Google and Evolution of the Internet

[Vagrant0]

Read a little slower. How many of Google's 'alternatives' include non-manipulated search engines (e.g. YaCy and other decentralized/distributed engines)? Or any indication that these products even exist?

 

Here's the bottom line imo: Imagine you're running Google, with effective control over 90% of the world's internet searches. It's legal for your company to intentionally squelch information about your current and potential competitors. If you're seriously claiming you would choose to not do so, out of philanthropy, stupidity, or whatever, you're delusional imo. It's not how business works and it's not how business is supposed to work. Google will grow a moral conscience just as soon as they are forced to grow one by our government, and those of other countries around the world (many of whom have filed and are still filing the same types of anti-competitive lawsuits against the company).

I would strongly disagree.

 

It is very easy to find non-manipulated search engines... Including engines that access Google's search engine but from randomized locations so as to defeat any sort of information bubble that may be appearing around you from normal usage. Most of these alternatives are pre-installed on Firefox or even listed in Chrome, with most others able to be added without any difficulty. In fact, I have been using one or more of these services as normal behavior over the last 10 years, regularly, without seeing any evidence of information being closed off. This includes following similar search terms as others when it comes to world events that were glossed over by the Western Press. And it wasn't even very hard to do this. If you want to peek outside your bubble, it is very easy... even for something as tracked and recommended as Youtube.

 

That said, this bubble is not something that Google planned and designed in their system, but is instead a side effect of their software monitoring what you click and look at and determining what results you are looking for based on either your past history or the history of others who clicked similar things. Even without using these alternatives, it can be very easy to break free of this bubble once you recognize it happening.

 

Google isn't alone in owning a large portion of the internet. Amazon, Microsoft, and a handful of other companies have been chipping away at any idea of a Google Monopoly. But, if you've spent any time looking at how these companies are operated, talked to employees, checked the sorts of places that the higher ups are investing your money, you can quickly see that Google itself is a very different company. Most of the people I've met who work for Google like the company and claim that it is probably the best job they've ever had. Google employs people from all walks of life, and has facilities all over the US, providing jobs not only in large cities, but also rural areas which are near their data storage facilities. Even as imposing as their data storage facilities might be, often being more tightly monitored and secured than banks and places that store money or munitions, the inside of these facilities are still comfortable for the people who work in them, who understand the necessity of keeping information secure. In all the years that Google has been in operation, they havn't actually done anything that can be considered nefarious in the greater scope of things.

 

Power only corrupts when you have something to gain from misuse of that power. Google has no sign of future financial concerns. Has nothing to gain from holding information hostage. Has nothing to gain from skewing information... Frankly, you have more to be concerned about regarding politicians and news reporting agencies these days. Thus far, the only reason why the average person can even read anything contrary to what these groups are spouting is because of services like Google, that makes it easy to find desired information quickly without having to prove security clearance.

[TheMastersSon]

Just to restate my opinion, I have nothing personal against Google. I don't believe it's a bad place to work, or that bad people work for them, or run the company. I'm not claiming they're doing anything that you, I or most everyone else reading this thread wouldn't do if we were in the same position of power. The point of my post was not to start debates over whether Google or any company should act contrary to their own best interests.

 

The point was just to share my opinion that it's a temporary and necessary growing phase in the development of the internet. Left unregulated, the corporate profit motive would have eventually done to the internet exactly what it did to FM radio, cable TV and every other communications medium that wasn't given proper protection: converted it into an infinite wasteland of commercial advertising, with as close to zero usable free content as humanly possible. It's simply the profit motive hard at work, no debate is even possible on that point. The abuse can only and will get worse until it's forced to end via legal action, as has already happened to Google in many other countries e.g.:

 

http://nypost.com/2015/04/15/european-union-hits-google-with-official-antitrust-charges/

Edited August 10, 2016 by TheMastersSon

[Vagrant0]

 

The point was just to share my opinion that it's a temporary and necessary growing phase in the development of the internet. Left unregulated, the corporate profit motive would have eventually done to the internet exactly what it did to FM radio, cable TV and every other communications medium that wasn't given proper protection: converted it into an infinite wasteland of commercial advertising, with as close to zero usable free content as humanly possible. It's simply the profit motive hard at work, no debate is even possible on that point. The abuse can only and will get worse until it's forced to end via legal action, as has already happened to Google in many other countries e.g.:

Except that history has shown the opposite... Companies have managed to get their foothold and regional monopolies entirely BECAUSE of regulation. With regulation comes guidelines, government oversights, and a host of other requirements that essentially bar anyone outside of those who are already established from participating in the market.

