|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: March 10, 2003 Boycott Google -- "If you are worried about government spying like Total Information Awareness, Carnivore or Echelon, you need not worry. Google™ is already doing quite a good job of spying on us all already."
Reader Comments...
paranoya will destroy ya Posted by: on March 10, 2003 11:51 AM
naivete won't keep evil at bay Posted by: on March 10, 2003 12:53 PM
I'm not sure if Gavin's just naive or spreading FUD. Dave Winer calling for it wouldn't be my best argument for boycotting a service. He's just sore that Google didn't buy his weblogging software (don't blame them actually.) And oh, those evil cookies! They will wipe your hard drive, steal your credit card secrets, send porn to your wife, etc. Didn't you know that? (Yes Gavin, you can actually delete them. What's more, you can set your browser to block them even. Shall I tell you how?) I wonder if Gavin knows that ALL web servers record your IP address, your browser agent, the date, the time, etc. They're called server logs. I hope he stops surfing the Web right NOW! I could dissect this piece line by line, but I'd probably be wasting my time. The readers of this site are intelligent enough to figure it out for themselves. Posted by: MadMan on March 10, 2003 02:57 PM
I'm concerned about Google's(TM) apparent lack of responsiveness to questions about privacy and pagerank. If Google(TM) is going to be th predominant powerhouse of search engines, it has greater responsibility to uphold to be honest with its users. A human response to an e-mailed question would be nice. It's been eons since I've seen that happen. Posted by: HappyCat on March 10, 2003 03:23 PM
HappyCat I've seen no evidence that Google has failed to be honest with users. You and others seem to feel that Google owes something because we've allowed Google to become important to us. If you want unconditional love in return for your devotion, get another cat. Posted by: Ed on March 10, 2003 06:00 PM
Ed, you don't understand why people are concerned about Google. With great power comes great responsibility. Google has not demonstrated itself to be responsive to privacy concerns. I do not consider 'no comment' to be responsive.
Spidey-- I don't think one can read into a 'no comment' and conjure up Simon Legree. I think the anti-Google FUD is concentrated mainly among webloggers who haven't realized that Google is run by a bunch of engineers that are not generally accustomed to public ass-kissing. In other words... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=never+ascribe+to+malice&btnG=Google+Search Posted by: Ed on March 10, 2003 11:26 PM
They better learn fast or the growing unrest among librarians and nerds will spur a revolt among the very people responsible for publicizing Google in the first place. They made Google. They can unmake Google. Google is not Microsoft. Competitors can rise to power with a groundswell from the users. I set AllTheWeb as my homepage this evening. So far so good. Search results are as good. The front page interface is oodles better. I do miss running Google spell checks via the dictionary links. I guess I can bookmark dictionary.com or m-w.com and cut out the middle man. Posted by: Chinny Chin Chin on March 11, 2003 12:22 AM
Ed, You just don't get it. Google should spill the beans about PageRank. I also think Coca-Cola should give up their "secret formula" - I mean people need to know what they're drinking. The FBI and CIA also shouldn't be able to keep secrets anymore - all documents should be de-classified. My tax dollars helped pay for those documents, and it's supposed to be "our government" after all!!! A bigger concern is "what is Webword doing with cookies, traffic logs, and privacy data?" Who is this "John Rhodes" and can he be trusted? Has anyone actually met the guy? Maybe he's a purely fictional front for a militant guerrilla usability group in Blogistan. Whether you liked the Boycott Google piece or not, I'm sure you won't like this piece concerning usability and it's role in the war with Iraq. I should add that this was rejected or ignored by the editors at Webword(tm) - Yet more proof of a conspiracy at work!!!
