Eloquent and cutting.
Following on from a one-on-one meeting with Matt Cutts, this is Josh's open letter to Cutts and Google.
WELL worth a read: http://themoralconcept.net/
Eloquent and cutting.
Following on from a one-on-one meeting with Matt Cutts, this is Josh's open letter to Cutts and Google.
WELL worth a read: http://themoralconcept.net/
-Jericho- (04-30-2014),araqueli (04-30-2014),auxiliarus (04-30-2014),belalang (04-30-2014),bigballin6161 (04-30-2014),cocococo (05-01-2014),Cratos (05-01-2014),davids355 (04-30-2014),ensema (04-30-2014),hitman247 (04-30-2014),Izzma (04-30-2014),Letsmarch (04-30-2014),madoctopus (05-01-2014),manipura (05-01-2014),mrankin (04-30-2014),ORJay (04-30-2014),partymarty4870 (04-30-2014),Patel (04-30-2014),prlinkssale (04-30-2014),pxoxrxn (04-30-2014),Scritty (04-30-2014),sinclair (04-30-2014),smartalex (05-04-2014),sudorank (05-05-2014),t0mmy (04-30-2014),Tensegrity (04-30-2014),tony_d (04-30-2014),ugarte (05-12-2014),umerjutt00 (04-30-2014),validseo (04-30-2014),viroid (04-30-2014),W130SN (04-30-2014),whynotmakeit (04-30-2014)
Damn that was a long read.
Short version: Google is an immoral, greedy, hypocritical company.
It was kinda long but worth reading. Thanks for sharing
Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible.
I think this rant has some legs, and will get some broader attention - in large part because it's not just a rant, but is indeed a cogently made argument, with the full force of logic behind it.
Couple years ago on Reddit I would say how evil Google is, that people have no idea, and I'd get bashed and downvoted.
People there slowly see how shady Google is and more and more people are opening their eyes. Sure there will always be the Google fanboys that love Google so much because of their free products and the 'good' they do, but those that open their eyes see how shady Google truly is.
Penguin came out, he was so proud of it. Yet spam was still everywhere. He totally disregards and/or doesn't care about the percentage of white hat sites who were hit for no reason. These are people's businesses, people's lives that were affected because of some poorly executed update. Google says people shouldn't do SEO, don't try to build links, etc., yet they have all these tools and rules they want people to follow. Matt Cutts says one thing, and does another thing. What about these mom and pop websites that have no clue about SEO, don't know who Matt Cutts is, or even what Page Rank is, but they're successful because of their content or the competition in their niche. Yet there's supposed know about all these stupid rules Google makes to what is acceptable today, but might change tomorrow. For someone that doesn't want people to do SEO, you give them no choice but to learn about SEO because of all these stupid rules you make, and rules you go back on and change.
i don't think google is immoral, they are just fucktards!
they DO believe they are on this moral tidal wave in this "fight" against spammers which they play as these immoral people...
i would say most of us are fathers, mothers, brothers and/or sisters who are trying to put food on the table for our families along with a minimum standard of living, and if we can see some success from our small businesses then GREAT!, maybe we can go out to eat once a week...i think this notion is lost on googlers sitting in their air conditioned private buses or their Tesla electric cars and green tea colonic visits while they fuck everyone with this stupid notion of not being able to just discount links they don't like!
google doesn't owe you anything. They dont have to give you all this free traffic. if you want traffic, you can pay for ppc.
if you hate google because you lost rankings that's like hating the car dealership because they are not giving you a free car.
I am not a big fan of google and hate them just as much as the next guy, but I hate them for the right reasons not because they are not giving me free traffic.
The sooner you realize the world for what it is, the sooner you can begin to make it work for you.
It is incredibly naive to think that any corporation's main objective is to "do good". Of course they have to tout such virtues as a slogan like "Here to make shit tons of money fellas" is not very public relations friendly.
