Talk:Criticism of Google/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A search for what?

"A quick search shows the numbers to be in the thousands". What does this mean? --Devourer09 (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

By a critic?

Is there some really serious harm in specifying the name of this critic? Can't we just say that it was created by D. B.? It's fact, it's truth...there's nothing bad about it... hbdragon88 (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

An article about the magazine article Is Google Making Us Stupid? has been written. I personally think the information is best presented as a section of this article, instead than a separated article. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I say no. Nuanced argument has resulted in many major newspapers which needs to be properly described in the article itself.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain why I disagree. I am happy to know that the argument has been discussed in newspapers etc. However, even much more notable issues have been discussed in this article, instead of having been relegated to an article of their own. For example Criticism_of_Google#Privacy discusses issues that are at least as notable in terms of media coverage, cultural impact and have also been the subject of governmental investigation. Yet there is no "Google/Privacy controversy" article, most probably because all the information can be easily compacted in the paragraph and proper references inside a complete article on the criticism of Google.

Please note that my merge suggestion is not a criticism of your article or the information you want to put within -in fact, even if I had doubts on notability, I am convinced it is a worthwile addition. I am just concerned about the best organization of content. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is only tangentially to do with 'Google'. It is about something else. The title's purpose is to catch you about it is in fact about cognition.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems a correct observation (I read the article time ago -even if in Italian translation, and what you say makes sense to me). I will re-read the article soon and let you know my opinion. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely oppose merge; Carr's article is more than notable enough in itself to merit a separate article—when The New York Times starts off an article with "Everyone has been talking about an article in The Atlantic magazine called “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”", you know notability is beyond doubt. If someone wants to include information from Is Google Making Us Stupid? here, that's fine. the skomorokh 19:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, the issue is not notability (on which I agree completely), but organization of content. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I had a look at the actual article and I agree that this page is not the right place to merge (even if it surely deserves a mention here). I will remove the template there. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Refocusing proposal

This needs to become "Reception to Google" and have both praise and criticism. We need to weave these things seamlessly. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is the correct word; it does not imply only negative viewpoints are to be presented any more than a movie critic would be someone who only gave movies bad reviews. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of positive criticism. When you say "A criticized B" that means A said negative things about B.DuckeJ (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

False. In this context (as with movies, as mentioned above) criticism is analogous with analysis or critique or reviews of. The title is not in itself POV. Random89 07:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See it as an empirical fact that this article is named "Criticism of Google" and all people thought to enter were negative things about Google. Even if you would like the meaning to be perceived as the same meaning as in movies, empirically, it is not. Look at the article Criticism of Wikipedia, all it contains is negative criticism about Wikipedia82.80.132.107 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Principle

I know that bourgeois perspectives are universal and the capitalist mode of production and everything it entails are taken as universal givens that never need to be questioned but in an article like this that world view is an especially conspicuous failure. No one seems to notice the fact that as a search engine google is inferior to what it could be and that its results are skewed to achieve its commercial purpose. "Evil" is a simple minded term that I wouldn't use. However, in spite of the fact that it is in every way a typical "evil" corporation no one comments on the hypocrisy of their slogan. For Google to claim to be an agent of social good when in fact it is nothing more than the most successful dot com would be laughable if it weren't tragic due to the fact of how many take it seriously and the huge social wealth it sucks up for its owners which might be put to far better and effective use if this function were operated like the public utility it should be. Lycurgus (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions to improve the article, or is this just a rant (that doesn't belong here). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion is that given, a certain amount has been left implicit under the assumption there are editors intelligent enough to understand it, and willing to put time into it (which I am not). I won't dignify any further comments like that with any response. Lycurgus (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My summary is: a search engine should be operated as a public utility, as it has an economy of scale (bigger is cheaper) that naturally produces a monopoly, or at least, a small number of competitors. This is the reason telephone companies in the United State were broken up, and the same reason electric power companies are regulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.131.151 (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying that the entry above, not me, I just adjusted the indentation although I heartily concur. In fact I think all public utilities should be, you know publicly owned, i.e. by the communities that pay for their operation. In this particular case you would go from the absurd thing there is now to at the very least a much better flat search. Lycurgus (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Tax minimisation

Might be good to reference Google's tax minimisation strategies as a criticism. http://business.smh.com.au/business/net-profits-the-tax-move-that-makes-google-rich-20090527-bnqk.html --Alexxx1 ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama

Acording to http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/02/google.search.obama/index.html They refused to remove an image of her, I added it under "Censorship." I'm a new editor so please let me know if I messed up. --Shadowed Soul 21:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

They did remove the image from the search in question in the end, after initially putting the ad beside it. If you want to include a longer text about the issue that explains that the image was indeed eventually removed from the search in question, that'd be fine. Gigs (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for fixing that. How's it look now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowed Soul (talk • contribs) 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now, thanks. Gigs (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sentence doesn't make sense

There's a sentence in the middle of the Search within search section that doesn't make sense, and isn't even grammatical: "Google result pages display pay per click ads from rival companies sell ads against brands."

