Is Google too big to be trusted?

[benitez17]

JJMcClure said here that some of the comments I made about Google made them sound like Big Brother.

I do think they are growing to the point where they have enormous amounts of information about the millions of people who use their services, and some of it is very personal. Do you trust them with this information? I don't, because of statements like, "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place" made by their CEO, while they have all sorts of trade secrets and other company information that they don't seem to be in any hurry to share (for obvious reasons, though apparently not obvious to Google's CEO).

Combine this attitude with the their Wi-fi snooping (which they initially denied), Google Buzz privacy issues, censorship of results (not just in China), their desire to expand into every aspect of computing, and their willingness to share all of this data with law enforcement, and you have the description of an entity that is heading in the direction of Orwell's police state.

I'll end by saying that I respect Google as the result of a brilliant idea and a successful company, and understand that they are expected to comply with the laws in countries where they do business (despite their claim to "Do No Evil", which was idiotic if they ever planned to grow beyond 2 employees or do business outside of the USA), but I think people who depend on them to organize their lives and think they can do no wrong are setting themselves up for disappointment or worse down the road.

[christopheravell]

I love Google and, I have to. At this point they basically own the internet -- for any small online business Google can make or break you. But you must understand that they do have some inherent conflicts-of-interest. This can easily be seen in their Adwords program. Google uses "quality score" as a way to generate higher bids for keywords... If you think about it, a great ad with great conversions and a great landing (target) page can be BAD for Google. After all, if your ad in position #6 has very compelling copy and is taking away clicks from the higher paying advertisers in #1-6 - that is bad for Google $. And, if your site is one that people love and, thus, do not return to Google to re-search -- that is bad for Google. So Google has to balance the conflict of what is good for the web and what is good for Google.

On the other front, I wish Google would have stuck to the search engine business... Operating systems, VoIP, browsers, software, wireless hardware, etc... Yep, Google and a few other big players are coming closer and closer to complete e-dominance. This will spell disaster for the small entrepreneur and all but put an end to the web-of-opportunity. This it is why it has become imperative that online gold-rushers and SEO players practice ethical standards and steer away from the black hat (which is ANYTHING that is "faked") temptations. Because as we've learned from directory sites, affiliate push sites, adsense density sites, etc -- Google will make more and more rules, regulations, guidelines, and slaps -- if we don't work on the problem ourselves, THEY WILL. Google's motto may be "Do No Evil" but it is not "Do No Evil to YOU" and if you're trying to make a fool out of Google (with SEO tricks, popup websites) then Google is going to make a fool out of you.

[JJMcClure]

Google uses "quality score" as a way to generate higher bids for keywords... If you think about it, a great ad with great conversions and a great landing (target) page can be BAD for Google.

But it's good for Google users and without them Google is nothing. Quality score is a great way to ensure that the highest spot doesn't just go the highest bidder (which is how Overture used to work and look what happened to them) and means that you actually have to be delivering something useful, that's good for Google users, it's good for Google and therefore it's good for you.

I don't think that Google put their users first because all Google employees are lovely people without an evil bone in their body, they do it because it's smart.

I do think they are growing to the point where they have enormous amounts of information about the millions of people who use their services, and some of it is very personal. Do you trust them with this information? I don't, because of statements like, "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place" made by their CEO, while they have all sorts of trade secrets and other company information that they don't seem to be in any hurry to share (for obvious reasons, though apparently not obvious to Google's CEO).

That's far too sweeping. There's a big difference between Google knowing that you like to surf Dog training sites and tailoring the SERP to be as useful to you as possible and Google giving away their search algorithm and putting themselves out of business.

There are times when it's ok to say 'if you don't want people to know about it don't do it' and still keep secrets yourself. It's not as black white a contradiction as you're making it out to be.

[Clinton]

Great thread, benitez17

At this point they basically own the internet

I think we need to get it in perspective. They are huge in search, accounting for over two thirds of search engine searches. But that is only in the some countries. In the biggest market, China, Baidu is the 800 lb gorilla. Similarly in Russia, it's Yandex. Yandex has 64% of the Russian market. Baidu will have close to 80% of the massive Chinese market next year. Taken on a global level, Google's share of search is not as big as most people think.

And it's just search. Even in the English speaking market visitors getting to a destination get there via Facebook, MySpace, StumbleUpon and other social links, bookmarks, links on other sites, links in emails and numerous other ways. Did you know that less than 5% of them reach their destination through an SE - which makes Google's share about 3%.

That's still very significant, but if Google went bust tomorrow most Joe Average searchers wouldn't be severely impacted. They'd use Bing or something and get on with it.

