Google and Evolution of the Internet

[TheMastersSon]

RattleAndGrind, the fifth result is a link to a very long article, which requires substantial time to read. The simple fact is, none of those results is a direct link to a non-manipulated search engine, nor any indication that it and other technologies even exist. Google forces you to jump through unnecessary hoops to get to this information.

 

You know I expected to hear from defenders of the status quo when I posted this topic, but imo this defense is not only ridiculous, it's unconscionable. No company should ever be allowed to dictate the extent of their own competition in a market, especially when the company already holds an effective market share of over 90%. As mentioned by others, it's not as if this collapse of regulated capitalism is limited to the search engine industry, e.g. if this was any year prior to 1990, Microsoft would have already been forced to divest themselves of their 95% lock on the world's desktops, instead of being given the green light to cement their monopoly into permanent existence via forced version control (dropping of support for still-viable OSs etc) and implementation of copy protection (WPA etc).

 

Copy protection, for a product that owns 95% of the world. Simply but stunningly outrageous imo, and a royal embarrassment for me as an American. Our federal government is utterly prostituted and corrupted.

Edited August 14, 2016 by TheMastersSon

[Vagrant0]

RattleAndGrind, the fifth result is a link to a very long article, which requires substantial time to read. The simple fact is, none of those results is a direct link to a non-manipulated search engine, nor any indication that it and other technologies even exist. Google forces you to jump through unnecessary hoops to get to this information.

5 seconds to ask on any forum on the internet.

 

<25 seconds to bring up a full list of search providers in Firefox.

 

If you're using Chrome or Internet Explorer... You still can, but since these browsers are owned by the companies you are searching against, some effort will be needed on your part. It's like going to a bank and asking about opening a line of credit... Naturally they will mention their own services long before mentioning others. This is how businesses, ANY successful business, works. They would not continue in operation if they actively helped people find alternatives. Linux is open source and works as an operating system that can still run a large number of applications (excluding games, since games are designed to run on Windows or iOS as a platform, just like games on console are designed to run on a platform). But at that point you might as well be yelling at Sony for not making their PS4 games work on your Xbone. I don't like Microsoft, I have refused to update to Windows 10, but also realize that the barrel exists and I will eventually be bent over it. That is how business works. Surprise, surprise, the companies worth several trillion dollars have more resources to throw at their products and services than an open source operation or some guy coding in his basement. Amazingly, those companies who have the largest portion of market share are also willing to spend money and resources to retain their market share rather than just sit on their hands or declare defeat. This is how business works.

 

The problem here is not the fanboys, is not people who are happily drinking the spiked coolaid. It is that you don't really seem to understand how business works and seem more intent on complaining about a problem instead of spending the personal effort to help move yourself out of reach of those complaints. It is not nearly as difficult as you make it sound to distance yourself from Google, or even Microsoft... Rather you aren't willing to spend the effort or deal with programs and services which are not as well supported or developed. Working outside the system, or even exploiting that system is very possible... It just requires effort and willingness to deal with the complications that are involved with working outside the system.

 

Try buying lunch on the barter system sometime. Despite the overwhelming control that people who regulate the supply of cash or credit have, the alternative can still be used when and where you are willing to spend the effort.

[RattleAndGrind]

Okay, I am calling BULLSHIT!!

 

The article is not that long, over half of the page space is taken up by pictures, there is ample white space and it is written in simple sentences. Further, a few of the 14 search engines mentioned in the article duplicate engines on the list provide by Vagrant0, which validates the information he provided in that post.

 

I did not endorse any engine, I simply stated that I 'launched google'. So the reprehensible part of this is your assumptions and your assertions based on those assumptions.

After rereading this entire thread, it has become plain to me. You have an agenda. To advance that agenda, you have discounted, minimized and summarily dismissed any evidence which does not fit with your preconceived ideology. You have insulted and demeaned people collectively and individually. It is obvious that you do not want a discussion, but an argument.

 

I refuse to encourage this asininity further.

[JimboUK]

Changing the search engine in Chrome is easy, it's in the basic settings, there's a small list and an option to add to it.

[TheMastersSon]

RattleAndGrind, I've repeatedly said I have nothing personal against Google, and your claims of insult and demeaning and agenda are utter nonsense. You posted a set of results in an effort to try and disprove my claim, the results not only didn't disprove my claim, they illustrate the problem perfectly. How many people take the time (or are going to take the time) to read entire articles about alternate search engines, compared to the number who go no further than the first page of direct links to these engines offered by Google? Etc. Etc etc, times countless millions, every single day.

