster, but fretting about advertisers being screwed over is quite another matter.
Interesting article, without doubt, and something that I think the legislators still really don't have a handle on, but not really much new here... Is this just a piece in response to Google's Searchology event? Do you have any new insight to add to it?
The annotated version from Consumer Watchdog is here ...
Chrome != Open source
Unless something has changed, Chrome is *not* open source. The Chromium source is, which forms the basis of the fully open source Iron browser, but the end user binary Chrome is not built from the Chromium source alone, hence quite a bit of doubt about Chrome's true nature.
re: Nobody is forcing advertisers...
"It is one thing to fret about third world workers being exploited by some Evil Empire, or some old gran being duped out of her nest egg by a fraudster, but fretting about advertisers being screwed over is quite another matter."
I find it interesting that you read an article about Google's hypocritical stance on openness, and the only information you got out of it is about advertising. Looks like someone drank the Kool-Aid.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire