Re Repeat Yes, Google Uses Its Power to Quash Ideas It Doesn't Like - I Know Because It Happened to Me

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Charles Arthur <charles.arthur () gmail com>
> Date: September 1, 2017 at 10:46:27 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: stefano () quintarelli it
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re Repeat Yes, Google Uses Its Power to Quash Ideas It Doesn't Like - I Know Because It Happened to 
> Me
>
>
> unfortunately, yes, you’re wrong - it was absolutely intended to be a rival to Facebook; Google felt it had missed 
> out (repeatedly) on the growth of social. Remember it tried first with Buzz (February 2010) which landed it in hot 
> water with the FTC because it simply grabbed everyone’s email to create a social network. Bad move.
>
> G+ (launched mid-2011) was meant to do all the same social things as Facebook but “better” - hence the idea of 
> “circles” (which turned out to be too much bother). And it automatically dragooned people into joining it by forcing 
> it as an attachment to their Gmail.
>
> The thing of integrating user profile data was a bonus - which Google then did afterwards anyway, in March 2012, 
> changing its privacy policy so that whatever you did on Gmail, YouTube or other Google properties was all mashed 
> together; you couldn’t keep it separate.
>
>
> > On 1 Sep 2017, at 15:21, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Stefano Quintarelli <stefano () quintarelli it>
> > > Date: September 1, 2017 at 10:21:49 AM EDT
> > > To: dave () farber net
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] Repeat Yes, Google Uses Its Power to Quash Ideas It Doesn't Like - I Know Because It Happened to 
> > > Me
> > >
> > > Dave,
> > > I will surely be wrong, but I don't think G+ was a real effort to contrast facebook, but rather a plausible reason 
> > > to integrate user profile data across all propertie - until then - separated.
> > > An immense value to Google (IMHO)
> > > ciao, s.
> > >
> > > > On 01/09/2017 14:42, Dave Farber wrote:
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > *From:* Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne () warpspeed com>>
> > > > > *Date:* September 1, 2017 at 4:35:36 AM EDT
> > > > > *To:* Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne-net () warpspeed com>>
> > > > > *Subject:* *[Dewayne-Net] Yes, Google Uses Its Power to Quash Ideas It Doesn't Like - I Know Because It Happened 
> > > > > to Me*
> > > > > *Reply-To:* dewayne-net () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Google Uses Its Power to Quash Ideas It Doesn’t Like—I Know Because It Happened to Me
> > > > > By Kashmir Hill
> > > > > Aug 31 2017
> > > > > <https://gizmodo.com/yes-google-uses-its-power-to-quash-ideas-it-doesn-t-li-1798646437>
> > > > >
> > > > > The story in the New York Times this week was unsettling: The New America Foundation, a major think tank, was 
> > > > > getting rid of one of its teams of scholars, the Open Markets group. New America had warned its leader Barry Lynn 
> > > > > that he was “imperiling the institution,” the Times reported, after he and his group had repeatedly criticized 
> > > > > Google, a major funder of the think tank, for its market dominance.
> > > > >
> > > > > The criticism of Google had culminated in Lynn posting a statement to the think tank’s website “applauding” the 
> > > > > European Commission’s decision to slap the company with a record-breaking $2.7 billion fine for privileging its 
> > > > > price-comparison service over others in search results. That post was briefly taken down, then republished. Soon 
> > > > > afterward, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the head of New America, told Lynn that his group had to leave the foundation 
> > > > > for failing to abide by “institutional norms of transparency and collegiality.”
> > > > >
> > > > > Google denied any role in Lynn’s firing, and Slaughter tweeted that the “facts are largely right, but quotes are 
> > > > > taken way out of context and interpretation is wrong.” Despite the conflicting story lines, the underlying 
> > > > > premise felt familiar to me: Six years ago, I was pressured to unpublish a critical piece about Google’s 
> > > > > monopolistic practices after the company got upset about it. In my case, the post stayed unpublished.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was working for Forbes at the time, and was new to my job. In addition to writing and reporting, I helped run 
> > > > > social media there, so I got pulled into a meeting with Google salespeople about Google’s then-new social 
> > > > > network, Plus.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Google salespeople were encouraging Forbes to add Plus’s “+1" social buttons to articles on the site, 
> > > > > alongside the Facebook Like button and the Reddit share button. They said it was important to do because the Plus 
> > > > > recommendations would be a factor in search results—a crucial source of traffic to publishers.
> > > > >
> > > > > This sounded like a news story to me. Google’s dominance in search and news give it tremendous power over 
> > > > > publishers. By tying search results to the use of Plus, Google was using that muscle to force people to promote 
> > > > > its social network.
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked the Google people if I understood correctly: If a publisher didn’t put a +1 button on the page, its 
> > > > > search results would suffer? The answer was yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > After the meeting, I approached Google’s public relations team as a reporter, told them I’d been in the meeting, 
> > > > > and asked if I understood correctly. The press office confirmed it, though they preferred to say the Plus button 
> > > > > “influences the ranking.” They didn’t deny what their sales people told me: If you don’t feature the +1 button, 
> > > > > your stories will be harder to find with Google.
> > > > >
> > > > > With that, I published a story headlined, “Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic 
> > > > > Suffers,” that included bits of conversation from the meeting.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Google guys explained how the new recommendation system will be a factor in search. “Universally, or just 
> > > > > among Google Plus friends?” I asked. ‘Universal’ was the answer. “So if Forbes doesn’t put +1 buttons on its 
> > > > > pages, it will suffer in search rankings?” I asked. Google guy says he wouldn’t phrase it that way, but basically 
> > > > > yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
> > > > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp
> > > > Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> 
> > > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/24698215-c6dd89bb> | Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> 
> > > > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now 
> > > > <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20170901084216:FA777678-8F12-11E7-B4C6-AEF96BB4AA08>    [Powered 
> > > > by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
> > Archives  | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now     
>
> best
> Charles
>
> On Twitter: http://twitter.com/charlesarthur
> The Overspill:
> http://theoverspill.wordpress.com/
> More:
> http://www.charlesarthur.com/



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170902125140:FBA6CC46-8FFE-11E7-A1FC-9933A8D7EA6A
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com