I found it got injured in the rev. of Nov. 16 during an attempt to "remove garbage". You could restore either the "who" or the "which" and it'd be grammatical, but still wouldn't make sense. "Sell ads against brands"---huh? Actually, none of the paragraph makes sense except the first and last sentences. I looked at the history and there's nothing I can suggest resurrecting from the past to explain the issue better.

I'll leave it to the gatekeeper(s) to do something with it... or not. Kkken (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Google islam is... blocked out?

See: FOX & Friends Calls Out Google For Censorship Possibly add to main page? Maybe if there are other reports of this? Ikip 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

dalvik and sun IP

can anyone more informed on the matter add a section about this? i know its not illegal but it is cheating to avoid paying royalties.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.26.5 (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ken Auletta's Book

Googled is a good source of info for this subject, especially wrt to how the current capital formation assumed its present state. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Will summarize it in this thread when I finish but refrain from editing the front matter of this article, since as my participation in the talk shows, I am biased. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is the NYT Sunday books § review from 2009-11-29. It would essentially seem to indicate that the thing is like the derivatives scam but in this case based on the selling of impressions that actually are ignored, which trump the earlier marketing pure fiction of impressions with an essentially similar one albeit presented in a completely different modality. The ignored text ads delivered to users verifiably doing something (i.e. looking for a certain content) replacing the more boldface fiction of early mass media. From the capital accumulated thusly, they seek to branch out in classical octopus fashion, sending tentacles everywhere looking for similar opportunities to "monetize" such situations without actually being a source of anything new, just as the litany of top accumulators of the same stripe before them, IBM, MS, and now them. But with an even greater financialization character covered over by a lot of bs. Of the prior "market leaders" only MS still derives its income primarily from product developement, IBM having to some extent joined the club deriving the bulk of its income in 2009 from services. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Forming a list of notable page references: in my draft space where I'll put anything further on this. Needless to say this reportage completely confirms what I've said in this thread and the other above, giving the specific details over the period from 1998 - 2009. Lycurgus (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

pp 216 and ff really make the matter clear in recounting the March 2008 codification of a "corporate vision". Here the Big Lie is plain to see for all but the deluded, the real vision and purpose of Google is to make as much money as possible for the three principals and the interests of this section of capital based production which they represent as over an against those of the horde of supposed knowledge workers whose wage labor they command. All the rest is tedious mendacious bs. I didn't go any further than this and took the book back to the library. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unclear passage

The article currently states: "The Google Chrome web browser remembers and reveals previous zoom levels even while in the "incognito" mode. This has the potential effect of recording web url history even while purportedly in "incognito" mode". I don't get this. Can someone maybe elaborate on this? 78.54.139.211 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Censorship by Google

The Censorship by Google article should not really be an article on its own. Most of the content simply describes how Google complies with federal copyright laws in various countries. The few sections that actually have to do with Google censoring Web content on its own have been controversial enough to be considered Criticism of Google. Therefore, I propose that the censorship article be heavily trimmed and then merged into the Censorship section of this article. Thoughts? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, how about no? Did you notice how long these both articles are? For an inexplicable reason, I didn't ever read your post before replying. So I don't know right now. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 10:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If nobody objects the merge proposal I am going to go ahead and begin the process by trimming down the source article. Are there any objections? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge. The two articles are notable in their own right. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you picked a great time to disagree. I just merged the articles. Anyway, as I said above, the censorship article was simply a description of how Google obeyed the law. If we documented how every company obeyed the law, Wikipedia would explode with useless articles. The only notable part of the censorship article was when people criticized Google for their censorship, and that content belongs nicely here. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 18:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Italy privacy violation

According to the BBC article linked to as a source, the case was deemed "ridiculous" by many.

And indeed, it seems it is.

"The Google employees were accused of breaking Italian law by allowing the video to be posted online."

"I find it worrying that the chief privacy officer who had nothing to do with the video has been found guilty. It is unrealistic to expect firms to monitor everything that goes online."

"Many question how the Italian prosecutors decided which employees to target and most agree the four it settled on were random choice with none living in Italy or having direct responsibility for the video in question. George De Los Reyes was Google's chief financial officer but no longer even works for the firm."

I propose that more information should be added in that section for clarification. 75.53.222.199 (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However, to remain WP:NPOV, we should probably use terms other than "ridiculous". Maybe we could say something along the lines of "However, many people criticized the decision. ref" — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 15:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

typo?

"[Section] 5 -- Search within search

"... Google result pages display pay per click ads from rival companies sell ads against brands."

Tough sentence.

Perhaps it should be, "... from rival companies that sell ads...?"

Also, the concept of "selling ads against brands," is either another typo or it's a marketing jargon term that needs to be explained. I, for one, would like to know y'all mean.

Interesting article.

Thanks,

Nei1 (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was a interesting sentence to figure out. In the end, I just gave up and looked at the reference it was sourced to. Turns out the sentence was supposed to say that ads from rival companies would show up when you did a search within a search for another site. So if you did a search within a search for Best Buy, there was a good chance ads for Circuit City or something would show up alongside. I put in a better version of the sentence. Hopefully it clears things up. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What does the word tendention mean?

I can't find a definition for the word tendention. What does it mean, and what English dictionary provides a definition for it? Wiki Ray B (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No more autocomplete?

For the last couple of days I have not been seeing the autocomplete functionality in Google search. I could not find any info on the web. Is there something worth adding to this article about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.96.12 (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Does Chinese government request GOOG's user data more than USA + Canada?

This would be interesting to find out. Which government asks Google for their user's data most. Is it the Chinese, United States, Canada, or EU country? It is clear many, many, governments interfere in these Internet companies in seeking a user's data not just China. According to Google it is the United States.

• Article: Google got 38 user data requests from Canada in 6 months - By Meagan Fitzpatrick

Date: Posted: Jul 8, 2011 2:41 PM ET -- Last Updated: Jul 8, 2011 6:06 PM ET

Source: www.cbc.ca - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - CBC News

"The 38 requests ranked Canada low on a list of 26 countries that sought data on users. The United States was at the top of list with 4, 601 requests, followed by Brazil with 1,804 and India with 1, 699."

CaribDigita (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

An Unfair "undo?"

(Did anybody notice that somebody tried to mark this whole article for deletion?)

My entry to the lead section was deleted. I'm concerned that "the Google Boys" are attempting to POV control this article just like the main Google articles, where anything but angles singing its praises is unhearable. (No evil conspiracy, just simple economics. Anybody here care to deny simple economic theory and the effects that MUST result?)

Here's the reasoning for deletion stated in History:
"(cur | prev) 20:33, 5 August 2011 IRWolfie- (talk | contribs) (58,779 bytes) (revert: The lede summarises the article, we don't use it as a dumping ground for claims against google (there was even a google search used as a reference)) (undo) "

Of course huffy authoritarian ex cathedra phrases like "we don't use it as..." set off my rhetoric-aware red flags. Is somebody attempting to control the terms of the argument? "Dumping ground!!??" Nasty me attempting to use Wikipedia as a garbage dump!? OMFG!!! Well shut that trash down!! Actually, rhetoric-aware me must hand that boy some kind of trophy.

Here's what I actually wrote:

Other criticisms of Google Inc. don't pertain to specific faulty apps or data errors as listed below, they question Google Inc.'s cumulative effect on the Internet, commerce, and society. Is Google Inc. too big and powerful? Is it a monopoly? Can we trust it? Is Google Too Big?

That's not Big Picture, overview kinda stuff!?

...I added that to this [cough] "dumping ground for claims against google":

... program.[2][3] Google's stated mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful,"[4] but this mission, and the means used to accomplish it, have raised concerns among the company's critics. The policies and practices for which Google has been criticized include its use of others' intellectual property, concerns that its compilation of data may violate people's privacy, censorship of search results, and the energy consumption of its servers. Much of the criticism of Google pertains to issues that have not yet been addressed by cyber law. [end]

BTW, the Lead is only one paragraph long. Wiki specs suggest a max of four paragraphs, and almost all articles indeed have four. Wazup with that!? Coincidence perhaps? I'm sure.

I'm going to undo this censorship unless good reasons are raised.
--68.127.91.226 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

You were dumping claims into the article that don't have due weight for inclusion. The lede should summarize the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Search Neutrality?

Seams that this page would go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_neutrality but that page mite need some work150.156.215.11 (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Search > Google, despite commonality !

I added a link in Criticism of Google#See also.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of vs. Controversies

Consider the following Wikipedia pages:

Criticism of Google

Amazon.com controversies

Should we rename so both are X controversies with a redirect from criticism of X?

Should we rename so both are criticism of X with a redirect from X controversies?

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

'Complaints about' would be a better prefix, really. Nevard (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Turn Off the Blue Light in AdSense/AdWords section

The second paragraph of the AdSense/AdWords section originally read:

In May 2011, Google cancelled the AdWord purchased by a Dublin sex worker rights group named "Turn Off the Blue Light" , claiming that it represented an "egregious violation" of company ad policy by "selling adult sexual services", despite the fact that the site advertises a nonprofit campaign for human rights, not an escort service. Furthermore, it allowed the anti-prostitution campaign to which the "Blue Light" group is opposed to purchase an AdWord, despite the fact that such a sale clearly violates Google policy by "includ[ing]...advocacy against [an] individual, group, or organization", namely sex workers.

At 16:41 on 14 October 2011‎ user Jasonlaptop changed this paragraph giving an edit summary "factual changes". With Jasonlaptop's changes the section read:

In May 2011, Google cancelled the AdWord purchased by a Dublin sex worker rights group named, as it represented an "egregious violation" of company ad policy by "selling adult sexual services". The campaign was launched by a leading escort website in Ireland which is owned by the partner of convicted pimp Peter McCormick. Mc Cormick and co run the website from England to escape being charged for soliciting prostitution.

The group also claim that Ruhama, an NGO involved with helping women in Prostitution, bought Ad Words from Google, and then payed google to remove Turn Off the Blue Light's ads. Ruhama are in fact a registered charity and are receiving free advertising from Google as part of Google's excellent charity work. More on the pimps connection to the escort website and the TOBL campaign can be found here: http://www.sundayworld.com/columnists/sw-irish-crime.php?aid=8634

At 19:31 and 20:29 on 14 October I (Jeff Ogden) reverted Jasonlaptop's changes and updated the paragraph giving the edit summaries: "rv, the changes radically changed the item, deleted references, and added a reference that didn't really talk about Google)" and "update, add more recent info about Google reversal". With my changes the paragraph read:

In May 2011, Google cancelled the AdWord advertisement purchased by a Dublin sex worker rights group named "Turn Off the Blue Light" (TOBL), claiming that it represented an "egregious violation" of company ad policy by "selling adult sexual services". However, TOBL is a nonprofit campaign for sex worker rights and is not advertising or selling adult sexual services. In July, after TOBL members held a protest outside Google's European headquarters in Dublin and wrote to complain, Google relented, reviewed the group's website, found its content to be advocating a political position, and restored the AdWord advertisement.

At 06:58 and 07:00 on 15 October Jasonlaptop effectively restored his version without giving an edit summary.

At 08:00 on 15 October 2011‎ IRWolfie- deleted the section with the edit summary "Google is not mentioned in the article, there appears to be no criticism of google present".

At 08:19 and 08:23 on 15 October Jasonlaptop restored his version without giving an edit summary. The new version read:

In May 2011, Google cancelled the AdWord advertisement purchased by a Dublin sex worker campaign after learning that it was launched by Escort Ireland, Irelands leading 'escort' websites, which advertises prostitutes and is an online community for 'punters' to normalise their activity. This website is owned and managed by the partner (Audrey Campbell/Patricia Allbright) of convicted pimp Peter Mc Cormick, who fled to England in the late 90's. His son Mark was also involved in pimping and brothel owning, is an IT expert and created all of the escort websites that Mc Cormick and co owns.

The campaign tried to slander Ruhama, an NGO that work with women in prostitution, by claiming untruthfully that they paid Google to remove the ads. Ruhama are part of Googles charity network and receive free advertising.

More on the connections between TOBL and EI, and Mc Cormick can be found here: http://www.sundayworld.com/columnists/sw-irish-crime.php?aid=8634

At 10:50 on 15 October I restored my version with a minor update and the addition of the "Need-Consensus" template. My edit summary said: "revert for reasons previously given, please discuss further changes on the talk page". The paragraph now reads:

In May 2011, Google cancelled the AdWord advertisement purchased by a Dublin sex worker rights group named "Turn Off the Blue Light" (TOBL), claiming that it represented an "egregious violation" of company ad policy by "selling adult sexual services". However, TOBL is a campaign for sex worker rights and the website is not advertising or selling adult sexual services. In July, after TOBL members held a protest outside Google's European headquarters in Dublin and wrote to complain, Google relented, reviewed the group's website, found its content to be advocating a political position, and restored the AdWord advertisement.

My reverts were done because I don't think that Jasonlaptop's version is supported by the Sunday World article that is given as a source. That article does not talk about Google. It does not mention Escort Ireland. It does not mention slander against Ruhama. Jasonlaptop's changes delete sources supporting a different point of view and his version is not NPOV. I don't know a lot about Sunday World, but the article is certainly written in a sensationalist tabloid style and there is no author or date given for the article. So I wonder if it should be considered a reliable source. The fact that Google reversed their original decision certainly needs to be mentioned and I think it speaks to the fact that after their review Google felt that the TOBL site was expressing a political point of view and was not "selling adult sexual services". I don't know if Peter Mc Cormick or his brother were behind the TOBL site or not, but even if they were, I assume that they have the right to express a political point of view. Pulling other activities and other websites into this discussion seems to be off topic for this article which is about Criticism of Google.

