Google might want to look at the history of Standard Oil and the old US wide singular Bell Telephone. If you get so big that you can abuse your power, you will probably start to do so (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely ...). They tend to get broken up into less powerful pieces. How you break up Google, I don't know. They are an ad tech company with the best search engine and a bunch of money loosing…
Turn their platforms into utilities, take the other bits and scatter them into different companies.
The thing is that Google has absolutely gone down questionable path from their early days. It is a little unfair to think this problem exists only within Google. Time and time again we are reminded why corporations will evolve to become as greedy and as protective of their turf expansive of their power and monopolistic as they can get, even if good people are running them. It is the system itself that does this, corp…
There is really very little content in this article. It reads like a classic case of "Write an essay in N words" and you find yourself finishing at M The whole premise is a bit flawed - it's putting most of the blame on Google. When an "independent" organization takes on average $1M/yr from any entity, and structure themselves such that losing that money is a big concern, then they've played an equal role in this mes…
>The whole premise is a bit flawed - it's putting most of the blame on Google.
The premise is that Eric Schmidt's displeasure lead to some people getting fired. I don't know how else you could make that argument without blaming Google when the entire argument is about blaming Google.
Of course they do. Their credibility is on the line, and much has already been lost; they will forever be that group who is beholden to Google.
Maybe wait until after the announcement to judge its veracity.
Ah usually I'd give the benefit of the doubt, but look at that email sent by Slaughter. Besides it's not just Barry Lynn departing, it's the whole Open Markets program aka anyone in a position to question Google's market dominance. The statement by New America is going to be sufficiently vague to avoid saying that there was any connection between Google's funding and the cutting of this program but the email lays out quite clearly that's exactly what it was. Sometimes it's better to ignore the PR.
I'm not normally a grammar pedant, but i had to reread the first two opening paragraphs several times before I understood what was going on: > The New America Foundation has received more than $21 million from Google; its parent company’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt; and his family’s foundation since the think tank’s founding in 1999. Semicolons aren't glorified commas. Stop it. Bad! Bad! :-p
The Oatmeal isn't necessarily an authority, but explicitly lists "use semicolons as a super comma!" as one of their uses:
The thing is that Google has absolutely gone down questionable path from their early days. It is a little unfair to think this problem exists only within Google. Time and time again we are reminded why corporations will evolve to become as greedy and as protective of their turf expansive of their power and monopolistic as they can get, even if good people are running them. It is the system itself that does this, corp…
Schmidt was pretty clear in his book that he believes his business success is an indicator of virtue, and that he believes he should use Google and his wealth to intentionally seek to manipulate modern culture. It's a disturbing notion and I've never understood why people weren't more concerned about it. If every significant avenue of communication used by people is controlled and censored by a group, no matter who i…
As to your first paragraph, many companies and founders would say the the same thing, no? "We want to change the world by doing X (through their business)". Also, what other metric for success is there in the current culture of the USA other than business success? Not that I'm saying that's bad or good...
The thing is that Google has absolutely gone down questionable path from their early days. It is a little unfair to think this problem exists only within Google. Time and time again we are reminded why corporations will evolve to become as greedy and as protective of their turf expansive of their power and monopolistic as they can get, even if good people are running them. It is the system itself that does this, corp…
The thing is that Google has absolutely gone down questionable path from their early days. It is a little unfair to think this problem exists only within Google. Time and time again we are reminded why corporations will evolve to become as greedy and as protective of their turf expansive of their power and monopolistic as they can get, even if good people are running them. It is the system itself that does this, corp…
Schmidt was pretty clear in his book that he believes his business success is an indicator of virtue, and that he believes he should use Google and his wealth to intentionally seek to manipulate modern culture. It's a disturbing notion and I've never understood why people weren't more concerned about it. If every significant avenue of communication used by people is controlled and censored by a group, no matter who i…
> Schmidt was pretty clear in his book that he believes his business success is an indicator of virtue, and that he believes he should use Google and his wealth to intentionally seek to manipulate modern culture.
Which book, and could you perhaps share some excerpts, or a link with more information?
This isn't a problem with Google, it's a problem with the establishment left in the United States. There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. The reasons why are many, but of course they typically distill down to the incredible power of money to influence people, of which this is an example. The side-effects of there being no credible labor party in our political system manifests, in part…
In your estimation, are you placing the very active and loud anti-corporate voices in this country outside of American politics, or merely denying that they are genuine?