Google misses earning expectations! Rejoice!

[gorang]

BlueTurtle, your own analogies are just as bad because Google would be the ONLY racetrack.

Ranking highly in Google's results can't be compared to a monopoly because Google is the one who dictates rankings and there is space for many competitors as well as separate keyword listings.

So if for instance tomorrow Google changed to a full PPC model and removes organic listings completely then you would accept this because it is "their company" even though it affects millions of people?

 

[BlueTurtle]

Oh god, Blueturtle i'm not even bothering to reply.

Ok, no problem.

Oh god, Blueturtle i'm not even bothering to reply. Fortunately ...*snip*

Wait.. I thought you weren't going to reply? *confused look*

Fortunately the majority of us understand what Google's new apparent policy and actions mean for the future of webmasters and SEO. There's too much hypocrisy in your post and misunderstanding the of bigger picture.

You can't just say something's true and expect it to be true just because you say so.

The reality is you don't know much about business, finance or economics so it's easier for you to just say "You don't get it, but I won't explain why"

While innocently built websites are being nuked by Google you have no argument that can stand up and make Google look like a good business.

This is a straw-man. I already put forward my points as to why I believe Google are not evil. There are no "innocent" web sites. They're web sites, not people standing trial.

If that many people are being 'nuked' by Google then the market will naturally adjust to compensate. People will stop buying ads and competitors like Bing will get an increase in market share.

I don't believe it is morally right for Google to do the things they do.

You don't believe it's morally right for them to do what exactly? Try to make more profit by adjusting their search algorithm? Bare in mind everything here is basically a conspiracy theory. There's no proof that Google are changing the serps to force more people into ppc. It's a ridiculous concept if you understand business and economics to be honest. It's self-destructive.

By your rules, you're saying people should accept any situation if it is not in their control. This is utter bullshit. The fucking LAW states that companies have a responsibility to their customers,users and employees.

What a broad, useless statement. A responsibility to do what? To provide them ripe bananas every day? A responsibility to provide them good coffee? What exactly?

Oh, right, yeah, the law states that companies have a responsibility to make sure that blackhat webmasters always make the big bucks from them. Ok.

PS* Drop the "its only your own fault" line.

Ok, it's everyone else's fault you're struggling. Boohoo. I guess before you succeed you'll have to wait until Google decides to make you profit instead of themselves.

 

[assphuck]

Let's say I own the turnpike (toll road). I reduce it from four lanes to two. Then I fill up one lane of the road with trucks from my trucking company and charge you even more to enter the road in your passenger car. This is precisely what has happened with organic search in Google. If you want to be seen, you must pay.

 

[BlueTurtle]

I never asked for your respect or anyone elses.

Using your own analogy, why would a webmaster that has 50% of the search results considered a monopoly when Google displays 100% paid listings for a search query not a monopoly? Can't you see how absurd your statement is? If you defended Google with such a defense in a FTC hearing, you would be laughed out of the room.

Very short-sighted you are...

Seriously, what on earth are you talking about?

GOOGLE OWN GOOGLE.

What you're saying just makes zero sense and I don't understand how you can even say such ridiculous things.

You're saying Google is monopolizing their own web site by putting their own paid listings up?

So cnn.com is monopolizing cnn.com because they only have their own ads that they profit from up?

Basically you're saying a business is monopolizing if it uses its own real estate for its own business purposes?

The serps are not some neutral playground. THEY ARE OWNED BY GOOGLE. You can't "dominate" what you own. YOU OWN IT! I can't make this any simpler.

Let's say I own the turnpike (toll road). I reduce it from four lanes to two. Then I fill up one lane of the road with trucks from my trucking company and charge you even more to enter the road in your passenger car. This is precisely what has happened with organic search in Google. If you want to be seen, you must pay.

Um, yes. What on earth is your point?

Are you saying that the owner of the road shouldn't use his own road for his own trucks and should let everyone else use his road for free?

If I own a trucking company I can transport whatever in the hell I want to transport. If I want to transport goods for my other 10 companies at a 90% discount and charge everyone else a premium of 1000% then guess what, I can do that because it's my company.

This is STANDARD BUSINESS PRACTICE. Companies buy up each other so they can do precisely this! It's called synergy.

If I own a company that makes lunches for offices and buys food from a wholesale sandwich outlet then I can buy up that wholesaler and give my lunch business perks/discounts.

