Too Much Power For One Man

The whole world dominance theory is an exaggeration. The biggest markets in the world (by population) are completely closed to Google.

They have their own versions of Facebook, Youtube, Google and everything else we use here in the west, and that's not going to change anytime soon since the governments have protectionist policies in these sectors.

And even in parts of the west, namely the EU, policies are implemented which are trying to push Google out of the market, or at least weaken it severely, to allow their local industries to grow.

Whatever you might fear that Google will become some day, it wont happen, since they wont even get a fair chance in most markets to get dominant. And even if they do, they will be pushed out by the government, if it can afford it.

According to these two blog posts, [1] and [2], the source is the film The Mindscape of Alan Moore. [3] I love the quote too, I just learned of it.

[1] http://dailyhumanist.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/the-world-is-r...

[2] http://pvewood.blogspot.fr/2012/04/some-alan-moore-quotation...

[3] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410321/

  It's all the same machine, right? The Pentagon, 
  multinational corporations, the police. If you 
  do one little job, you build a widget in 
  Saskatoon, and the next thing you know, it's two 
  miles under the desert, the essential component 
  of a death machine.

  ...

  This may be hard for you to understand, but there 
  is no conspiracy. Nobody is in charge. It, it's a 
  headless blunder operating under the illusion of a 
  master plan. Can you grasp that? Big Brother is not 
  watching you.

Cube - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/

>Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories

I missed the conspiracy theory in the article. Can you point it out? Again, it appeared to be a series of facts illustrating the power of Google/Page and a rational question: Do these facts represent the concentration of too much power in one man's hands?

>distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that Google actually has (e.g. on privacy.)

Why can't it be both-and vs. either-or? Sure, the privacy issue is clear-and-present. But, keep in mind that when Google first started, we were just happy to have such a powerful search-engine. Perhaps it would have been a "nutty conspiracy theory" then to worry about your privacy. After all, why would Google abuse their access to your data when "Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from"... abusing its customers' trust?

What seems most counter-intuitive, however, is that you don't trust them with your data, but you trust them with, say, launching satellites and wielding combat-robot technology. I'm not being facetious when I say that it's honestly kind of hard to find the line with you.

>Mostly motive.

Pretty amazing that you think you know Page's motives. Actually, scratch that: we can all surmise. What's amazing is that you're so certain.

Regardless, even with the "purest" motives, it's worth considering whether so much power can lead to unintended consequences.

>* Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from building a private army.*

Nor does it from abusing your privacy. Or does it?

>But also, I used all my tin foil heating up potatoes.

Apparently, not. The article never stated that Page was building a private army. You did.

1. Society has lots of problems. Probably mass incarceration is a much larger problem than over-armed local police departments. That doesn't mean we shouldn't address the problem of over-armed local police departments. It also doesn't mean the problems are unrelated.

Similarly, militarization of police and decreased personal privacy expectations are probably not completely unrelated. And we don't have to focus on one to the exclusion of the other.

2. Actually, yes, Google is reading your emails. Even if you don't use gmail, they probably know who you are and who you talk with and what you talk about.

Eroding privacy is a real social problem. I'm not sure why you are so quick to trivialize.

3. Tech corporations may have great PR, but they are certainly aware of the fact that they externalize costs in the forms of e-waste dumping and horrible labor conditions. Just because you don't have to see this stuff doesn't mean it does not exist.