 

Before the FCC and regulation, you could essentially just hook up your own radio transmitter anywhere you wanted and do your own radio station... Even in those days, it wasn't too expensive to buy the required electronics and mount a transmitter on top of a building or high post to reach 2-3 towns over. With regulation came the need to register these stations to specific frequencies so that they wouldn't start to overlap. With regulation came the FCC to regulate what was being broadcast and stations having to pay fees to make their station official, and to pay for the costs of the organization.

 

The other part of things is the fact that regulation does not mean that the companies being regulated end up being any morally pure or trustworthy. The cable and internet provider industry is highly regulated, yet most the companies involved in the US are able to practice deceptive, abusive, exploitative behaviors because there is no room for competitors without substantial investment. Meanwhile the established companies have agreed to not compete with eachother. For most, this leaves it to essentially 3 options... Cable internet, which is stupidly expensive. DSL through the phone company, which is exceedingly slow. Or a mobile provider which is both expensive and slow. Within these, the only place where you have more than one company within any option is the mobile provider... and only if you live near a major metropolitan area. These companies know they have their consumers over a barrel, and have negotiated the regulations to ensure that it remains that way.

 

While it is unlikely that someone new will enter the market and completely "dethrone" or replace Google, the potential for that to happen is still possible without huge investment. They would not have to meet whatever regulations Google negotiated in order to operate, but can instead compete in their own terms and on their own merits. But this has not happened because nobody sees any reason to spend the money and resources attempting to do so... Only Microsoft and forcing Bing down people's throats because they want more market share.

[TheMastersSon]

Vagrant0, I agree with much of what you say, especially that first bit. I readily admit that regulation is usually the cause of problems instead of solutions, but in all honesty, nobody in over a century now has ever found a third alternative when a new communications technology comes along. The medium must either be protected (in the form of regulation), or it will with 110% certainty be eventually lost in any useful form to the profit motive of those who control it and its major owners/players. Our federal government didn't write and pass the Communications Act of 1934 because they were bored. Read the history of what necessitated it. It was quite literally the only alternative to losing our then-brand new landline telephone network to monopoly abuse and profiteering.

[Vagrant0]

Vagrant0, I agree with much of what you say, especially that first bit. I readily admit that regulation is usually the cause of problems instead of solutions, but in all honesty, nobody in over a century now has ever found a third alternative when a new communications technology comes along. The medium must either be protected (in the form of regulation), or it will with 110% certainty be eventually lost in any useful form to the profit motive of those who control it and its major owners/players. Our federal government didn't write and pass the Communications Act of 1934 because they were bored. Read the history of what necessitated it. It was quite literally the only alternative to losing our then-brand new landline telephone network to monopoly abuse and profiteering.

I wasn't trying to paint the past in some sort of problem-free light. But instead suggesting that each instance needs to be handled based on what is actually happening with it instead of paranoia.

 

Yes, Google could potentially start having their own monopoly of the internet, and are potentially working towards this with adding fiber service to portions of the US while cable companies are busy sitting on their wad of cash and laying the same sort of cable they did 20 years ago. But for the most part, that is the fault of these companies who have been holding back improvements in infrastructure and keeping their services mostly stagnant instead of investing the money themselves. Yes, this is not much different than the Bell company pretty much investing all the money setting up poles and advancing the technology behind it leaving telegraph in the dust of time and pushing out upstarts... But isn't that the main point behind throwing a large continual investment into developing the technology instead of claiming it to be "good enough" and charging anything you want for usage of it.

 

Google is one of the main companies around that is investing in the development and framework of the internet itself, and has even gone as far as making portions of their advancements open to public source or utilization.. Other companies can complain all they want, but they aren't actually doing anything about it, they aren't putting money into securing their own position, and are just relying on lawmakers (more easily bought than research) to rule in their favor. That, more than anything, should be the part that should concern you. We already had automotive and power generation technology essentially haulted for 50 years because of situations like this. For every valid case of anti-trust measures, there are objections raised just because those people who already have a corner on the market who don't want to cut into their profit margins to compete with new technology. Meanwhile drug companies sit on their new names and tweaks of old drugs just to ensure their ability to be the sole producer and distributor due to the muddled mess that is copyright law. The law here is very rarely the friend of the common man.

 

Yes, some of this means that eventually Google might have that monopoly and be able to throw a switch and have most the developed world by the balls... But given that the head of Google is still a reasonably sane individual who actually has shown interest in the betterment of humanity instead of his own bank account, I don't see that happening. Given that it is a publicly traded company, without the benefit of a small coalition of shareholders, any complete flips of their direction or policy would likely result in a much greater loss of stock value than what they could possibly get from milking customers for every penny they have.

[RattleAndGrind]

 

<snip>

 

 

The other part of things is the fact that regulation does not mean that the companies being regulated end up being any morally pure or trustworthy. The cable and internet provider industry is highly regulated, yet most the companies involved in the US are able to practice deceptive, abusive, exploitative behaviors because there is no room for competitors without substantial investment. Meanwhile the established companies have agreed to not compete with eachother. For most, this leaves it to essentially 3 options... Cable internet, which is stupidly expensive. DSL through the phone company, which is exceedingly slow. Or a mobile provider which is both expensive and slow. Within these, the only place where you have more than one company within any option is the mobile provider... and only if you live near a major metropolitan area. These companies know they have their consumers over a barrel, and have negotiated the regulations to ensure that it remains that way.

 

<snip>

 

 

There is a fourth option for Internet service. Satellite. It is horribly slow (15 mbs), the usage is capped (30 GB/month after which the speed drops to five mbs), the availability is inconsistent during inclement weather, and it is horribly overpriced (USD $170/mo) for the service provided. But it is the only game in town if you live in the boondocks.

Edited August 12, 2016 by RattleAndGrind

[MotoSxorpio]

I have used Google to search (for anything not illegal) for at least a decade. Searches conducted from my home station (my rig) tend to have the BEST results. After the advent of Google phones (Android), and me actually having a Google phone, the searches I conduct on my phone get better. I usually find what I am looking for with only two edits to the original search criteria.

Your searches are sorted by what you click (resulting in non-answer), what you actively type for search and what you end up clicking for an end result.

You have control over what ads or marketing are allowed.

 

Objective results need objective searches...and plenty of searching. And the RIGHT search criteria.

There is and will never be a super search that only finds what you want unless you teach it what you want.

It ALL depends on what you give back to the engine.

[TheMastersSon]

Objective searches are altogether impossible on Google, Bing, or any other manipulated search engine. Manipulated and objective are mutually exclusive terms.

 

Please explain or consider why Google and Bing don't allow at least an option for unmanipulated search results, like Google did for years, until they were given the green light to do otherwise, and you'll understand the problem and current scam. The bread and butter of these engines are censorship, graft and occasionally even extortion, and what Google can't ignore through their 90+% market share of internet searches, they buy and immediately bury, or relegate to other markets. The same scam also accounts for their insane stock price, since they are now masters both of their own financial future as well as everyone else's.

 

As for finding stuff, it was the major motivator of my post. As time goes on I'm finding Google useful for not much other than finding and buying crap from China, and the example I already used serves well enough imo. Type "alternate search engines" into Google and you will find no info whatsoever about distributed engines. But you WILL find results if you already know what to look for, and search specifically for distributed engines. Now complain to Google about it, and they willl simply tell you the two terms are different and people should search more "carefully".

 

It really is a scam of epic proportions. Do you have any idea how many countless thousands of video sharing sites, and a long list of other sites have been virtually wiped from our planet thanks to this manipulation? The sole crime committed by most of these sites is that their subject matter and/or content is inconvenient for Google's legal department, while the other eight billion of us wallow in ignorance because of it.

 

Again, I'm a major advocate of hands-off government, but this is one of the few cases where no viable third alternative has ever been found. We must regulate and protect it or we will lose it to the inexorable and infinite profit motive.

Edited August 13, 2016 by TheMastersSon

[Vagrant0]

Type "alternate search engines" into Google and you will find no info whatsoever about distributed engines..

 

You're doing it wrong. It's only natural that when using a search engine, the company who owns that search engine will try to skew the results in their favor. Microsoft does this extensively by not only redirecting searches for Firefox or Chrome to IE downloads, but also by pushing every search made in Windows 10 and IE through Bing.

 

If you're using Firefox, you can quickly load in an alternative search provider just by clicking on search bar and selecting "change search settings" This will bring up a list of search engines you have already opted to use and give you an option to obtain more. You'll still have to do a bit of reading on the list to find what you want, but it is still relatively simple to do.

 

For chrome or IE... You probably have a harder task on your hands since these browsers are owned by the companies you are trying to distance yourself from.

 

But, here are some reliable alternatives.

https://www.ixquick.com/ or https://www.startpage.com/ - Parses searches through Google, but does not employ tracking mechanisms. In my own years of using this service, I've had no trouble locating the things I was looking for. About the only thing to keep in mind is that what you actually want will not always be at the top of the list.

 

https://privatelee.com/ - Similar to above. Not personally used this service, not keen on the javascript interface, but this also cross-checks through Bing results.

 

https://qwant.com/ - France based company who also practices without tracking or recording of searches. Searches done on this engine seem to be done in-house instead of through a Google scrape. Unsure if this means fewer results, but should not be an issue for most searches. Does not however support Web of Trust notifications in the results, so would not recommend this in cases where what you are searching for is likely to lead to spoofed pages or sites centered around shady practices.

 

https://www.unbubble.eu/ - German based, EU focused search engine that uses scrapes from multiple other search engines to produce results while also not tracking or recording user information.

 

https://duckduckgo.com/ - Yet another search engine that records no personal information. Search results seem to be obtained from in-house methods rather than a Google scrape. Supports Web of Trust, has both Javascript and lite interface that are protected by SSL encryption.

 

Just to name a few. Many of these engines are hosted in Europe, or came about intentionally to undermine the sorts of tracking that Google does. This is not counting the handful of sites I found within 10 minutes of looking who just seemed shady, incomplete, or were employing their own tracking methods. This is not counting the dozens of other search engines out there that are geared towards a specific language or to get around whatever kind of filtering is already being imposed by the government of certain countries. There is no lack of results here... Only lack of effort on your part.

 

Beyond this, if what you're trying to search for has no meaningful results, it is either because the results do not exist, or are not suitable (such as extreme pornography) or designed for public consumption (illegal activities) or both. If information is intentionally being hidden, it is not always done by some authority, but rather so that the authors of that information are trying to limit exposure only to those people who can spend the effort and have the knowledge to access that information... Such as the darkweb or geocaches... In which case, it is not your business to know these things and searching for them can get you more than you bargained for.

 

As to your supposed video sharing/image sharing sites... I'm sorry to say, but most of these vanished simply because they were crap, had their own problems, or were bought out. There are still alternatives out there, mostly ones which are region specific like Nicovideo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niconico or smaller sites that are not as good as the familiar Youtube, like Vimeo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimeo. Or the dozens of other video related sites listed at the bottom of that wiki page. Again, it is not that there are not alternatives out there... Just that you aren't even trying to look.

[RattleAndGrind]

I must be part cat, because my curiosity got the best of me. I launched Google and then googled "search engines". Here is the result. Now, this only the top part of the first page; but note the fifth result.