"Join the waitlist" Really? There are only, what, 10 candidates?? Srsly Google?
Google Posts
101–110 of 118 posts
Re: Google Posts
#102I do find it amusing that all comments are focused on the US. There are hundreds of countries around the world were TV stations are black boxes and presidential / prime ministerial hopefuls have no platform to express themselves. Having access to a platform that can promote and answer content as users are searching for answers on them (at least how it reads on face value) seems incredibly important. I do however agree that transparency around who gets access to the platform is critical for user trust.
Re: Google Posts
#103This infuriates me as a Twitter stockholder and user. Has everyone at Twitter fallen asleep? How could they not have the jump on Google on this.
You will use the gifs and like them.
Re: Google Posts
#104It is scary how much power and influence Google now have in setting the agenda for public discourse. When this opens up to other "prominent figures and organizations", it will be at Google's discretion who is worthy of the public's attention and which issues and areas will get this treatment. This seems a step beyond simply organising the world’s information. Even if it's with the best intentions, the fact is that th…
Isn't this much the same as the apparent rumours of twitter suppressing conservative voices and hashtags? I've not looked into it in enough detail to decide whether its simply a conspiracy, but many popular internet services could be used to push political agendas.
Twitter likely did censor the #WhichHillary hashtag from two weeks ago. One of its executives was holding a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton a few days later.
Re: Google Posts
#105It is scary how much power and influence Google now have in setting the agenda for public discourse. When this opens up to other "prominent figures and organizations", it will be at Google's discretion who is worthy of the public's attention and which issues and areas will get this treatment. This seems a step beyond simply organising the world’s information. Even if it's with the best intentions, the fact is that th…
Same thing with AMP "partnerships", which get shown at the top of a search with images and whatnot. Except those partnerships are mostly establishment corporate media.
So just as we thought we'd escape from the brainwashing of corporate media from TV thanks to the Internet, I think Google, Facebook and Twitter even will play a big role on keeping the masses brainwashed by serving corporate media content to the majority of people, keeping them as brainwashed as ever.
Re: Google Posts
#106It is scary how much power and influence Google now have in setting the agenda for public discourse. When this opens up to other "prominent figures and organizations", it will be at Google's discretion who is worthy of the public's attention and which issues and areas will get this treatment. This seems a step beyond simply organising the world’s information. Even if it's with the best intentions, the fact is that th…
Does Google win by suppressing speech, even if those voices counter Google's ambitions? Google would do itself a disservice by cutting out people who rail against Google specifically or against what Google stands for generally. Google's bottom line is dependant on capturing all the data.
> capturing all the data.
But not on displaying all the data.
In fact, their whole business is to only show the data they believe you need right now.
EDIT: Which makes it even easier to just "drop" controversial views that might challenge your opinion – the Filter Bubble effect is very real, and with every change that makes search more "relevant", it gets worse.
EDIT2: If, additionally, a malicious entity – say, a government agency – would force Google to censor a topic, it would become a lot more problematic.
Re: Google Posts
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are thousands of television channels. As far as most people are concerned, when it comes to search, there is only Google.
But they're owned by about 6 companies: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/democracyondeadline/media... The web is vastly more open and representative.
In America, yes.
Not everywhere else.
Why do we have to make most of the western world worse, just because the result is better than what currently exists in the US?
Re: Google Posts
#108It is scary how much power and influence Google now have in setting the agenda for public discourse. When this opens up to other "prominent figures and organizations", it will be at Google's discretion who is worthy of the public's attention and which issues and areas will get this treatment. This seems a step beyond simply organising the world’s information. Even if it's with the best intentions, the fact is that th…
The potential for Google to therefore decide who gets to speak, and therefore who doesn't, is terrifying.
That would be of concern (regarding elections), if the system wasn't a rigged, 2-party system for a century or so -- where there are strict conventions of who gets to be heard and who can run (including needing some millions of the campaign), with BS primaries, and party nominations and such.
Re: Google Posts
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
The potential for Google to therefore decide who gets to speak, and therefore who doesn't, is terrifying.
Terrifying? I assume you're living in a constant state of fear then, because television networks already have and use that power. On the contrary I'd say that in this field the more players there are, the better.
>Terrifying? I assume you're living in a constant state of fear then, because television networks already have and use that power.
First, there are lots of tv networks.
Second, yes, regarding that matter, we SHOULD fear the power of tv networks.
I don't even understand the reasoning here: "why do you call Google having curation/censorship power fearsome, since tv networks already have curation/censorship power?".
Obviously because curation/censorship power of a level and above (e.g. not your local high school paper) is troubling.
Re: Google Posts
#110This could be even more dangerous than Facebook's walled garden in that it further defines Google as "The Internet."
Why is this necessary if Google Plus already exists? Couldn't they just add the features to Google Plus and include them in the search results?