Google is a one pony show. From their social network to their browser, they just aren't able to capture a significant market share. After several years gmail, for example, is microscopic next to Yahoo and Hotmail (though it's a far superior product).

So they are big in search. In some countries. And have very little influence over directing 97% of destinations users get to in the English speaking world.

Some webmasters see 100% of their traffic coming from Google and many treat Google like a god, but I'll have to disagree about them owning the internet or even coming anywhere close.

[benitez17]

But it's good for Google users and without them Google is nothing. Quality score is a great way to ensure that the highest spot doesn't just go the highest bidder (which is how Overture used to work and look what happened to them) and means that you actually have to be delivering something useful, that's good for Google users, it's good for Google and therefore it's good for you.

I don't think that Google put their users first because all Google employees are lovely people without an evil bone in their body, they do it because it's smart.

I agree that Google is smart to put their users first, though I don't know that Overture is doing that poorly as Yahoo Search Marketing that I would use it as some sort of cautionary tale, or that their position behind Google is due to the quality score, because I believe Google was the industry leader before they implemented it.

That's far too sweeping. There's a big difference between Google knowing that you like to surf Dog training sites and tailoring the SERP to be as useful to you as possible and Google giving away their search algorithm and putting themselves out of business.

Sure. I think they are pushing the limits of their tailoring though, especially when it comes to ads. I have read a few articles recently about how people are negatively reacting to seeing ads on websites that are related to items that they previously searched for.

There are times when it's ok to say 'if you don't want people to know about it don't do it' and still keep secrets yourself. It's not as black white a contradiction as you're making it out to be.

You lost me here. Could you give me an example? I don't see how you can state that another party should not be able to do anything without your knowledge, while withholding information yourself. To be honest, that quote from Schmidt sounds like it came right out of 1984.

[JJMcClure]

You lost me here. Could you give me an example? I don't see how you can state that another party should not be able to do anything without your knowledge, while withholding information yourself. To be honest, that quote from Schmidt sounds like it came right out of 1984.

I did, I said "There's a big difference between Google knowing that you like to surf Dog training sites and tailoring the SERP to be as useful to you as possible and Google giving away their search algorithm and putting themselves out of business."

There times when it's ok to keep secrets and times when it's just keeping your privacy for the sake of it. I couldn't care less that there are CCTV cameras everywhere on the roads in this country because they're only filming me walking or driving, things that aren't important, but if you tried to put one in my bedroom I would have a problem, it's a question of context. There are times when my privacy matters to me and times when it doesn't.

Some webmasters see 100% of their traffic coming from Google and many treat Google like a god, but I'll have to disagree about them owning the internet or even coming anywhere close.

Absolutely, let's not get this out of perspective.

On the other hand, let's not just bash them because they're the biggest player on our block. When you compare them to other companies of comparable size and power in their own market, Google have a great track record, they have good ethics and they're the kind of company we should be encouraging to succeeed. The second they become like Microsoft, McDonalds or BP or other large unethical companies, that all changes. I'll drop them like a hot potato.

Google do not owe any of us a living and sometimes I feel that people think they do and then feel like Google are weilding an unfair power and 'punishing' them. Get real people, they're just a company with a successful product and if you work with them insetad of against them there's a ton of money to be made, ethically.

[christopheravell]

Google do not owe any of us a living and sometimes I feel that people think they do and then feel like Google are weilding an unfair power and 'punishing' them. Get real people, they're just a company with a successful product and if you work with them insetad of against them there's a ton of money to be made, ethically.

Exactly. Well said.

[mpcovcd]

Anddd breaking news, Google buys ITA Software - they now own, control, and supply all the information about airline fares, schedules, and availability. That is if it passes the FTC, which it will thanks to googles arsenal of lawyers.

[JJMcClure]

they now own, control, and supply all the information about airline fares, schedules, and availability.

How dare they diversify and try to offer an even more useful product and be market leaders in everything they do! Oh no wait, that's what all companies do and I like Google's ethics... I forgot, guess I'm ok with this, especially as they've promised to honour all existing agreements.

Since Travel and Insurance are two of the biggest search verticals there are, I could hazard a guess where they'll be going next....

[Clinton]

Thanks for that update, mpvcovcd.

I've made clear in various posts that I strongly disagree with Rich's position. I believe that Google has achieved some fantastic things, but that they are too big now and very dangerous. Neither do I trust all their motivations. However, this is one of those areas where there will always be widely differing opinions and I respect that.

Rich, is there any other one company in the world you believe is as good/ethical/honourable as Google? Or do you believe Google is one of a kind?