Google will disappear in five years! Rejoice!

[bhedbri]

Such a BS article. Google Has Google Now which is already better than Siri and IMO is being developed at a much more rapid pace that SIRI. Google has experts in AI working for them. Even if Search was to totally die, the projects Google has up their sleeves will keep them on top. Search isn't going anywhere and Google owns it.

 

[BlueTurtle]

The response is fitting for someone that tries to pass themselves off as an authority when they lack even the most basic knowledge of business. How could anyone take you seriously when you stated antitrust laws have nothing to do with a monopoly as you did http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/493648-google-misses-earning-expectations-rejoice-3.html#post4805396? Even in the Wikipedia link that YOU posted does link off to what antitrust laws are multiple times, but you failed to even read what you posted.



When someone states "Antitrust laws have nothing to do with a monopoly," I would not consider that dumb. I would consider that severely uninformed. And your desire to stick to your guns with being an authority on Google and big business is a display of immaturity and demonstrates the basis of your opinions are formed on emotion rather than factual data.

Antitrust laws are not the same as laws against a monopoly. You know fine well that you didn't know what a monopoly was until I told you. You're on record saying a monopoly is when a company makes a lot of acquisitions.


Anyway, I'll let you get on with your crusade. You clearly don't make any money which is why you're so angry at the wealthy. You remind me of an angry plumber I used to know who liked to talk about how the rich are evil.

Good day to you.

 

[assphuck]

Antitrust laws are not the same as laws against a monopoly. You know fine well that you didn't know what a monopoly was until I told you. You're on record saying a monopoly is when a company makes a lot of acquisitions.

How can you sit there and defend such a lack of knowledge? Do you realize that this makes you look like an utter fool?

http://www.justice.gov/atr/about/antitrust-laws.html

Edit: Please SHOW ME where I am on record as saying a monopoly is when a company makes a lot of acquisitions. SHOW ME you liar.

 

[jb2008]

That's because, as I stated above, people of low intelligence find it hard to understand the points of people with high intelligence.

In your world-view everything makes total sense and what I'm saying seems to be complete hog-wash.

There are quite a few others in this thread who have been watching and actually understand what I'm saying. They just choose not to get involved because they know it's futile. I like to hope that maybe if I explain it a certain way some of you will actually get it. *shrug*

I understand what you're saying I just find a lot of things you say to be annoying, self-righteous and delusionally confident. For example, to imply that we, as people of "Low intelligence" and you, presumably a person of "high intelligence" suggests to me some sort of superiority complex. Me, I don't give a crap whether you think me or any one else on this forum to be a dumbass or a genius, because from what you write in your mind you must appear intelligent otherwise you will cry. There are more important things than being right 100% of the time, or being the most intelligent person in the world, or being the richest person in the world. For example, actually being liked by people. You could write as many correct posts about Google and how great it is on this forum as you want, I would still think you're a twat and I would still think dudes like assphuck have the right idea. Not just about Google or whatever, I mean in general, i.e. about being a bit more easy going and not being such a dickhead. Honestly I never argue with anyone on this forum, but you really are annoying and probably you would have a better time on the WF.

 

[BlueTurtle]

How can you sit there and defend such a lack of knowledge? Do you realize that this makes you look like an utter fool?

http://www.justice.gov/atr/about/antitrust-laws.html

Ok, the antitrust laws are the American anti-monopoly laws. I wasn't familiar that the anti-monopoly laws were in fact in the US called 'antitrust laws'.

That doesn't change the rest of my argument and it certainly doesn't change the fact you still didn't know what a monopoly was.

Here's you quite clearly saying a Google is a monopoly because they acquired a bunch of businesses:

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/493648-google-misses-earning-expectations-rejoice-3.html#post4805151

I understood what a monopoly was, I just wasn't familiar with the specific name the US justice department gave to those anti-monopoly laws. There's a world outside the US you know.

I'm even going to anticipate your response to this. You're going to say, oh, but the clayton act states that acquisitions can mean there's a monopoly.

NO, it cannot. Read:-



The Clayton Act
This Act is a civil statute (carrying no criminal penalties) that prohibits mergers or acquisitions that are likely to lessen competition.