 

[BlueTurtle]

BlueTurtle, your own analogies are just as bad because Google would be the ONLY racetrack.

It doesn't matter if they're the only race track. That's a moot point. If I'm the only racetrack then guess what? I'm STILL going to push whatever I want on my own racetrack.

Ranking highly in Google's results can't be compared to a monopoly because Google is the one who dictates rankings and there is space for many competitors as well as separate keyword listings.

Eh, that doesn't make sense. Ranking can't be compared to a monopoly? Dominating 50% of the serps *IS* a monopoly. It doesn't matter who dictates it.

Someone always dictates something. It's another moot point.

So if for instance tomorrow Google changed to a full PPC model and removes organic listings completely then you would accept this because it is "their company" even though it affects millions of people?

Again, Google owns Google.

What's "acceptance" got to do with anything? They can do whatever they want to their company.

You seem to think Google is like a government and the serps belong to the people. They do not.

Your point about "affecting millions of people" is irrelevant.

As I've stated already capitalism is a self-adjusting system. If Google removed organic listings then all these millions of effected people would start using other search engines, Google would then have no traffic and advertisers would start moving to where the people are. What's hard to understand about that..?

 

[helpnub]

Poor foogle, maybe they shouldn't have banned thousands of assword advertisers who were willing to spend good coin with them ...

 

[assphuck]

Seriously, what on earth are you talking about?

GOOGLE OWN GOOGLE.

What you're saying just makes zero sense and I don't understand how you can even say such ridiculous things.

You're saying Google is monopolizing their own web site by putting their own paid listings up?

So cnn.com is monopolizing cnn.com because they only have their own ads that they profit from up?

Basically you're saying a business is monopolizing if it uses its own real estate for its own business purposes?

The serps are not some neutral playground. THEY ARE OWNED BY GOOGLE. You can't "dominate" what you own. YOU OWN IT! I can't make this any simpler.





Um, yes. What on earth is your point?

Are you saying that the owner of the road shouldn't use his own road for his own trucks and should let everyone else use his road for free?

If I own a trucking company I can transport whatever in the hell I want to transport. If I want to transport goods for my other 10 companies at a 90% discount and charge everyone else a premium of 1000% then guess what, I can do that because it's my company.

This is STANDARD BUSINESS PRACTICE. Companies buy up each other so they can do precisely this! It's called synergy.

If I own a company that makes lunches for offices and buys food from a wholesale sandwich outlet then I can buy up that wholesaler and give my lunch business perks/discounts.

Let me ask you this... Does that monopolist webmaster that has top ranks in the search engine also own a video website? Do they also have the ability to add paid listings anywhere they want on the pages they rank? Do they own an online antivirus company? Do they have analytics/adsense similar installed on many websites? Do they own a facial recognition company? Do they own any other types of companies as show on this list?

You have no clue what a monopoly is and how market domination hurts consumers and other businesses. No clue at all...

 

[gorang]

I'm shocked at the ridiculous statements you're putting out.

I don't want to reply but you're so smug and deluded i can't help myself. But to clarify, i meant i wasn't going to reply to a post which is trying so hard to dissect my own. I've got too much work to do running the SEO department to be arguing with someone who can't formulate a reply without sarcastic remarks.

I've been in SEO for 10 years, i've worked with several companies, i've pitched to lawyers and solicitors at events, i've sat in a room organizing a potentially million pound email marketing contract and much more. I have been self employed, i still work as an outsource and i earn a nice wage being good at what i do. I might not know everything about business, but i understand enough to see bullshit when i see it.

First of all lets talk about your obvious biased attitude to anyone who disagree with a government, employer or authority. I understand why you feel like this but you're misdirected and people do have the right to challenge those who hold elements of control over their lives. Whether it is the government or Google, if someone affects my life i've a right to be angry and protect it, just the way Google will take your livelyhood away to protect itself. We shouldn't just accept everything.

Tell me why you would accept losing your job because your boss admits that Google wiped the website off the face of the earth and he gets no orders anymore? Google should be the one to accept responsibility for its actions, not the victims accept the irresponsible actions of Google, which by law they must abide by.

I don't think it's morally right for them to discard the consequences of their actions. We have seen this with investment bankers being jailed for taking too many risks and squandering billions. I don't believe its morally right for Google to abuse people's privacy yet hold us to ransom unless our websites abide by their privacy policy restrictions.There are many examples which i just don't have time to explain to someone who cant see the forest for the trees.

If you're so experienced in business and i'm not then you would know about corporate responsibility. Without it a company could just fire everyone on a whim and not care about the repercussions or the morals of their actions. There are laws in place to protect customers and employees from companies who take action in the name of "business". You're supposed to know this stuff.

Lastly, you're so tied up in your sarcastic pitiful attitude that you're blind to what's been happening.

Did you not read about Google's missed projections? The signs have been there for months now as Google keeps pushing more PPC adds, reducing organic results to 7 on the first page, nuking webmasters questionably. Google has know for a LONG TIME that it was not meeting growth. There would have been big heads rolling at the top of the corporate ladder and guess what they would have said? We NEED to grow at ALL COSTS. So for the past year they've been trying to reach their projected target because if they don't then the shareholders will lose a lot of money in share prices.

If you knew business, you would have predicted and foreseen this a long time ago.

 

[BlueTurtle]

First of all lets talk about your obvious biased attitude to anyone who disagree with a government, employer or authority.

This statement right here shows just how little you understand what I've said.

I'm not going to repeat myself. Please feel free to continue moaning among yourselves about how Google is ruining your business and you hope they fail. Good luck & Have fun!

Let me ask you this... Does that monopolist webmaster that has top ranks in the search engine also own a video website? Do they also have the ability to add paid listings anywhere they want on the pages they rank? Do they own an online antivirus company? Do they have analytics/adsense similar installed on many websites? Do they own a facial recognition company? Do they own any other types of companies as show on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Google?

You have no clue what a monopoly is and how market domination hurts consumers and other businesses. No clue at all...

You're just saying the same thing over and over, so the last line above applies to you too. Good luck & Have fun!


p.s. Do read up on what a monopoly is though. http://www.enotes.com/monopoly-reference/monopoly -- A monopoly is not owning multiple businesses as you seem to think it is

 

[gorang]

This statement right here shows just how little you understand what I've said.

I'm not going to repeat myself. Please feel free to continue moaning among yourselves about how Google is ruining your business and you hope they fail. Good luck & Have fun!





You're just saying the same thing over and over, so the last line above applies to you too. Good luck & Have fun!

Bye

 

[assphuck]

Google's monopoly is just not about ordinary webmasters competing in organic search, it is about how a dominant search engine is using its power to expand well beyond its core business in ways that should concern people.

Google maps has pictures of our homes and offices. Google has code (Analytics/Adsense) residing on many websites that are capable of tracking visitors. Google is on mobile phones (Android). Google power laptops (ChromeOS). Google has driverless cars. Google offers people a place to store their files online for free (Google Drive). The list goes on...

Considering Google is the best in data mining, does anyone in their right mind trust Google with access to so much of our lives? I don't. If people don't have privacy concerns related to Google, they are absolutely clueless in how much data Google already has about us.

And for the record BlueTurtle, that monopolistic webmaster that has top ranks in Google probably does not have the data mining capabilities of a true monopoly (Google).

 

[BlueTurtle]

Google's monopoly is just not about ordinary webmasters competing in organic search, it is about how a dominant search engine is using its power to expand well beyond its core business in ways that should concern people.

I said I was done, but I feel compelled through frustration to set you right on this.

Can you please just read the site that I posted? A monopoly is NOT what you think it is.

You believe Google has a monopoly because it's powerful and has multiple businesses. These factors have absolutely nothing to do with a monopoly.

"A monopoly is a market condition in which a single seller controls the entire output of a particular good or service. A firm is a monopoly if it is the sole seller of its product and if its product has no close substitutes."

Do you understand now?

Google does not have a monopoly.

Not even close. They only control about 65% of the search market and there are many other search engines including other major ones.

Owning 1000 different businesses in different sectors does not mean you have a monopoly.

Google maps has pictures of our homes and offices. Google has code (Analytics/Adsense) residing on many websites that are capable of tracking visitors. Google is on mobile phones (Android). Google power laptops (ChromeOS). Google has http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443493304578034822744854696.html. Google offers people a place to store their files online for free (http://www.google.com/intl/en_US/drive/start/index.html). The list goes on...

Again, that is NOT a monopoly. You are confused about what a monopoly is. Please read the web page.

Considering Google is the best in data mining, does anyone in their right mind trust Google with access to so much of our lives? I don't. If people don't have privacy concerns related to Google, they are absolutely clueless in how much data Google already has about us.

Please keep conspiracy theories out the thread. Conspiracy theories are also not allowed on the forum.

 

[0scan0]

That what's happens when blocking tousands Adsense user. Blame yourself Google instead of R.R. Donnelley.

 

[assphuck]

I said I was done, but I feel compelled through frustration to set you right on this.

Can you please just read the site that I posted? A monopoly is NOT what you think it is.

You believe Google has a monopoly because it's powerful and has multiple businesses. These factors have absolutely nothing to do with a monopoly.

"A monopoly is a market condition in which a single seller controls the entire output of a particular good or service. A firm is a monopoly if it is the sole seller of its product and if its product has no close substitutes."

Do you understand now?

Google does not have a monopoly.

Not even close. They only control about 65% of the search market and there are many other search engines including other major ones.

Owning 1000 different businesses in different sectors does not mean you have a monopoly.



Again, that is NOT a monopoly. You are confused about what a monopoly is. Please read the web page.

enotes.com is not any authoritative site on legal data. You must look to what the courts have ruled on previously (precedent). Go to http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.htm and read the section that states:

Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.[SUP](29)[/SUP] These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors.

Google controls approximately 65% of the search market. They *could* be declared a monopoly by present day standards.

 

[BlueTurtle]

enotes.com is not any authoritative site on legal data. You must look to what the courts have ruled on previously (precedent). Go to http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.htm and read the section that states:

"Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.htm#N_29_ These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors."

Google controls approximately 65% of the search market. They *could* be declared a monopoly by present day standards.

You've not understood what you've pasted.

It doesn't say "a market share of 50% or less is a monopoly". It says, under certain special circumstances a market share of less than 50% could be considered a monopoly.

Those special circumstances are the ability to *PROFITABLY* raise price or exclude competitors.

I'll explain this for you since repeating what's said above I fear is useless.

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE 1) ability to profitably raise price.

Let's go back to the race track example.

Let's pretend there's 2 race tracks in the entire world, I own 1 and you own the other.

First scenario) We both get customers from a variety of advertising.

We both charge $10 per ticket and have about 50% market share each. I then decide to raise my ticket prices to $50.

People stop visiting my race track and go to yours instead. Boom, I'm toast. I'm out of profitability. Operating costs put me in the red.

Second Scenario) 99% of our customers come from advertising on "Cool Racing Cars Magazine". I buy up the magazine and ban you from advertising.

I then raise my prices to $50 and since people can't see you're selling tickets for $10 I still get plenty of customers.


It's a crap example that wouldn't work in real life, but it illustrates the point the court is making.


SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE 2) exclude competitors.

Similar to above if I buy up the magazine where you advertise and ban you then I'm excluding you. In the real world it's more complicated.

Basically these 2 special circumstances will eventually lead to a 100% monopoly, so that's key.

The way to determine if it's a special circumstance is to ask

"If this continues for another X years will the company in question have a monopoly" -- If yes, then even with the current 50% market share the court will rule as a monopoly, if no then it's not a monopoly.





Back to Google..


If you search for things like "best search engines" "alternative to google" you'll get sites like this: http://lifehacker.com/5876794/going-google+free-the-best-alternatives-to-google-services-on-the-web

So if people start finding google isn't up to standard they'll search for those and find alternatives. If google started manipulating search results to block other search engines then one of the special circumstances would hold true since they would be excluding competitors. You can find PLENTY of information on google on its competitors.

They also couldn't increase prices and maintain profitability.

Therefore, according to the situations outlined by those courts Google would not be considered a monopoly.

 

[assphuck]

You've not understood what you've pasted.

It doesn't say "a market share of 50% or less is a monopoly". It says, under certain special circumstances a market share of less than 50% could be considered a monopoly.

Those special circumstances are the ability to *PROFITABLY* raise price or exclude competitors.

I'll explain this for you since repeating what's said above I fear is useless.

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE 1) ability to profitably raise price.

Let's go back to the race track example.

Let's pretend there's 2 race tracks in the entire world, I own 1 and you own the other.

First scenario) We both get customers from a variety of advertising.

We both charge $10 per ticket and have about 50% market share each. I then decide to raise my ticket prices to $50.

People stop visiting my race track and go to yours instead. Boom, I'm toast. I'm out of profitability. Operating costs put me in the red.

Second Scenario) 99% of our customers come from advertising on "Cool Racing Cars Magazine". I buy up the magazine and ban you from advertising.

I then raise my prices to $50 and since people can't see you're selling tickets for $10 I still get plenty of customers.


It's a crap example that wouldn't work in real life, but it illustrates the point the court is making.


SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE 2) exclude competitors.

Similar to above if I buy up the magazine where you advertise and ban you then I'm excluding you. In the real world it's more complicated.

Basically these 2 special circumstances will eventually lead to a 100% monopoly, so that's key.

The way to determine if it's a special circumstance is to ask

"If this continues for another X years will the company in question have a monopoly" -- If yes, then even with the current 50% market share the court will rule as a monopoly, if no then it's not a monopoly.





Back to Google..


If you search for things like "best search engines" "alternative to google" you'll get sites like this: http://lifehacker.com/5876794/going-google+free-the-best-alternatives-to-google-services-on-the-web

So if people start finding google isn't up to standard they'll search for those and find alternatives. If google started manipulating search results to block other search engines then one of the special circumstances would hold true since they would be excluding competitors. You can find PLENTY of information on google on its competitors.

They also couldn't increase prices and maintain profitability.

Therefore, according to the situations outlined by those courts Google would not be considered a monopoly.

You are absolutely amazing BlueTurtle! I know little about UK law and your demonstration here shows you know little about US antitrust laws. Let's set the whole issue of you quoting homework websites for your antitrust facts and Google as being a monopoly aside for a moment. Are you in your right mind when you defend a company that is profiling people around the world in such fine detail and on such a large scale?

 

[geezer466]

Its important to remember how google came to dominate and the 'legs up' they were given on the way one case in point being browsers other than IE being tailored to use google as the default search engine.
All this at a time when most people were ignorant of what search engines actually were and were technically unable to change any default settings on a browser.

In my opinion G learned a very valuable lesson from Microsoft. Microsoft were very aware that Windows 3.1, 95, Millennium Edition right up to the latest offering 7 were the most pirated pieces of software in the history of computing. Until we got to the early mid noughties they never even really tried to counter that piracy then came the genuine advantage tool and updates to it till with the latest offering it is pretty much impossible to pirate windows successfully if you are a novice, hell even seasoned pro's in the field have to jump though hoops now to get it to work.

The point being is this was a deliberate ploy by MS to make people reliant on its O/S. Millions got it for free and in the course of time learned their way around it. When the free copies became harder to come by as they knew the O/S it was easier for them to bite the bullet and purchase it. In effect creating a reliant market and then monetizing it.

Google are no different, their whole business model relies on people using its search function and clicking on the ads. The creation of the highly successful mapping tools was simply a sweetener to keep people on board and using their innovative products. They knew this pretty early on and created the brand that they hoped people would become and remain loyal too.

That loyalty stands and falls on the quality of its search results, as soon as they stop giving people what they want (and no one can deny we are seeing definite signs of this, even people unaware of the intricacies of what panda or penguin was all about are now complaining results are getting worse) these same people will look for a better solution.

The next year or so will be pivotal as to the future of the search giant. They have made some pretty bold moves this last 18 Months or so attempting to grow their profits so far all without success. It is important to note that yesterday's figures displayed that this was not a blip it was not the one quarter they were down but the 4th consecutive quarter of diminishing revenue from its only real revenue generator PPC.Yes they may still be making barreloads of money but when Companies get to the size this one has market sentiment (the longer term views of its investors) becomes critical, they expect the firm to be able to return ever increasing profits and when that stops become nervous to the point where they start searching for better returns.

In some ways google are not unlike nation states. In order to keep the spending deficit (the nations debt) under control (the difference between what they get in taxation and what they spend in benefits, public spending ect) they have to rely on constant growth, this is why we always hear our politicians banging on about it and why they consider it is so important. Unless google can turn around its fortunes it will be very much under the scrutiny of its investors and what they say rings true the bigger they are the bigger they fall.

 

[BlueTurtle]

We have seen this with investment bankers being jailed for taking too many risks and squandering billions.

I missed this before. I can't let this one go, it's just too silly.

No investment bankers have been jailed for taking risks.

They also didn't squander billions either. That's not what caused the recession to happen.

This is what caused the recession of 2008:-

In the modern financial system you get 4 players. Banks, businesses, investors and government.

Banks: Loan money to investors
Investors: Invest money into businesses
Businesses: Use money to produce goods and services
Governments: Oversee things and regulate the system to keep it in check

Banks need large amounts of capital to be able to keep loaning to investors and they profit from the interest.

Banks get money by people in the financial system making deposits and saving money. Specifically saving. Checking/current account capital can't be used for long-term investments since the money is being used more often.

Now, in the late 20th century interest rates were high, consumer spending wasn't as rampant and therefore people were saving a lot more than spending. This gives the banks money, who in turn lend to investors who in turn pump money into businesses who grow. There's more balance.

What started to happen was interest rates declined and consumer spending increased. People stopped savings and actually started taking out credit cards.

This has several effects. First of all the banks capital supply dries up. Businesses start making more money and grow fast needing more investment from investors. Investors then want to borrow more from banks. Banks are also lending more to people who are spending with credit cards. The system starts to unbalance.

Now, this is a problem the banks faced so to make more money they started increasing the target mortgage market to include the sub-prime market. They pushed hard to get people on mortgages then they bundled the sub-prime mortgages up into financial products which they sold on in the open financial market. Problem temporarily solved.

The banks(investment banking department, totally separate from regular banking) and investors(hedge funds, dedicated investment outlets rather than banks) who bought these financial products then used a tool called leverage, which is basically borrowing against existing assets.

If I am worth say $1mil from say 2 properties at $500k(assets) each I could approach you and borrow another $1mil. My leverage ratio would be 1:1 and the volatility of my leverage would be the volatility of the 2 properties. For properties in a stable market volatility is low and overall risk is low.

Now let's say I borrow $10mil. I'm then leveraged 10:1.

So after buying the mortgage financial products(these are assets that make money from interest payments just like my properties above), the investors then leverage against these financial products(sub-prime = huge volatility, but investors would have calculated the volatility to be within safe limits for their intended amounts of risk), borrowing more money to reinvest.

Can you see where this is going now.. ?


Next what happened was people started defaulting on mortgage payments and suddenly all the debt that was leveraged on these sub-prime mortgages is looking like it's going to be in trouble.

One of the problems was there was no way of distinguishing between sub-prime financial products and normal ones so everyone stopped trading in these financial products out of fear. That in its self caused problems.

From there everything just crumbled like a deck of cards with the sub-prime financial products at the bottom because so much debt was leveraged on these.

It's like you lend me $5m and suddenly my $1mil in net worth turns to zero because no one's buying houses anymore and I can't sell up. So the leverage ratio is essentially infinite. My houses are empty(no payments) and I can't sell them. Boom.

 

[nanavlad]

Google steal peoples products, give it away for free, and make money indirectly by selling add space on the products page.

As the law now stands, they are doing nothing illegal, but it does'nt make it right.

At this time the media in France are fighting back, asking that google and the other search engines, pay them for their news stories. They pay reporters to gather the information editors and distributors, Yet Google steals their product, and makes money from it. and stil claim they are the good guys.

150 years ago, It was legal to own slaves, in America, They where the owners property, he could do what he liked with them, Rape beat murder, There claim that the slaves where their property, gave them the right to do what they wanted with them.
The biggest joke of all, was they claimed they where doing the slaves a favour, by feeding clothing and housing them


Saying that google owns google and gives then the right to steal and walk roughshod over other peoples rights. is like saying the slave owners where right.

To say google gives stuff away for free is wrong, when you sign up for one google product, you have to give them the right, to use your personal information on any of their products,

Google was asked by the EU to hold back on their privacy policy, giving them the right to use peoples information on their other products, while they considered whether it was legal or not. Google more or less told them to stuff themselves. and went ahead with it.

In the end governments will be forced to bring in more and more regulations, to stop companies like google from getting control, and that will be the end of The free internet as was proposed by its founder.

 

[collywobbles99]

Someone must have gotten fired for releasing that early. It even had "Insert Larry Page quote" at the beginning...DOH