Political Fact of the Day
May 15, 2006 at 1:08 pm
From The American Spectator’s Washington Prowler:
Google has become the single largest private corporate underwriter of MoveOn. According to sources in the Democrat National Committee, MoveOn has received more than $1 million from Google and its lobbyists in Washington to create grassroots support for the Internet regulation legislation.
Patrick Carroll said,
May 17, 2006 @ 9:05 am
Actually, I think it’s a brilliant commercial move. Check this:
1. Google give money to MoveOn.
2. MoveOn makes movies, promptly added to Google.
3. Evan Coyne Maloney, ProtestWarrior, et al., make movies discrediting MoveOn’s movies, and they’re promptly added to, yes, Google.
4. Commentators comment, and the world comes to see the movies via, yes, Google.
5. Advertisers (MoveOn, say) see the rush to Google, and buy ads.
6. Sergey and Larry buy another plane.
7. Repeat.
It’s utter brilliance.
(Hey, Google guys, since I’m smart enough to figure out your scheme, can I have a job there?)
Amy said,
May 17, 2006 @ 9:14 am
That’s it. I’m changing my homepage to Ask.com.
Patrick Carroll said,
May 17, 2006 @ 9:15 am
Whoah! I think I just added to the Google paranoia.
Jabba the Tutt said,
May 17, 2006 @ 9:18 am
I’ve had it with Google. After helping China censor the internet, use Hizbollah as a legitimate news source, while dissing conservative/libertarian websites, supporting the MoveOn smear merchants was the last straw. I’ve posted instructions on how to remove Google from your FireFox toolbar at Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1633671/posts?page=31
Chris J. Breisch said,
May 17, 2006 @ 9:36 am
I’ve been saying for some time that Google is the Evil Empire. This just proves it.
Remember, Google records every search you EVER make and tags it with your IP and every link you follow from a search. This is presumably so that they can tailor your results better to you in the future, but this is the ultimate in “big brother-ism”.
I will never use Google again.
Bryan C said,
May 17, 2006 @ 9:36 am
Wait a sec. This isn’t about necessarily about Google supporting MoveOn’s ridiculous political antics. It’s about funneling money to sponsor the Net Neutrality bill. I hate MoveOn, but I must admit that I have some mixed feelings about opposing that bill. This time at least it sounds like Google’s acting out of responsible self interest, and I expect that from a corporation. Though I’d prefer they’d have sponsored a more neutral opponent of the bill and stayed far, far away from MoveOn’s slimy den.
Bryan C said,
May 17, 2006 @ 9:45 am
Chris, I hate to tell you this, but every single web server you visit does the exact same thing, including every other search engine in existence. Traffic logging and analysis are vital to any smoothy functioning web site. You can use an intermediate proxy to obscure your IP, but most of them aren’t really that effective. If you don’t like or trust Google then by all means use someone else, they really need the competition, but whoever you use will be gathering the same data.
Jim,MtnViewCA,USA said,
May 17, 2006 @ 9:46 am
Another alternative to the “Bend to Evil” company is scroogle.org
Palely Floss said,
May 17, 2006 @ 9:58 am
And what, pray tell, is wrong with MoveOn.org? It is one of the most fair and patriotic sites on the Internet and I applaud Google for having the good judgment to support it.
And yeah, I am joking, though I am not a good comedian.
LatinoPundit said,
May 17, 2006 @ 10:15 am
Did you type this on a Microsoft comptuer b/c it is standard quo to put cookies (tracking software) on your computer to make it easy for everyone to see where ya been? Now all of the sudden you are outraged b/c of Google? Ha!
Thumbelina said,
May 17, 2006 @ 10:19 am
Bryan C,
I am online right now, reading this blog, your comments, and now I am typing away and I want to respond to your first post. If Google keeps pushing this Net Neutrality plan, the data of my post will be treated just like the data making up the new episode of 24 I am watching from Google video. (I’m not really doing all this right now - I’m Thumbelina, not Jack Bauer) The point is, Google’s “self-interest” would result in blog posts and video being equal - which they are not. Why should 24 be slowed down or interrupted because I had to post this response to you? Prioritizing data is in my interest as a user and shouldn’t my interest be Google’s too?
And do you really think the government - who I think still can’t use fax machines - can adequately regulate the Internet - which is what Google is asking for?
Think China.