Croc o -- Hey, I've gone so far as to admit I don't understand the hoopla about the supposed evil side of Google. I can't imagine any search engine _not_ mining their user data or at least using it as a datapoint-- they'd have to be crazy not to. I just don't yet see how malice can be ascribed to it. Chinny chin--
Amid all the paranoia and conclusion-jumping (Who exactly is forcing you to use Google, anyway?) is the germ of an interesting idea. Apparently, some people don't LIKE the idea of their content being automatically located and stored--and therefore searchable by Google. Should there be some sort of flag or "search blocker" code that causes search engines to bypass your page? I know privacy and the Web are diametrically opposed and there's no such thing as "security" for any online content. But would it be worthwhile to introduce a midrange level of privacy by adding a "No Search" tag? Just a notion.... Posted by: Calybos on March 11, 2003 08:30 AM
Calybos-- However, it sounds to me like the anti-Googlites want a Google-specifc tag to exclude Google's spiders. If you've got the means or the technical inclination, you can deny entry to Google's spider based on IP address. See http://www.iplists.com/ for their IP addresses. Posted by: Ed on March 11, 2003 08:50 AM
If liking Google means I have to be rude and belittle other peoples' viewpoints, I'll change alltheweb.com to my starting page and remove WebWord from my bookmark list. Let people discuss issues and ideas instead of labeling their words "paranoia" and mocking their ideas. You guys need to grow up. As much as google-watch.org is overstated, it and bloggers raise some real, credible issues. Too bad WebWord is not a place these issues will ever be discussed because of the clique mentality here. Posted by: Rotwang on March 11, 2003 10:05 AM
Keep in mind that half of WebWord posts are probably from the same handful of people. On unauthenticated sites, people go anonymous when it suits them to give their argument more backing or say things they don't want to own up to with their primary online persona. Of the twelve posts before Rotwang, I see only two that can positively be tied to known individuals. Posted by: Who me? Another anonymous. on March 11, 2003 12:02 PM
I think there has been some heated exchanges on this page, but it's hardly rude or belittling (Help, help! I'm being oppressed! ;^). There's a group of people that are calling for a mass boycott of Google, something that has very real consequences for Google and those who use it. Should we blacklist a decent search engine based on speculation, or because they are unresponsive like %99.99 of all site owners? With regard to an anonymous posting, that is at the root of this discussion. Should we conceal our identities so John Rhodes and others can't track and abuse our privacy? But doesn't that also remove potential value/integrity from the exchange? Right, but sites like Webword and Scripting.com shouldn't be held to the same standard because they aren't as powerful or hegemonic as Google. Right around the time users start turning your name into a verb is when the nobless oblige should kick in. ( Oh, sure yeah-- that last statement was a dead giveaway! See the violence inherent in the system! See the violence inherent in the system! )
> it's hardly rude or belittling The thread starts off with a paranoia claim, tainting any opposition commentary. Then there's mockery, "And oh, those evil cookies!" Then there's belittling of viewpoints, "If you want unconditional love..." And your assholish Monty Python quotes. > There's a group of people that are calling for a mass boycott of Google There's one guy at google-watch.org, and one guy talking about Google-Free Friday. Where is this group calling for a "mass botcott" you speak of? I guess it's more fun to create straw man arguments by generating rebuttals to non-existent arguments. Good job, bucko. Posted by: Larry, Daryl, and Daryl on March 11, 2003 01:21 PM
Ok, I made the first comment (paranoya will destry ya) becuase it rings true, someone forgot to take their meds. I reserve my right to call a kook in a tinfoil hat a kook in a tinfoil hat. Posted by: Mick on March 11, 2003 01:52 PM
Better check your own head there Mick. Posted by: on March 11, 2003 02:07 PM
I don't understand the "respect all opinions" rule. Why should I? If someone thinks that the government is actually full of aliens from Mars who are trying to take over the earth, should I have to respect his opinion? I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to state their opinions freely. Respect, however, has to be earned. It is not given by default. He made some points; I'm simply disagreeing with them. Yes, I was being sardonic, but the author of the linked piece seems not to understand something as basic as cookies. The "cookies are evil" argument (which is what Gavin said) might have been understandable in 1995-96, but not now. C'mon, almost every damn site sets cookies. To term Google as untrustworthy just because it too does so is