Every single profitable company's #1 objective is to make money. If they help some people in the process, great. However "doing good" is always a very very very very very very distant 2nd to making money. Heck most companies don't give a shit about "doing good", and Google is no exception.
As an SEO I can relate to the author, but it's not like his moral plea to Cutts will do anything. He just ends up sounding like a scorned ex-girlfriend who just found out her man has been cheating on her the whole time they were together. You're not going to change a cheater by showing him the "error of his ways", it is what it is.
Google loves money, and to think Matt Cutts or anyone else at Google is going to change their ways because of things like collateral damage is just a pipe dream.
Why anyone even goes to these circle jerk conferences to listen to propaganda is beyond me.
Last edited by Gyuman82; 04-30-2014 at 05:05 AM.
~*~Need SEO Help? Monthly Plans From $299/mo (PM Me) ~*~
Twisted Pickings From My SEO Brain @ RichardYoshimura.com
google is sketchy just like apple and fb
Everyone wants money and google is also one of them.
looks good to see people bitching after loosing.
i spam shit out of google every day , i am a spammer and blackhatter. i can't stop some one else from spamming and blackhatting.
Cause, when they write an article they can start a line with:"Last year when I attended SMX West conference..."Why anyone even goes to these circle jerk conferences to listen to propaganda is beyond me.
Juicy DOMAIN for sale
All the decent arguments aside, Josh who...? I can't believe so many of us actually take ourselves seriously enough to even think that any article/rant we publish may even get looked at by Google, nevermind actually taken into consideration.
Whitehat Is For Chumps
Never heard of Josh Bachynski?
Thought he would be a pretty well known name for anyone related to SEO. He worked as a consultant at SENukeX and regularly puts out decent SEO roundups.
You should check out some of his videos https://www.youtube.com/user/jbachyns
I like Josh Bachynski ! He's got a youtube channel and his weekly videos are informative.
Whitehat Is For Chumps
Man, josh bachynski is a puppy. The guy lost every battle and now he goes ranting against Google. How is that different from other threads. Now we call it "open letter"...
The reason these pups go to propaganda conferences is because that's from where they make the money. They enjoy this attention from Matt Cutts, feeling special throwing all their theories and being listened.
This member has been permanently banned from BHW.
Interesting read...thanks for posting.
The argument of a local plumber "having" to go with a $500 spam link package because they can't afford a large budget etc is a retarded thing to say. Can't afford it then look for other options. Google isn't the only game in town. Sure, it is a big piece but they are not obligated to do shit. They are a business. This would be like whining, "Ohhh Google please make it easier for me to rank a local business so I can charge them money" - EVERYTHING is a business.
Imagine a sales rep at a car dealer writing an open letter to a car manufacturer and saying "Waaaaaahhhhhh my local client can't afford the X model car....now I can't sell it to them and make a commission off the sale....waaaahhhhhh"
Google is a business. A business exists to make money. It is quite obvious they are not going to change their ways....no matter how many hash tags, tweets, and open letters are spread around.
Adapt or die.
I know that this is a BlackHat forum, and most of use black/grey hat activity in some way to make our living, but I (like many others here on this forum) am a business owner in the offline world as well...
While it's easy to say that everyone needs to adapt and deal with Google as they are, that's not the point of the article. 'Normal', everyday businesses have been destroyed in their thousands... Completely innocent and worthwhile businesses have been wiped out by Google's domination of the search market.
It's right and proper that we rant and shout against this kind of unfair and anti-competitive control. A private and profit-oriented company should not be allowed such carte-blanche and extraordinary control over the world/country's economy without some kinds of checks and balances in place. We have anti-competitive measures and controls for a lot of things; so why is Google getting away with so much?
As individual business-people, we need to adapt and deal with what is in front of us, but as a collective community we should be making a lot of noise about this.
TL;DR is actually "ablooblooblo I go to seo events and talked to Matt on twitter but google still doesn't think I'm special so I'm butthurt."
I run several very successful companies and bask in the comfort of a lot of profit. But if you take your argument at face value then criminal profit is fine - we should just accept it.
Are you REALLY saying that a capitalist company has NO social responsiblity of any kind? And that government has no place in curbing excessive or commercially-damaging behaviour?
Depends on how you define criminal. For example, selling in North Korea can be a crime. Are you saying that a North Korean peasant who sells his products on the local black market should be rightfully executed?But if you take your argument at face value then criminal profit is fine - we should just accept it.
Absolutely none. Otherwise it means that there 's a diluted concept of ownership and somehow everyone has a piece.Are you REALLY saying that a capitalist company has NO social responsiblity of any kind?
Excessive? As in "making excessive profit"?And that government has no place in curbing excessive or commercially-damaging behaviour?
"Commercially damaging" as in "I do what I want with my property and those who are on the short end complain about it"?
If you don't like something either move on or do something about it. Ranting aint gonna change shit. And truthfully I very much anything will change. Google is a fucking incredible company no matter how much crying and ranting goes on about it, penguin and other updates can suck my dick, you know what you are playing with, so don't be a fool and get shocked when burnt.
Some people just choose to elude any personal responsibility and blame the "company" for their stupid mistakes, things like "but they said its like this" or "i heard you had to do it in this way" are no other than bullshit.
If you are not prepared to fail and fail, don't start a business, simple, and moreover don't start a business in a field which is highly unstable. Either that, or be prepared for failure and learning.
As for them being synonymous - well maybe.
But my PC stopped being an IBM 20 years ago.
My "hoover" is not a "Hoover"
When I ask for a "coke" and the waitress says "It's Pepsi " I don't give a damn.
One day when I "Google" something... I might not be using Google
We all do it, subconsciously considering Google as the internet police. I find myself doing it and have to concentrate and remember "They are a share holder lead - 100% for profit company that has a business model that relies COMPLETELY on other people's content and not one single thing else - they ARE the world's biggest financial, artistic and creative parasite"
I thought this was a good point:
"However, the science on Skinnerian psychology shows that positive reinforcement works much better over time in manipulating the subject’s behaviour. And so, to use the Big Bang Theory example, a clear and obvious “good Penny!” reward to site owners for doing what Google clearly wants, would achieve their goals far better over time than their current “bad Leonard!” water-spray-in the-face of ranking penalties/demotions for undesired actions. Cutts didn’t use any science here. He just decided to be punitive. The result is worse spam and more negative SEO from more determined and annoyed spammers."
And I don't think this guy's meeting with Cutts was a waste of time.
Cutts is obviously feeling the brunt of the poor choices he's made if he's willing to talk to a known blackhatter for insight.
i just don't completely agree with that letter
Now, while most people don't think this is actually $30 billion/yr valuable, it's hard to deny it has some value. The question isn't why Google has this monopoly, that's simple, they have it because the *customer* only sees free shit on their side of things. The question is how much longer it will last for them, and I think the numbers aren't looking good. CPC is falling like a rock, and they're facing some extremely stiff competitive and wildly changing demographics.
Arguing morality with a company is inherently ridiculous though, I don't see the point. This guy obviously knows nothing about the corporate world, because 99% of multinationals are amoral, hypocritical and so self-interested that they're probably more damaging to society than they are helpful.
Last edited by Expertpeon; 04-30-2014 at 08:34 PM.
Nice read, just a bit long.
Don't fully agree with it all to be honest - sure google is greedy, unethical money grabber, but isn't every company? That's what business is about.
arent we all like that also?
and setting that aside, remember they created the search engine, so they are only controlling what appears on their system - we don't have to use (or abuse it).
If I came up with something like that, that really took off, would I feel an ethical obligation to make sure all my clients got their fair share of the pie? No.
Not meaning to side with Google, or Matt, but we are all in the same business at the end of the day, and we all make money, ultimately, from googles technology.
what any of you really have search any other way? I wouldn't :-)
One need only look at Sergey Brin's personal life to know what kind of company Google is morally (Him being an adulterous, anti-charity, crazy person who wants to cure aging and live forever), I don't think this disallows an examination of the company. Us that profit from the Google status quo don't want them to change their policies, because we have it all figured out, but this doesn't mean it is a just policy, or a particularly effective one (actually I'd argue that Penguin and Panda have been the most pro-spam algos ever created by Google)
Last edited by Expertpeon; 04-30-2014 at 08:56 PM.
Wrong, your example does not fit the discussion. If I dump my shit to the ocean, at what point exactly did I acquire the ownership of the ocean water to justify my action? In contrast, in the case of modifying the code of a program, it is trivial to examine if you own the program or not to justify the action.Your same logic can be used to apply to spent oil pits or the dumping of waste water from fracking into aquifers, because, after all, it's their property. Except, you know, all of those pesky externalities that would harm millions of people of course.
Externalities is a ridiculous made up mainstream concept for lack of using rigorous property rights.
Edit: I used the ocean example so that it 's clear and we don't get into discussions like "how much of the soil do you own" missing the point in the process.
However, externalities are heavily accounted for in policy, just for whatever reason not with ISPs/communications/internet companies. This is something people have derided the FCC, with good reason, for for a long time now. Before I got into SEO, I used to do PRAs (risk assessment studies) and was paid quite well for it. I'm not saying that these externalities with Google result in them being bad enough to justify regulatory intervention, but they have been a very monopolistic company recently. Their takeover of mobile OSs worldwide now has them as the default engine everywhere in the developed world. Information suppression is something that needs to be watched out for by regulation, at least in the future, to keep Google from using this power to harm others, competition or remove dissent from certain ideas.
Truth is not singular though, many things in life are not easy to quantify, and statistical impact studies are rare, and sometimes only funded by those interested in proving something else. Also, just so you know, mineral rights do include aquifers in the US code, fortunately the EPA has regulations that prevent those who "own" the aquifers from under their property to just dump waste into it. However, many oil companies do just dump radioactive waste into the ocean, it's in fact what every offshore rig does with their excess radium/thorium water.
I think this is bad policy, I think it's harmful policy, and I think that these companies should pay for all of the deaths caused by the use of their products every year (roughly 200,000 from CO2 related pollution in the US each year). Now, with Google, it's a lot more complicated. Though there needs to be something done, to prevent long term monopolistic suppression of information, or competition, I don't know what the right balance is.
Last edited by Expertpeon; 04-30-2014 at 09:07 PM.
Of course they are, they are the carte-blanche for policy makers to intervene wherever they like. Since you can claim everything as an externality, what 's not to love from their pov?However, externalities are heavily accounted for in policy
See? An arbitrary thing baptized as an externality by the whims of policy makers.Information suppression is something that needs to be watched out for by regulation
Quantifying is no requirement for truth statements!!!!!!Truth is not singular though, many things in life are not easy to quantify,
At any rate, I attempted to make a lucid and sound argument for a feathered approach to policy, because I thought that pollution regulation is something that everyone agrees is quite necessary and important given the amoral behavior of private corporations, however, I feel it's fallen on deaf ears on this issue.
I'm not advising changes to Google, I'm happy with the status quo at a personal level as I find Penguin to be a tremendously pro-spam policy, as it's successfully killed every white hat site on the internet at this point. However, I am advising that there are externalities to ISPs and internet companies as dominant in a single market as Google is, and we need to appreciate the risk we, as a "free" society take in allowing them to expand unfettered into all aspects of our lives.
Also quantifying risk in externalities is all that you *do* with externalities typically. Companies pay for the damage caused by their behavior, not for some sort of "unquantifiable moral reason"
If it is based on property rights, yes. If not, no. And no government policy that I know of is based on property rights because well, if you recognise property rights, you kinda have to respect them and that removes a lot of the interventionism plunder.At any rate, I attempted to make a lucid and sound argument for a feathered approach to policy, because I thought that pollution regulation is something that everyone agrees is quite necessary and important given the amoral behavior of private corporations, however, I feel it's fallen on deaf ears on this issue.
My counter-point isn't that there are more/less/no externalities in Google 's case. My counter-point is that the whole concept of externalities is stupid to the core and invalid as it is not based on property rights.However, I am advising that there are externalities to ISPs and internet companies as dominant in a single market as Google is, and we need to appreciate the risk we, as a "free" society take in allowing them to expand unfettered into all aspects of our lives.
You agree that happy men produce more and more production means better societies and less poverty. Cute women wearing mini-skirts walking down the road arguably make men more happy. So, mini-skirts have positive externalities to society. Since men are benefiting from the mini-skirts, government must regulate this and reward the mini-skirt wearing women by taxing the men and giving the money to them. Obviously, bad looking women wearing mini-skirts have the opposite effect and are a detriment to society 's progress, so the government must regulate their clothes and impose grave penalties to the offenders.
And if you think that 's too ridiculous, I 'll remind you China 's Mao period where everyone was forced to wear the same kind of cloths (and color) so that no one would feel the negative effects caused by the externalities of the richer people 's cloths.
Locke, the person who basically loved property rights and liberty more than any philosopher (and guided the tenants of democracy in the eyes of many of the US's founders) specifically said that your "rights" to property, life, and freedom end when it infringes upon those same freedoms in others.
There's all kinds of reasons to support this view, I don't see where you reverence for extreme "property rights" at the expense of everyone else's same property rights even comes into play at all. Let's say some company dumps their radioactive oil sludge (which is what they do actually) into a pit about 10 miles from my house, well now my kids have a 4 times higher likelihood of birth defects (studies show it's around this level for CHDs). So, yes, these externalities are serious, and a free society has to make anyone who causes harm to others or their property *pay for that harm*. Freedom demands it.
I don't think it's an easy argument to make in reference to Google's algorithm, though, even if you agree that Google's algorithm should be fair to everyone.
Last edited by Expertpeon; 04-30-2014 at 09:45 PM.
And Locke was right. The trick here is what you understand by freedom. In the Lockian view, freedom is tightly coupled with ownership, aka property rights.Locke, the person who basically loved property rights and liberty more than any philosopher (and guided the tenants of democracy in the eyes of many of the US's founders) specifically said that your "rights" to property, life, and freedom end when it infringes upon those same freedoms in others.
There are no extreme/mellow/fluffy/whatever property rights. You either own something or you don't, just like a woman is either pregnant or she 's not.extreme "property rights"
It did aggress over your property and it is liable to you. See how clear it is with property rights? Aggress -> pay the price.Let's say some company dumps their radioactive oil sludge (which is what they do actually) into a pit about 10 miles from my house, well now my kids have a 4 times higher likelihood of birth defects (studies show it's around this level for CHDs).
They are not externalities. They are property violations. Externalities is just a soup term that can "justify" any nonsense a policy maker can think of.So, yes, these externalities are serious
That 's exactly why property rights are the core issue here.and a free society has to make anyone who causes harm to others or their property *pay for that harm*. Freedom demands it.
In the case of Google, websites, etc there are externalities likely in the way Google damages businesses' profitability and has the potential to harm people directly who provide them with services. It's just not clear cut where this is, because Google is allowed to keep it secret.
Intervention is not an academic exercise and externalities aren't a weighted statistical aggregate. Intervention violates property rights and externalities "justify" the intervention by bypassing the property rights issue altogether. In short the whole argument can be summed up to "It 's bad, I 'll do this to fix it as I see fit because I say so". That 's what slave owners and dictators do and that 's the objection.I'm using it solely from a risk analysis basis here, which, in the context of PRA, only involves, death, or property damage, or medical/societal impact/disruption. These are readily quantifiable with actual damages.
There is no such thing as externalities. Google either violates someone 's property rights and should pay for it or it doesn't.In the case of Google, websites, etc there are externalities likely in the way Google damages businesses' profitability and has the potential to harm people directly who provide them with services.