Jeff Ogden (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

At 11:43 on 15 October‎ Jasonlaptop restored his version without an edit summary or comment on this talk page. At 12:34 on 15 October I added several templates to the article and section ("Dispute about|AdSense/AdWords Turn Off the Blue Light", "Lopsided", "Cn", "Verify credibility" and "POV-statement"), but did not revert his changes. At 12:45 on 15 October 2011‎ Jasonlaptop, without entering an edit summary, removed some, but not all, of my changes. I will request a third-party review. Jeff Ogden (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any criticism of Google discussed in the text. Since this is what the article is about, the paragraph does not belong here. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The bad content cannot stay. I reverted again. I have warned user about the three revert rule and edit warring in general. If he keeps it up somebody please go report him at the 3RR noticeboard. DreamGuy (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

sorry for the constant editing guys. The website TOBL was launched by escort ireland, so Google were right to stop their ads. Then the TOBL website deleted the disclaimer 'EI launches TOBL!' and suddenly just because it isn't written, it must be true? This is all I wanted to say, the truth is always being glossed over by these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonlaptop (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Giving governments information ?

"The company claims it did not plan to give the [Chinese] government information about users ..."

"Google has been denounced ... for agreeing to China's demands while simultaneously fighting the United States government's requests for similar information."

These statements are contradictory about whether Google gives info to the Chinese government !
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Things change over time. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a sub-section titled "Government requests". It mentions China, but doesn't have a lot of information to provide. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Tax avoidance in main article

Why is the issue of Tax avoidance not included in the main article? It is a legitimate business strategy wich is used by many if not most multinationals. 80.187.97.209 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably because it is something for which Google has been criticized. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Google is a monopoly

Nothing about Google being the most dangerous (along with Facebook) monopoly in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.59.22 (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. "most dangerous monopoly" is not NPOV 61.69.25.69 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion of monopoly, antitrust, and restraint of trade, but it stops far short of "most dangerous". Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Net Neutrality

Welp, looks like it's official, Google just killed its "Don't be Evil" motto by going against Net Neutrality. This new criticism of Google should definitely be researched and added. Other thoughts on the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.21.51 (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion of Google's position on Net Neutrality in the main Google article. That seems like a good place for it. The discussion says that Google supports Net Neutrality rather than "going against" it, however. Google is also mentioned several times in the main Net Neutrality article. There Google's position is presented as more nuanced than simply "supports" or "opposes", but overall it seems that Google is a supporter. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

YouTube edits

IRWolfie removed some of the YouTube censorship issues. Maybe this is undue weight for the Google Criticism article (but definitely not the Youtube Criticism article, which is where we could move it). However, her/his rationale is that "these didn't seem to attract much criticism fo google, just that these were videos that were removed from youtube," when every statement that was deleted was backed up by a secondary source. Kant66 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources were mostly primary and the other 1 site was non-reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Cell Phone verfication

Blogs and forums are not acceptable sources, the user at the ip address 46.70.7.39 should not be trying to force something from unreliable sources into the article. Discuss your additions and get some reliable sources; don't try get your changes through by force. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Have archived threads created more than 18 months ago, moved the big ass one to its own page. Lycurgus (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I archived threads that have been inactive for at least 18 months. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It was more than that but no matter, the page was relatively dead for a while and is now active again apparently. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is inherently non-neutral. Does anyone else have a problem with this? 122.105.142.28 (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

All articles should be neutral. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that this article is "inherently" non-neutral, then you should takes steps to make it neutral. It is difficult to determine what about the article you find non-neutral. Is it the name? Is it a specific section? Simply stating that "the whole thing" is non-neutral does not help us begin to make it neutral. Cliff (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have directed this at me since I made no comment on whether this article is neutral or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If I had placed my content at

this level of indent,

it would be easy for people to mistake your comment and mine as being from the same person. I did not direct the comment at you, IRWolfie. Cliff (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This article started out as a section within the main Google article and then was split off into a separate article. So one way to judge its NPOV is to look at this article in the context of the main Google article or perhaps even all of the Wikipedia articles about Google (there are lots of them). Looked at in that way I don't see a NPOV problem. Or if you want to just look at this article by itself, then what needs to be judged is the NPOVness of an article about criticisms of Google. The article doesn't need to be neutral toward Google, but it needs to have a NPOV in its treatment of criticisms of Google. Again, I don't see a serious NPOV problem here when looking at the article as a whole, but people should certainly feel free to edit specific sections within the article to give them a more NPOV when they feel a NPOV is lacking. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Your first point is incorrect. The article itself must be neutral in isolation. POV Forking is not allowed. See WP:CRIT for more info. IRWolfie- (talk)

Similar questions were raised during August 2008 in a deletion discussion where the outcome was "keep". For a summary, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Google. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of content from "Alternatives to Google and monopoly power"

Earlier today I added a new subsection with the heading "Alternatives to Google and monopoly power" as part of the "Monopoly, restraint of trade, and antitrust" section. Three hours later IRWolfie deleted about two-thirds of the new subsection with the comment "rm the pure advertising". I don't agree that a list of some alternatives to Google in an article that talks about Google's monopoly power is "pure advertising". I wasn't trying to advertise anything. I was trying to give examples that show that there is a range of alternatives made available by a diverse set of organizations with widely differing motives. When Eric Schmidt listed some of Google's competitors at the Senate hearing, I don't think he was advertising. The Students for a Free Tibet's list of ethical providers wasn't advertising. The sources cited were third-parties and not the owners/operators/authors of the alternatives. What harm does including a list of alternatives do? Do we think it is unfair to Google or will hurt Google's business? Does it detract from the rest of the article in some way? Or do examples strengthen the article?

This is the fourth time that content of this sort has been added and then deleted from the article in the past month. The content was added by two different editors and deleted by three plus one anonymous. Here is the history:

• 04:53, 18 October 2011‎ IRWolfie- (-2,916 bytes) (→Alternatives to Google and monopoly power: rm the pure advertising)
• 01:54, 18 October 2011‎ W163‎ (+4,683 bytes) (→Monopoly, restraint of trade, and antitrust: add new sub-section on Alternatives to Google and monopoly power, with references, as part of the anti-trust section)

• 14:35, 15 October 2011‎ Ebyabe‎ (-340 bytes) (→Google Alternatives: rmv unsourced, pls discuss on talk page)
• 22:44, 14 October 2011‎ Factinator (talk | contribs)‎ (+340 bytes) (Undid revision 452091978 by John Nevard (talk) No need to delete a section simply because the user personally dislikes one of a list of websites referenced.)

• 19:05, 23 September 2011‎ John Nevard (-359 bytes) (no reason not to delete a entirely unreferenced paragraph of advocacy against google, which shills for considerably more ethically dubious services)
• 17:54, 23 September 2011‎ W163 (talk | contribs)‎ (+359 bytes) (Undid revision 452091978 by John Nevard (talk), no need to delete an entire section)

• 17:22, 23 September 2011‎ John Nevard‎ (-340 bytes) (urgh.. the only site more evil than 'funnyordie' is ebaumsworld. grossly inappropriate)
• 08:58, 22 September 2011‎ 85.179.19.34‎ (-507 bytes) (→Google Alternatives: Removed blatant self promotion)
• 00:20, 14 September 2011‎ Factinator‎ (+2,001 bytes) (→Other: add Monopoly and Alternatives details)

I'd like to see the list of alternatives restored, but, before I simply restore my changes, some discussion here seems appropriate.

Jeff Ogden (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How is listing alternatives in any way related to topic of the article? I doubt any other criticism articles for example include list of alternatives. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The existence of alternatives is relevant when you are talking about a possible monopoly as this sub-section of the article is. Mr. Schmidt gave a list of alternatives during his Senate testimony in an attempt to show that Google isn't the only game in town. I don't know if that worked or not, but I assume that he thought it was a relevant response to the criticism he was facing. Jeff Ogden (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We can note that alternatives exist, but it is completely unnecessary to list them in the article (they have no due weight in this article). Also, ideally we shouldn't have to use primary sources except to verify what someone has said as there is a danger of WP:OR. "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Including a list of examples can be very helpful and I see no reason that they should not be included. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Helpful in what way? Please elaborate. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Including specific examples ("Microsoft's Bing search engine, the Yelp review and listing site, the NexTag comparison shopping site, online merchants such as Amazon, and social networks like Facebook, ...") helps people understand what is meant by more abstract comments ("alternatives to Google"). Examples can help avoid misunderstandings. Giving a fuller quote from Eric Schmidt that includes the examples helps to put his other comments into context and makes it clearer what he was trying to say in his Senate testimony. Because Google is involved in so many areas and dominant in many of them, giving examples can help show that there are (or aren't) alternatives in many or most of them. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims in a list and I don't think this warrants the two OR tags that were added. Claiming Original Research here seems more like one more in a series of ever changing justifications to delete or exclude material from the article. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Original Research is always a good justification for removal of materials. The OR tag is related to the article in general, that is why it is at the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be just the two of us going back and forth here. Can we get some other editors to join in and help break the deadlock? Should we ask for some third-party assistance? Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The OR tag was related to the large amounts of OR in the article and not specifically in this section. There are many sections in the article where insufficient/unreliable sources are used to justify some criticism. Some of the criticisms have no due weight. You can request editors from related wiki project pages. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets have the OR discussion in the new section below that you just added. I'll request 3rd party assistance on the issue of including a list of alternative examples as part of the "Alternatives to Google and monopoly power" sub-section. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm here as your third opinion editor. It seems to me that the only reason to include a full list of alternatives is if they are published in a reliable, third-party source and also if the specific list at Wikipedia is established as notable by the sources. What the sources do seem to establish is that the existence of alternatives is notable and should be included - there are whole articles about that. However, the particular websites included in the list is arbitrary, as all the sources have different suggestions. We need to be careful not to make this page a directory of Google alternatives. Thus, I'd suggest you mention that alternatives exist but do not list them all. I hope that helps - let me know if you need any more help or support. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What I am wondering is, if it was found to be in some reliable secondary source, why would it belong in an article on Criticism of Google? What gives it due weight for a mention here? Also note that notability doesn't apply to article content. Wikipedia already contains a standalone list of search engines. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to ItsZippy. Additional comments from other editors would be welcome too. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A question for ItsZippy, you wrote "... but do not list them all." Do you think it is OK to list a few as examples or were you saying "do not list them at all"? Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want a huge directory of Google alternatives. There are hundreds of alternatives to Google and sources that list them, so we are a long way from creating a complete directory if we list a few representative examples such as the ones Eric Schmidt listed in his Senate testimony. What makes those alternatives notable is that Google's chairman used them to defend Google against charges that Google is a monopoly that uses its market power unfairly to limit market entry by competitors. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sections which go against WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH,WP:RELIABLE or WP:OR