 

Someday I hope to comprehend defense of the status quo. What is the possible point of defense, that we should continue allowing one company to dictate over 90% of humanity's view of itself? Do you have no problem with your ability to find something on the internet being entirely dependent on how Google's legal department is feeling today? It astonishes me that anyone can defend it.

[Vagrant0]

How many people take the time (or are going to take the time) to read entire articles about alternate search engines, compared to the number who go no further than the first page of direct links to these engines offered by Google?

A good number actually... Mostly those who are aware of the bubble that can exist and intentionally want to move outside of it. Those who don't, those people who can't be bothered to spend the handful of minutes... Well, they are also probably perfectly happy with using the most convenient and available system anyway... Which would be Google. Why search for a better wheel when you're happy with the one you have? The food served by McDonalds is often lower quality, more expensive, and tastes worse than locally owned businesses... Yet people will still happily eat there, still bring their kids there, still stop by on the way home from work.. Why? Because McDonalds is in more locations, advertises better, has food immediately available, and fits within their routine.

 

This has nothing to do with the status quo (Not that you're even using it right here), but rather how people's habits form and how the concerns of one individual are rarely as meaningful to another. Neither of us are defending the status quo since we have both presented evidence to the existence of alternatives and mention specifically how easy it is to obtain this information once you can be bothered to move away from the flock of sheep and look for yourself. Hell, I even pointed you directly to several viable alternatives by name, by link, and explaining exactly how that service differs from google. If anyone here is defending the status quo here, it would be you... Since you have made every effort to try and claim how difficult it is to stray from the flock when this really is not the case. Congratulations, you are one of the cattle that realizes that it is cattle, but doesn't seem to have the capacity to either accept that existence or the agency to seek out other ways of being. It's no wonder you're concerned and afraid, you realize where the ramp at the end of the stockyard leads but can't be bothered to go against the flow of the herd because it's "impossible" or "takes too long". Good luck and enjoy being a McDonalds hamburger.

 

You can't save the world, at best you can save the few who have the strength and will to follow along, at worst you can only try and save yourself.

[TheMastersSon]

Vagrant, not sure where the consistent implied personal insults are coming from. Status quo simply means the way things currently are, unless you mean status quo ante (the way things were before). Either and both apply to Google in this case, since they used to provide objective and unobfuscated search results, as noted earlier and in case nobody remembers.

 

These swipes are every bit your right as a moderator, but they still hurt, especially when my two available choices are to properly answer them or lose my access to this site. But if your job is personal insult, you're doing a good one imo.

[Vagrant0]

Vagrant, not sure where the consistent implied personal insults are coming from. Status quo simply means the way things currently are, unless you mean status quo ante (the way things were before). Either and both apply to Google in this case, since they used to provide objective and unobfuscated search results, as noted earlier and in case nobody remembers.

Let me explain.

 

The status quo (the state of things) in your belief (case) is that "Google is a monopoly, that there are no viable alternatives". Correct?

 

Meaning that to defend this case implies providing evidence or argument that supports that statement. Correct?

 

Where have I, or most others done this? Where in my efforts to explain that regulation controls only serve to strengthen monopolies has this statement been reinforced. Where in my descriptions of viable alternatives to Google as a search engine, or mentioning specific alternatives to Youtube have I reinforced this initial statement? The fact that alternatives exist and can be easily found by anyone proves your case incorrect. The fact that this has been repeated to you from others who are not myself, or who are obligated to agree with me, suggests that this is not some unique knowledge to which I am privy (as you assume, from a substantial amount of time researching the matter). If a company is doing something you don't agree with, stop using that company. If you can't be bothered doing it another way, then you have to make a choice between inconvenience or supporting what you disagree with.

 

Meanwhile, everything you have stated goes on to try and reinforce this case you are trying to prove while ignoring most of the evidence given to you. Every time someone says something in opposition, you either say "that takes too much time", "that is too difficult", how you have to "jump through hoops"... Or you try to turn it around and either insult the person making the statement, call into question their agenda, or try to sidestep the conversation entirely by pointing to how evil other companies are, or how corruption is a thing that exists.

 

Being a moderator of this site doesn't grant me any rites beyond that of other users. I follow the same rules that everyone else does, and Dark0ne would not have even invited me or kept me around if I ever entertained the idea of using site tools to try and bully others into agreeing with me. I may speak harshly from time to time, but mostly because I have the unfortunate tendency to be too honest with people when they have stopped listening to more diplomatic responses. I'm sorry if you are taking personal insult, but accusations of me being unconscionable for not outright agreeing with you, or claiming that I would abuse power because of it is also an insult against my own morality or integrity.

