Facebook also has a tendency to not react even when widespread public outrage and attention is drawn to a particular issue. Or they'll wait till it completely explodes and even congress is starting to investigate them (see privacy issues). Google still has ethics, Facebook never did.
Re: It'll be tough being seen as nice when they're doing these:
Pretty much all of those links are trumping things to up to sound worse than they are. The Register article in particular, you can still create a Gmail account with a pseudonym, and use that with YouTube, but if your account's disabled you'll have difficulty getting it re-enabled if you used a pseudonym. And it's hard to see how Google could deal with that much better, after all, how do you prove you're really the pseudonym so that Google knows they're re-enabling the account and handing it back to the correct owner or not? If they screwed up and gave it to the wrong person, people would be screaming about how Google was evil for doing that. It's kinda a no-win situation. But trying to claim that Google's killing off pseudonym usage for all its products is untrue, it's only Google+ that they're currently enforcing a real name policy. As Google+ gets bigger that'll have to stop, when you have millions and millions of accounts it's no longer possible to tell who's real and who isn't. Facebook already has tons of accounts based on pseudonyms despite their real name only policy. And I'm pretty sure the problem with getting pseudonym based Google accounts re-enabled has always existed, due to the inability to really prove your're the owner. It's one of the risks you take for anonymity.
As for the others, the ad in question they banned for being too violent. Doesn't really matter what the ad's for if it violated Google's TOS, any ad network would do the same thing. I haven't seen the ad, but given the nature of the book, it's quite likely it had some horrific imagery on it. If so, I can't say as I blame Google for removing it, and I'm betting it came to their attention because people complained about it.
Then you have yet another article about the (really old at this point) accidental gathering of Wi-Fi data by Google's street view cars. Something that was an accident that the company owned up to and fixed. That's not evil, that's being human, people make mistakes. Evil would be not owning up to the problem, trying to hide it, and continuing to do it.
And finally, evading taxes legally is pretty much required by any public trading corporation, they're likely to get sued by shareholders if they don't because it would lower profits. While unpleasant, it's not particularly evil so you're going to have to try harder there.
Google may or may not be evil, but the stuff you're linking to doesn't prove evilness and is mostly sensationalist articles.
Or more realistically, if you include all the years of work and practice most musicians have to put in to become good at their instruments you have a direct comparison possible. Being a good musician is hard work for most people, no matter how talented. It's just the public only really sees the fun part -- the actual performance -- and not all the practice.
Actually Google can't relist them without being fined. The newspapers will have to get the court order removed before Google can list them again, something they don't seem to realize what with claiming Google is retaliating against them, when Google's simply doing what the court ordered it to do.
They were designed to be used from a buggy seat instead of being on the horse directly. Among other things, they need to be longer than a whip designed for riding the horse directly would need to be.
On the post: Can Google Get Past The Big Faceless White Monolith Stage?
Re:
On the post: Can Google Get Past The Big Faceless White Monolith Stage?
Re: It'll be tough being seen as nice when they're doing these:
As for the others, the ad in question they banned for being too violent. Doesn't really matter what the ad's for if it violated Google's TOS, any ad network would do the same thing. I haven't seen the ad, but given the nature of the book, it's quite likely it had some horrific imagery on it. If so, I can't say as I blame Google for removing it, and I'm betting it came to their attention because people complained about it.
Then you have yet another article about the (really old at this point) accidental gathering of Wi-Fi data by Google's street view cars. Something that was an accident that the company owned up to and fixed. That's not evil, that's being human, people make mistakes. Evil would be not owning up to the problem, trying to hide it, and continuing to do it.
And finally, evading taxes legally is pretty much required by any public trading corporation, they're likely to get sued by shareholders if they don't because it would lower profits. While unpleasant, it's not particularly evil so you're going to have to try harder there.
Google may or may not be evil, but the stuff you're linking to doesn't prove evilness and is mostly sensationalist articles.
On the post: After Watching This Video, Can Anyone Say That Remix Isn't An Act Of A Musician?
Re: Re: Get on the Madeon Train!
On the post: Newspapers Win Suit Against Google, Get Their Wish To Be Delisted, Then Complain
Re: Charge the newspapers in question
On the post: Newspapers Win Suit Against Google, Get Their Wish To Be Delisted, Then Complain
Re: Re: Re: Advertising
Next >>