Just from the start of the article some of the issues:

• section Possible misuse of search results - Undue, it's also a primary source
• Use of google watch as a source seems dubius, due weight not determined
• section Cached data - first paragraph contains an uncited criticism of google, second paragraph is about a court case that google won
• The section that starts "After privacy concerns were raised, Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, declared in December 2009" seems to be primary, no criticism is present so I'm not sure of the relevance.
• subsection Cookies contains no criticism

There's plenty more in the article that needs to be addresed but the above is some I saw near the start of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I never get the page I am looking for, I have used all the suggestions but it seems to go where it wants. If you try to ask a question, they either ignore it, or send you to a page that has nothing to do with what you wanted. Why should I bother with google at all? It is very frustrating and I have not seen any comments from google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.218.60 (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

YouTube And Criticism of YouTube link to the same place (Remove?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.93.110.117 (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Monopoly

Needs a better ref than the Wp self-ref, if possible. Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

Is this new?

I just noticed this for the first time. http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/ Ottawahitech (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

epic / google

EPIC sues FTC over Google's planned privacy changes Ottawahitech (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Double censorship standards

"Google is criticized for providing links to pornographic content in countries where such content is illegal."

They're criticized for censoring search results AND for not censoring them? That's just stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.25.69 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The article is about criticism of Google, from this and that standpoint, standpoints that need not harmonize. It is important, however, to attribute the criticisms to sources, so that the article avoids giving a false impression that Wikipedia criticises Google. Wikipedia is neutral. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I did some cleanup of section grouping diff (I didn't remove any thing except this [1] which is duplicate of street view wifi issue as far as I can tell) - a few issues remain

• Google Bombing - relevant to a criticism of google?
• section title Danger of influencing the society through page rank manipulation - interesting topic - but the section title seems a little scary..
• Google watch - is this notable?
• section Privacy sections of this section appear a little nit-picky eg what is the privacy issue with google dashboard - it's not really clear to me.
• section Search within a search - what exactly is the criticism ?!
• sections energy consumption, doodles, Naming of Go programming language - is this notable enough really?

Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. and You-tube issues - move to youtube ?? Sf5xeplus (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It also seems that the same issue is being repeated over and over in different parts of the article. Street View issues, Scientology removal, and copyright issues are 3 really good examples. We should need to find a better way to categorize them, either by service, by country/organization, or by issue.161.6.65.162 (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on the article and think/hope I've addressed most of the issues mentioned above:

• I removed the Google Bombing section, but kept a See also link to the Google Bombing article.
• I changed the heading "Danger of influencing the society through page rank manipulation" to something a little less scary.
• I removed the section on Google Watch after making sure that all of the issues in the section were covered elsewhere in the article. I added links to the "Google Watch" and the "Google Watch Watch" websites to the External links section. And there is an Anchor template for "Google Watch" in there so that the #REDIRECT from the "Google Watch" article has somewhere to go.
• I moved the "Search within search" section to be a less visible sub-section within "Other" and reworded it some to hopefully make it clearer.
• The sub-sections on "energy consumption", "doodles", and "Naming of Go programming language" all remain as part of "Other".
• YouTube issues still appear in both the "Privacy" and the "Censorship" sections, which I think is OK.
• I did not move any of the YouTube material to the YouTube article, but think that that might be a good idea.
• There don't seem to be many issues repeated over and over now, but I think that was addressed before I started my recent round of changes.
• I added refs and there are no more Citation needed templates left in the article.
• I reworked the lead, reordered things, did a lot of copy editing, and expanded some sections.
• And, finally, I removed the Cleanup template from the article.