well... paranoid, don't you think? Hey, Amazon.com sets cookies too, and look, they track your preferences, and look again, they keep track of your credit card number if you order. All much more potentially malicious than Google. Is Gavin boycotting Amazon too? He'd be hard-pressed to find an e-commerce site that didn't collect any personal information. Google doesn't even know your name. FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Which is what his arguments look like to me. Gavin has not pointed to a single instance where Google has used any collected data in illegal, unethical, or otherwise devious means. "They might do [xyz]" is an argument without teeth. (And I'm not anonymous, thank you. I'm a guest contributor to this site.) Posted by: MadMan on March 11, 2003 02:55 PM
Cool, MadMan says we don't have to respect people. MadMan, you're a moron. Ed, you're a fucking moron. John, you're a gutless turd. Hey, I like the new spicy edition of WebWord. It's very conducive to informative, educational, useful conversations. What a community! Posted by: Cake and Eat it Too on March 11, 2003 03:02 PM
Ok, mea culpa. I lashed out at HappyCat, triggering this tragicomic thread. Sorry, Webword community, for my hand in poisoning this otherwise enlightening discussion forum. Come back HappyCat, come back!! Posted by: Ed on March 11, 2003 05:49 PM
Gutless Turd Smackdown Alltheweb: 795 hits. Had John composed a proper search in the form of a phrase, the tables would have turned: Alltheweb: 55 hits. John is stacking the deck in Alltheweb's favor. That is entirely unnecessary as you'll note that Alltheweb appropriately ranks a wilwheaton.net page #2 among its 55 hits. Google crashes and burns - no Wil Wheaton to be found. Alltheweb wins! Posted by: dole-sucking European gutless turd on March 11, 2003 06:11 PM
Hi all, I have noticed a number of referrals from webword.com - and I have been following the comments posted for the last few days. It is just as passionate as the debates over here http://www.gavinsblog.com/2003/03/10.html#a138 I will try to deal with all, or most, of your comments as soon as I can - and i will post them on my site - and I do appreciate all comments - even if some call me naive. I did deal with some of the issues you are bringing up here http://www.gavinsblog.com/2003/03/08.html#a127 I think that Google must fully disclose its practice's or else there is a likelihood that it may abuse its position in the future, if it is not already doing so. That is not illogical. I am erring on the side of caution here. Why use a search engine when questions are not fully answered, and where a shroud of mystery hangs over company practice? Why not err on the side of caution and use other engines? I think it is a legit question. Posted by: Gavin on March 11, 2003 08:09 PM
Heretic! You dare defame the Church of Google? STONE HIM! STONE HIM! Posted by: Cardinal Biggles on March 11, 2003 08:21 PM
John, that was an interesting comparison between the two search engines. Google definitely returned superior results, it's like the thing is psychic! When I went to AlltheWeb, I had to decline four cookie attempts. I thought the whole point was that it was supposed to be "safer" than Google? I'm interested in the "offensive content" meter, but they don't post exactly what they filter out. Obviously not curse words, since several appeared in the search results for "gutless turd." Posted by: Lydia on March 11, 2003 10:13 PM
The extreme longevity of the Google cookie is one of the issues. One of the less important concerns in my anonymous opinion. Posted by: on March 11, 2003 10:26 PM
Ya, cookies are not an issue. Some people don't like that Google's cookie expires in 2038, just slightly an itty bitty tad longer than other search engine cookies. I don't know how AllTheWeb can improve the offensive content filter. There's no explanation that will suffice, short of presenting examples of offensive content they filter. I'm certainly not satisfied by Google's explanation of its "SafeSearch" filter. Posted by: on March 11, 2003 10:34 PM
Madman was right on - John's great community of Webword allows us the freedom to voice our opinions. If you don't like that we might call something silly, then go play with other friends who'll never tell you some of your ideas are silly... Personally, I like an honest community who'll tell me I'm wrong, correct me, or debate something. Personally, I find Gavin's logic so ridiculous that I don't feel it warrants a point by point rebuttal. It's FUD as Madman said. It's fear of a "big company." It doesn't hold water, in my opinion. In the end, the WWW is a powerful marketplace of ideas. If you want to boycott Google go ahead, please! Meanwhile, I'll keep using what I think is the best tool for me to do my work. And my company just might use that better tool to beat your company in whatever race we're in. Google provides value to me. If it doesn't provide enough value to you, based on your standards, then go find another search engine that does -- good luck. If