Note the "likely to lesson competition"

In other words it covers Google acquiring Yahoo or other competing search engines.

It does not prevent them acquiring anti-virus companies, facial recognition companies, social companies, payment gateway companies and so on.

 

[BlueTurtle]

You could write as many correct posts about Google and how great it is on this forum as you want

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

This is why I say you don't understand what I'm writing about.

You think I'm defending Google. Several people have messaged me to voice agreement, they just don't want to get involved with crusaders like yourself.

I don't care about Google either way. I'm entirely neutral. I'm talking about things from purely a business and economic perspective.

You on the other hand think Google are out to get you. I'm sure you check under your bed every night to make sure Matt Cutts isn't hiding there.

 

[brainmoody]

Oh come on man, Google is not going any where but sounds interesting

 

[BlueTurtle]

Edit: Please SHOW ME where I am on record as saying a monopoly is when a company makes a lot of acquisitions. SHOW ME you liar.

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/493648-google-misses-earning-expectations-rejoice-3.html#post4805197

Quote from post above:

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.

So you admit here they're expanding *AWAY* from their core business and that's why they're a monopoly.

Pretty clear cut. The Clayton Act is pretty clear in that it only includes acquisitions that lessen competition. Acquiring away from your core business is hardly going to lessen competition now is it?


And of course there's also here where you STRONGLY imply it, but thanks for being so clear in the above post. It's really undeniable that you thought a monopoly was acquiring lots of companies.

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo/493648-google-misses-earning-expectations-rejoice-3.html#post4805151

 

[BlueTurtle]

@assphuck: Clearly this isn't going anywhere.

I made a mistake. You made a mistake.

Let's just agree to disagree on the subject of Google's future/plans and leave it at that.

 

[tashrif]

Assphuck, blueturtle please stop your childish arguments and go make some money. It's not good seeing senior members fighting over a pretty silly matter. Peace

 

[assphuck]

Ok, the antitrust laws are the American anti-monopoly laws. I wasn't familiar that the anti-monopoly laws were in fact in the US called 'antitrust laws'

Ok, then please shut your pie hole regarding American antitrust laws. You know nothing about them and are an authority on squat shit.

Here's you quite clearly saying a Google is a monopoly because they acquired a bunch of businesses:

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackha...ml#post4805151

This is what I stated:

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?

Since you keep trying to post my quotes to somehow recover from your public display of arrogance, you further quoted me as stating:

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.

Did I say "a monopoly is when a company makes a lot of acquisitions" in ANY of my posts? Fuck no. So in addition to being a fool, you are also a liar.

When actions are taken against monopolies, all available information will be used against a company in court. The fact that Google owns so many companies, some of which are predominantly displayed is search (ie. YouTube), is a consideration the FTC would have in reviewing any potential legal action against them. Furthermore, other companies owned by a monopoly can be used as pawns to preserve the King's market dominance. Those are a couple reasons why Google's other businesses could come into question under a FTC investigation.

BlueTurtle, I told you in the other thread you were in way over your head. Your personal attacks on me and the legitimacy of my posts is well noted. I have zero respect for you as a person. You have done nothing but instigate me with your unfounded facts and tried to back them up with an emotional barrage of posts in an attempt to coverup your ignorance. Anyone reading this post should note your display of arrogance and failure to view reason when it smacks you straight in the face.

Getting closer to the topic of this thread, Google aggregates personal information across its properties. No other company in the world has such an ability to do this, which is why Google is uniquely positioned to pursue an expansion in the defense industry. However, aggregated user data is what is concerning some governments at this point. In the United States, the FTC is also actively involved in user privacy.

 

[BlueTurtle]

Ok, then please shut your pie hole regarding American antitrust laws. You know nothing about them and are an authority on squat shit.

You're an extremely angry young boy.

You've stated what you've stated and anyone with half a brain can quite clearly see what you said and your anger/frustration at being called out on it.

As I said, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[jb2008]

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

This is why I say you don't understand what I'm writing about.