 

I'm sorry, but the person who cannot be bothered to look past the first few results given to them in a search quite well falls under the definition of lazy. A person who holds onto a singular belief (usually one they have been told by someone they respect) as an absolute (ignoring evidence to the contrary) falls under the definition of Sheep or Cattle. I cannot help how these definitions apply to your behavior here. Please explain where my logic is flawed here so that I can correct it.

[TheMastersSon]

 

Vagrant, not sure where the consistent implied personal insults are coming from. Status quo simply means the way things currently are, unless you mean status quo ante (the way things were before). Either and both apply to Google in this case, since they used to provide objective and unobfuscated search results, as noted earlier and in case nobody remembers.

Let me explain.

 

The status quo (the state of things) in your belief (case) is that "Google is a monopoly, that there are no viable alternatives". Correct?

 

Meaning that to defend this case implies providing evidence or argument that supports that statement. Correct?

 

Where have I, or most others done this? Where in my efforts to explain that regulation controls only serve to strengthen monopolies has this statement been reinforced. Where in my descriptions of viable alternatives to Google as a search engine, or mentioning specific alternatives to Youtube have I reinforced this initial statement? The fact that alternatives exist and can be easily found by anyone proves your case incorrect. The fact that this has been repeated to you from others who are not myself, or who are obligated to agree with me, suggests that this is not some unique knowledge to which I am privy (as you assume, from a substantial amount of time researching the matter). If a company is doing something you don't agree with, stop using that company. If you can't be bothered doing it another way, then you have to make a choice between inconvenience or supporting what you disagree with.

 

Meanwhile, everything you have stated goes on to try and reinforce this case you are trying to prove while ignoring most of the evidence given to you. Every time someone says something in opposition, you either say "that takes too much time", "that is too difficult", how you have to "jump through hoops"... Or you try to turn it around and either insult the person making the statement, call into question their agenda, or try to sidestep the conversation entirely by pointing to how evil other companies are, or how corruption is a thing that exists.

 

Being a moderator of this site doesn't grant me any rites beyond that of other users. I follow the same rules that everyone else does, and Dark0ne would not have even invited me or kept me around if I ever entertained the idea of using site tools to try and bully others into agreeing with me. I may speak harshly from time to time, but mostly because I have the unfortunate tendency to be too honest with people when they have stopped listening to more diplomatic responses. I'm sorry if you are taking personal insult, but accusations of me being unconscionable for not outright agreeing with you, or claiming that I would abuse power because of it is also an insult against my own morality or integrity.

 

I'm sorry, but the person who cannot be bothered to look past the first few results given to them in a search quite well falls under the definition of lazy. A person who holds onto a singular belief (usually one they have been told by someone they respect) as an absolute (ignoring evidence to the contrary) falls under the definition of Sheep or Cattle. I cannot help how these definitions apply to your behavior here. Please explain where my logic is flawed here so that I can correct it.

 

The status quo I don't understand people defending is Google being allowed to effectively control their own competition in the global search engine market. If I understand you, you're claiming they don't control their own competition. Correct? Or are you saying they do control it, and should be allowed to by law?

 

I am not the only person making the claim that Google squelches their competition, and it's moronic to claim any company would choose to not do so when they're given the opportunity. Entire countries around the world (full list gladly furnished on request) have made and are still making this exact same claim. So would y'all stop trying to frame it as somehow a personal problem of mine, or pin me as an enemy of Google with a specific agenda? What nonsense! This makes the fourth time I'm repeating that who the companies might be in the internet's case is entirely incidental. The consistency of the development pattern was and is the major point of my OP, it's been consistent with (as far as I've read) every new communications technology that's come along over the decades in our country. A handful of players find themselves in monopoly control, abuse takes place, and our two options are to lose the technology in any usable form to the commercial profit motive (FM radio, cable TV etc), or regulate it as a common carrier communications network (landline telephones etc). For the last time, you have yet to provide any viable third alternative to those two, and until you do, your personal attacks speak to your inability to do so.

 

If there's any agenda around here it's certainly not mine, imo.

[TheMastersSon]

Would any reader of this thread support your phone company being able to listen in on your conversations, and then push advertising on you based on what you and your party said? How about the USPS or UPS being able to open all of our packages and push advertising based on what we're mailing?

 

Title II protection was bestowed by our FCC specifically because our internet access was already well on the way to being lost. One of the FCC's major complaints was against Comcast, who decided in their own best interest to stop carrying encrypted data on their networks. Etc, and hopefully this illustrates what the issue or problem is. Our choices are regulation of the internet or eventual loss or effective loss of it. I will wait patiently for anyone to come up with a third alternative, as we've been trying to do so for at least the last 100+ years.