enough people feel the same way you do, then maybe Google will do something differently. As a loyal, long-time Google user, I personally think few companies have drastically improved the total web experience as much as Google has. For some users to now raise a big stink and target a company that is VERY user-centric with this kind of BS is crazy. Go build your own darn search engine and run it the way you think it should be run. I'd guess that 99.9999% of Google users just care that Google helps them consistently do their jobs better and enjoy the web more than they would without Google. I'd also bet that Gavin and a bunch of others who are calling for a boycott are stil closet Google users day in and day out...or they send a lot of emails to AllTheWeb.com asking for improvements. Currently AllTheWeb.com gives you lots of cookies and paid placements in your results. Notice that new, sleek interface? Know where they got it? Yeah, you guessed it, from a company in Mountain View. As a matter of fact, they like Google so much over at AllTheWeb.com, that they even provide a "skin" to make the UI look the same. See the "I'm feeling lucky" skin. They say: "I'm Feeling Lucky keeps the page clean and clear similar to a search engine based in Mountain View, CA. Each catalog highlights a different color theme, making for a friendly searching experience." Sure, but it doesn't deliver the same results where it counts. "Google is still to me - and millions of others - a daily miracle." If you agree with me, don't boycott Google, go buy an ad from them. Posted by: Lyle, Lyle - Croc O' Lyle on March 12, 2003 01:09 AM
File that one under "full of himself." Posted by: on March 12, 2003 01:40 AM
Why use a search engine when questions are not fully answered, and where a shroud of mystery hangs over company practice? Why not err on the side of caution and use other engines? In what way has AllTheWeb been more open about their practices? Do tell. Here's what ATW's privacy policy says:
AlltheWeb does not collect any unique information about you except when you specifically and knowingly provide such information. Whenever you visit AlltheWeb, our web server logs automatically receive and record anonymous information from your web browser including your IP Address, time of day, browser type, browser language, and any search terms you query. AlltheWeb uses this anonymous information to customize your experience and to improve our services in general. For example, AlltheWeb may use your IP address to determine what your default search languages are.
Google does not collect any unique information about you (such as your name, email address, etc.) except when you specifically and knowingly provide such information. Google notes and saves information such as time of day, browser type, browser language, and IP address with each query. That information is used to verify our records and to provide more relevant services to users. For example, Google may use your IP address or browser language to determine which language to use when showing search results or advertisements. Both say the same thing, do they not? Why do you insist that a company divulge its entire strategy to people? Why would you give up your competitive advantage by telling others what you're doing? Does Coke reveal all their marketing plans to Pepsi? I expect Google to mine the data regarding search terms to improve their search engine usefulness. Apart from that, they're not really collecting ANYTHING that any other site (including this one) doesn't collect. Like I said earlier, Google doesn't even know your name, only something vague like which part of the world you're in and what browser you use. You view Google as a monopoly. It's not. You are completely free to use any other search engine you want. Google has become widely used solely because it's a great search engine. Remember that it's been around only since 1998 (in Beta), and there were enough search engines before that. Remember GoTo, HotBot, Lycos, Excite, Altavista, etc. from the mid-90s? They're still around. If any of the above wants to beat Google, all they have to do is be more useful than Google. You are, of course, totally free to use any search engine you want, and I'm not trying to change your mind here. But to call on others to do the same thing for flimsy arguments is what I'm arguing against.
Why do you insist that a company divulge its entire strategy to people? No one has insisted that. Try reading the complaints people have. It's like everyone is glancing at the issues then spouting off. Posted by: on March 12, 2003 11:11 AM
The Internet promotes paranoia because it's faceless. More disturbing, to me at least, are Amazon's "Click to Give" boxes that are easily added to a site. Is there a way for the site owner, take this one for instance: http://www.xvsxp.com/final-score/ to know that I, me, my name not my IP, visited their site? I doubt it, but it's possible. Right? Posted by: boysen on March 13, 2003 02:39 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |