Google is … censoring?

by Svelmoe 8. January 2010 18:17

I noticed this blog: thenextweb.com: Google Blocking Negative Search Recommendations On Islam – Why? today (a bit late possible).
It tells about how Google possible is censoring search suggestions which could be controversial - in this case towards Islam.

Most everybody knows about Google in China so we know Google does … lets call it fiddle to be neutral ... with the search results in various situations.
However this begs the question - how do we actually know that Google is acting fairly and doesn’t censor or cheat with the search results in ways we cannot know?

Their revenue comes from advertisement and being able to provide a clear picture of what people search for to provide targeted advertisement.
So it would stand to argue that they can’t really afford to suffer doubt about their objectivity and whether or not they alter or effect or even censor search results.
However how would anybody know?

Is Google now so big that it doesn’t matter if they do questionable things? Can … would … people even stop using Google if it was confirmed that they are actively censoring? Is it even possible? Or are Google now so big that they can do what they want, when they want?

One can only speculate but my trust in Google is diminishing as they keep growing bigger and spand more and more features of the web, and with situations like this and China.
I still use their services, however …for now.

Do no evil.

 

New way of thinking

by Svelmoe 8. September 2007 15:20

I’m going to touch on something which have been on my mind for a long time, and I’ve debated with others – namely piracy and copying of material without the right to do so.

One of the most common arguments I hear when debating piracy with anybody is that “It is not stealing”, and well, I do not know other countries legislation well enough, but in Denmark that is technically true.
No actual physical entity of the product have been removed without paying for it, it is “just a copy”.
Our legislation and society takes its foundation in the days of yonder, where a goat was a goat and if you removed said goat, it was gone. Our – well most of us – ethics tell us that stealing is wrong, because you haven’t paid for it and somebody else is going to lose their stuff.

I am wondering if it isn’t time for a completely new way of thinking. This way of thinking strikes me as completely out of tune with the modern day and reality.

Our world is moving to an increasingly technologistic world, where virtual money carries real life implications, virtual goods are sold for millions and companies base their entire existing on these virtual goods.

I myself am a programmer. My company lives by making software. We basically sell 0 and 1s which on their own hold no value what so ever. It is just numbers – however put together they serve a purpose; whether it is to display a webpage, generate an electronic catalogue or as a gateway to buy physical goods and all such things.
It is however “not real” in the essences of a physical world. You can’t touch a webpage, or another piece of software.  Yet, we sell this and people buy it, and many more people use it – it is creating income (or at least redistributing it :D) from customers to vendors.
Similar, this income is often also handled electronically – it is 0 and 1s moved from one bank account, a virtual place, to another – not physical money actually changing hands, or no number of goats changing owners.
Thus we already have a mindset in our world where virtual goods are worth a bundle of money - If somebody hacked my bank and removed the 0 and 1s from my account – I would have lost no physical goods, yet I’d be a danged lot poorer.

Why then this difference when it comes to copying material without permission or piracy basically?

If a customer takes my software without paying us – my company loses money. If somebody else copy it and uses it, we lose potential money. Now I use the word “potential” because another argument in this piracy debate is that “a copied copy does not equal a lost sale”. And yes, that is also true …. technically.
However it also means somebody wanted the software/music – the 0 and 1s – bad enough they’d break the law to get it. So instead of paying for it, they copy it.

And this is where my fascination comes into play. Suppose a piece of music  – it is much more accepted in our societies to copy the work of the web, downloading the music as a file, then stealing the physical disc it is placed on, even though the value of the disc itself is marginally.
When we buy music we buy the content of the disc as well as the disc, but the disc makes up for a very low percentage of the price – it is the content, the music, which holds the value we pay money for. So why this different perception of ethics?
I think it is because we – as society – are still locked in a way of thinking which is outdated. We no longer live exclusively in a physical world – much of our existence is based on virtual goods and money.

We need a new way of thinking. It was the same which happened once we moved from a barter system to paying with a metal because “somebody” deemed that metal valuable. You can’t eat the metal, it doesn’t grow if you plant it – yet we somehow accepted this metal was worth something which could buy a goat. A goat was no longer a goat, it was interchangeable with metal …. for some.
It was again the same when we switched the metal out for paper. Paper which were valuable because somebody specific had printed some numbers on it. A goat was now interchangeable with paper. It was again the same which happened once electronic cards were introduced. These 0 and 1s on my credit card was now worth something.

Virtual goods are worth something, each and every copy is worth something. Even if somebody never planned on buying said copy but “took” it anyway – that copy represent value, somebody have put value into the copy , others pay for similar copies.

We need a new way of thinking. We need a paradigm change of our mindset, as we have before. I just wonder when society and ethics catches up with reality.

About Svelmoe

My real name is Allan Svelmøe Hansen.

I live in Denmark, where I work as a developer for hedal:kruse:brohus using SQL Server and the .NET framework since 2004. Svelmoe.dk is a place for my every day thoughts and reactions and the occasional technical blog entry.

I also blog about SQL and MS SQL Server at www.execsql.com so in case you are looking for more about that, please visit that website.



View Allan Svelmøe Hansen's profile on LinkedIn     

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in anyway.

© Copyright 2010 Svelmoe.dk