All sweetness and light,
Thumbelina
Karen said,
May 17, 2006 @ 10:22 am
The best way to combat Google is do what our family does: boycott the paid advertisers on Google. If a site comes up above the line, boycott it. My 13 year old actually sends the companies emails saying that his parents will not purchas products from them because they support Google. Get the word out: by using Google paying links, you support MoveOn.
Between the whole child porn thing they got going, their anti-semitism, and then the censorship in China, Google is a joke. Why isn’t anyone going after them like they did Microsoft? Where is a tobacco lawyer when you need one? Maybe we should say there is a lacrosse player working at Google, then all the libs will go after them.
Greg said,
May 17, 2006 @ 11:04 am
OK Karen, As a business, how do I advertise in today’s world, without Google? Because if I could, I would.
BTW Yahoo is worse in terms of cozying up to China and handing over info to Thugocracys. Also Yahoo’s control of bogus click throughs is nonexistant
Joe User said,
May 17, 2006 @ 11:50 am
Doesnt matter to me who they support. I use firefox extensions like adblock plus & customized host file to remove any ads and I will never click on ads from google or any other site for that matter for the ads that managed to sneak through.
The other way to punk them is to repeatedly click on those google adsense things to whoever signed up for them gets yanked by google for click fraud.
Bruce B said,
May 17, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
How about dumping your Google stock and any mutuals that are Google heavy?
Jbargov said,
May 17, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
“My 13 year old actually sends the companies emails saying that his parents will not purchas products from them because they support Google.”
Priceless. If only my childhood had been spent that way.
“Get the word out: by using Google paying links, you support MoveOn.”
This sounds like: By buying gasoline, you support terrorists.
Brian Carnell said,
May 17, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
I could are less that Google donates to MoveOn, but this was fascinating,
“MoveOn has received more than $1 million from Google and its lobbyists in Washington to create grassroots support for the Internet regulation legislation.”
If you’re paying $1 millionto create it, it ain’t grassroots. Is Google joining Microsoft, etc., in the astroturfing business?
Dan said,
May 17, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
There’s a lot of ignorance pooling in this thread.
The net neutrality bill did not require all data to be treated equally. It would have required that all data providers be treated equally, which is essentially the status quo. Do your current videos get interrupted by floods of time-insensitive disruptive blog comments? No. Because there are protocols in place for prioritizing different kinds of data. The ISPs want to hold Google and others hostage by slowing down their data. I have paid for my connection to the Internet through them. Google has paid for their ENORMOUS bandwidth usage as well. Google has no relationship with my ISP, and therefore shouldn’t have to pay protection money to my ISP. (”Gosh, it would sure be a shame if something happened to your data, Mr. Google. Sure would be sad if it got slowed down. Might be bad for business. Very bad.”)
Furthermore, cookies are not “software.” They cannot be used by anyone but the web site that put them on your computer. So, no, Microsoft can’t see what you’re typing in gMail. At least, they can’t see it through the use of cookies. I can’t speak to any other malfeasance or incompetence (or lack thereof) on their part.
As for boycotting Google - they are basically the only game in town. If you want to advertise with a search engine, you’ve got Google, or Overture (Yahoo!) which is no better.
And BryanC is right. Google may be a lot bigger, but their behavior is essentially the same as that of other search engines. There’s no overarching privacy concern there that doesn’t exist, for say, Yahoo, Ask.com or MSN.
Brian Carnell said,
May 17, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
“Do your current videos get interrupted by floods of time-insensitive disruptive blog comments? No. Because there are protocols in place for prioritizing different kinds of data.”
Huh? I don’t think most ISPs do QOS to the average customer. I highly doubt Charter is doing QOS and prioritizing my YouTube packets over my e-mail packets.
Some of that may occur on large backbones and obviously a lot of companies do that internally with data traffic, but I highly doubt ISPs are doing that for end users.
“The ISPs want to hold Google and others hostage by slowing down their data.”
This is simply a lie. What AT&T and others have proposed is keeping the plain-old-Internet the way it is but creating parallel, higher speed/lower latency network connections that companies would have to pay to travel down. So as an end user I essentially have an Internet1 and an Internet2 connection, but something’s only going to go down the faster/lower latency Internet2 connection if Google or whoever is willing to cough up money and pay AT&T or Charter for that.
Dan said,
May 17, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
I didn’t say that QOS protocols existed all the way to the consumer. I’m sure that they do in some cases. But they certainly exist out on the backbones.