You think I'm defending Google. Several people have messaged me to voice agreement, they just don't want to get involved with crusaders like yourself.

I don't care about Google either way. I'm entirely neutral. I'm talking about things from purely a business and economic perspective.

You on the other hand think Google are out to get you. I'm sure you check under your bed every night to make sure Matt Cutts isn't hiding there.

My post was not to imply or admit that you are correct in any way, except of course my agreement that Google as a company is out for profits (obviously). It is simply that you seem to be intent on being correct about this almost to the point of it being an obsession. If I am proven wrong about something I don't really mind, I post because I don't want SEO as a whole to be ruined for members of this forum, in particular if they themselves contribute to their own demise. I understand your point and I have repeatedly stated that Google are out to conserve profits, not necessarily to be evil per se, yet you maintain that I hate matt cutts for no reason. I greatly dislike matt cutts simply because he is an idiot and whatever you believe, he does enjoy the power that he wields over other people. And no, I'm far too busy making money to give a shit what matt cunts is doing, but I do dislike him greatly and will gladly rip on him whenever I get the chance. As a matter of principle anyone who publicly gloats at the demise of small businesses in favor of huge brands/corporations deserves to be ripped on. You will obviously argue that it is "just business" and in a sense, yes, it is; but from a basic moral standpoint I feel for a lot of these people all over who have had businesses ruined because of Google.

 

[rockong]

ha i can't imagine google being gone in 5 years..but hey with the tech industry, you never know. I'm sure ppl said the same about Yahoo when they were the search engine giant!

 

[assphuck]

You're an extremely angry young boy.

You've stated what you've stated and anyone with half a brain can quite clearly see what you said and your anger/frustration at being called out on it.

As I said, let's just agree to disagree.

Now you are insulting me by saying I am an "extremely angry young boy." lol

You have stooped to posting unfounded facts trying to rebuke my posts, lied about my what I said in my previous posts and now have to toss one final insult even after admitting you know nothing about antitrust laws in the USA. Nice BlueTurtle. Real nice.

I told you before that you were in over your head. You are drowning now, but being a blue turtle I'm sure you will try to swim to air and pull something out of your shell. lol

There's no turning back BlueTurtle. Do me a favor and don't quote my posts in the future, and I'll agree not to quote yours. Otherwise, if you call me out, expect me to defend my views and integrity to the fullest.

 

[soup4all]

FAILLLLL. Apple siri > Google?

 

[BlueTurtle]

Now you are insulting me by saying I am an "extremely angry young boy." lol

You have stooped to posting unfounded facts trying to rebuke my posts, lied about my what I said in my previous posts and now have to toss one final insult even after admitting you know nothing about antitrust laws in the USA. Nice BlueTurtle. Real nice.

I told you before that you were in over your head. You are drowning now, but being a blue turtle I'm sure you will try to swim to air and pull something out of your shell. lol

There's no turning back BlueTurtle. Do me a favor and don't quote my posts in the future, and I'll agree not to quote yours. Otherwise, if you call me out, expect me to defend my views and integrity to the fullest.

Ok, whatever you say. Some of us are laughing at you via pm though. But keep on believing I'm in over my head.


p.s. I gave you some +rep for giving me a few hours of amusement! Thanks for the fun.

 

[assphuck]

Ok, whatever you say. Some of us are laughing at you via pm though. But keep on believing I'm in over my head.

Once again I was right. You swam to the surface, got a breath of air, and came back with one last dig. lol

 

[BlueTurtle]

Once again I was right. You swam to the surface, got a breath of air, and came back with one last dig. lol

If giving you +8 rep is a dig then sure, I had a dig

I don't actually personally have any issues with you despite throwing a few personal insults in there and despite your quite vicious insults towards me. It's just a discussion on a forum. I don't wish anything bad on you and I actually hope you do well and recover from your SEO problems.

Most people take life too seriously. It's fun to have a heated debate and even throw a few personal remarks, but at the end of the day I'm not going to hold a grudge.. I still disagree with you of course, but whether people agree on stuff isn't really all that important.

 

[dr.doom]

interesting... but i don t think it is going to happen