“What AT&T and others have proposed is keeping the plain-old-Internet the way it is but creating parallel, higher speed/lower latency network connections that companies would have to pay to travel down.”
Brian, That’s a very nice way of stating the same thing. It’s still extortion. Two tier Internet means fewer chances for startups, thus less competition. If I pay Cox for my Internet service, and Google pays Qwest for their internet service, then AT&T has no business coming after either of us for more than their getting from their peering agreements.
If they want to commercialize their peering agreements, GREAT. But don’t charge someone that has already paid for their bandwidth once.
David Johnson said,
May 17, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Brian Carnell,
“This is simply a lie. What AT&T and others have proposed is keeping the plain-old-Internet the way it is but creating parallel, higher speed/lower latency network connections that companies would have to pay to travel down. So as an end user I essentially have an Internet1 and an Internet2 connection, but something’s only going to go down the faster/lower latency Internet2 connection if Google or whoever is willing to cough up money and pay AT&T or Charter for that.”
I have read A LOT of discussion about this issue and that is the first I’ve read of what you just said. The majority of what I’ve seen say just about the opposite of what you just stated. Got any links to back up your claim?
David Johnson said,
May 17, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
Yup, I think Dan sums it up about right.
Jon Kay said,
May 17, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
Dan’s right. A longer explanation of the issue can be found
here.
a reader said,
May 17, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
We need hard citations on Google donations to MoveOn and Fenton Communications. “DNC staffers said” does not suffice. Doesn’t MoveOn practice financial transparency? shouldn’t this info be in Google’s financial statements?
Google astroturfing a campaign to outlaw financial transactions between consenting adults… that story has more depth than the “Blogspot won’t let you type foulwords in China” story.
(You won’t find David Fenton in Wikipedia, by the way… it’s almost like L. Ron Hubbard, how his record keeps getting revised.)
crosspatch said,
May 18, 2006 @ 12:54 am
Actually, if you have google toolbar installed with any of the advanced features such as “PageRank” turned on, your browser sends google every single URL you visit. They know where you go, how long you spend there, etc. It’s how they generate the PageRank stats. They don’t collect web server logs from various internet sites, they have your browser report directly to them.
crosspatch said,
May 18, 2006 @ 12:55 am
Fenton Communications takes “donations”?????
Kris Meister said,
May 18, 2006 @ 8:08 am
The way I see net neutrality is like this:
My wife and I love NetFlicks, we watch 2-3 videos a week. Our main annoyance is the time we have to wait on the postal system to deliver our movies.
We’re hoping that NetFlicks eventually offers their movies for download, and perhaps there are already companies that do. Obviously because of connection limitations a movie download would probably take an hour or more.
If the cable/dsl providers are allowed to offer premium speed connection by charging NetFlicks, the benefit is that perhaps my download only takes 10 minutes. I could order the movie make some popcorn, clean up my sons toys from the TV room and by the time I sit down, my movie would already be downloaded and I could start watching it.
I’d already be paying NetFlicks, and as they don’t run direct connections to my house, they should form a partnership with my internet provider so that the movie I’m paying for come as quickly as possible.
Thats my take.
Frank Salvato said,
May 22, 2006 @ 6:57 am
The new Anti-Google Search Engine Index:
http://www.newmediajournal.us/daily_columns/anti-google_search_engine_index.htm
EricM said,
October 7, 2006 @ 1:23 am
1) I fully support and love MoveOn.
2) I hate google
3) You folks don’t know much about the Internet and how Web sites work
4) Boycotting is dumb because no one cares about your agenda. Like me, most people in the US don’t care how many sweat shops exploit how many people .. we just want the most bang for our buck. If some kid in India make 13 cents/day sewing buttons on a DKNY shirt I like and I can get it for $50 at a discount store, that’s made my day… and I look great. That’s all I want.
5) I love meat, but processing it is gross; I’d much rather pay money to someone to fire a rod through a cow’s head, strip off the skin, chop it all up, and slice it nice and neat so I can add and awesome rub, s&p it and serve it up. I really don’t care where it comes from but when I cook it for dinner tastes so great.
6) I fully support the porn industry, having worked in it as a “model”. I find most men are abusive and most women are willing… strange isn’t it but did you know most develpments in high-perfomance network delivery technology (ie streaming video etc) was funded by the mult-billion dollar porn industry. Ah ah .. you would have your youtube if it wasn’t for AVN.
7) Jim Banister is an asshole.