--Jeff Ogden (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but why did you remove the section on "google watch"?
• Were you aware that there was a separate article on Google watch, discussed at four {{afd}}? 1 no consensus, 2 keep, and finally a merge to a section of this article, Criticism of Google#Google watch. Now, personally, I don't think we should ever use the technique of redirecting to a section heading in a wikilink in article space. Such links are routine in the WP namespace, but they are a disaster waiting to happen. This is an example. In my opinion, if a topic is worthy of a wikilink it is worthy of a standalone article, exactly so what happened to this section doesn't happen. Wikilinks to a subsection heading are broken because wikilinks to a subsection heading can't go on watchliists. Similarly, a wikilink to a subsection heading won't show when one clicks on "what links here".
• I am sure you thought you had a good reason to excise the section. Could you please explain those reasons, in detail, here? Geo Swan (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I made the changes you are asking about roughly a year and a half ago and I don't really remember all of the thinking behind the changes today. At the time I wrote:

• I removed the section on Google Watch after making sure that all of the issues in the section were covered elsewhere in the article. I added links to the "Google Watch" and the "Google Watch Watch" websites to the External links section. And there is an Anchor template for "Google Watch" in there so that the #REDIRECT from the "Google Watch" article has somewhere to go.

With this and several other changes I was working to cleanup the article and ultimately remove the cleanup tag. With respect to "Google Watch" I think I was responding to the earlier comments by Sf5xeplus (talk) at 09:59 on 26 October 2010 (UTC) that asked "Google watch - is this notable?" as well as the comment by 161.6.65.162 (talk) at 21:43 on 22 February 2011 (UTC) that "It also seems that the same issue is being repeated over and over in different parts of the article." Having a separate section on Google Watch didn't seem to parallel the other sections of the article very well. I made sure that all of the issues from the Google Watch section were addressed in other parts of the article and then I deleted the Google Watch section. I do think it is better to organize the article around issues rather than around other web sites such as Google Watch and Google Watch Watch and the particular personalities behind those sites. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the "Google Watch" web site no longer exists and its link in the External links section of the article is flagged as a "dead link". The Google Watch Watch site still exists. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Objection to Deletion/Merger of Scroogle article

I don't understand why the Scroogle article should be deleted or merged, or why anyone would feel it is important to do so. Scroogle is a specific subject. A person wouldn't necessarily think of going to an article called Criticism of Google to find it. What is the harm of the article? Would someone please explain to me why the issue is even being discussed? Abstrator (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scroogle_(3rd_nomination), IRWolfie- (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the Articles for deletion discussion closed in March 2013 with a decision to merge the Scroogle article here, but no merge has occurred. Is there a reason that the merge should not be done and done soon? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I did the merge today. The Scroogle page is now a #REDIRECT to this article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Duckduckgo

Please add that Duckduckgo, a competing search engine, has criticized Google because of privacy issues etc. PWNGWN (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a newspaper source saying so? I found a South China Morning Post source saying that DuckDuckGo has gained traffic after the PRISM scandal, but I haven't heard it actually criticize Google WhisperToMe (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

New sources about Google and NSA/FISA

• "Google 'not in cahoots with NSA' - chief legal officer answers your questions." The Guardian. 19 June 2013.
• Haynes, Jonathan. "Google's chief legal officer – live Q&A: eight things we learned." The Guardian. Wednesday 19 June 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ungoogleable

I suggest merging Ungoogleable into this article. It's never going to grow past a tiny stub about a small kerfuffle (that's almost only a dictionary definition; it already exists on Wiktionary), and having a separate article for it seems unnecessary. — Scott • talk 12:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Although Ungoogleable is too insubstantial to continue to exist, I don't think Criticism of Google is the right page for it. The word itself is not really a criticism of Google, and although one related event is, the word is not, especially with its more general search engine meaning. I think there should be a page about terms based on the root word Google, or something like that, if there isn't already one, for it to be merged into. Otherwise even the Google (verb) would work. But not here. Alcatraz ii (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I took Alcatraz ii's suggestion and added an "Ungoogleable" section to Google (verb) and made Ungoogleable into a #REDIRECT. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Material about a family visit from the FBI (Government requests sub-section)

On 4 November 2013 the following paragraph was added to the Cookies sub-section of the article by User:Tthisisjenn, deleted by me with an edit summary of "Delete material about the NSA from the Cookies sub-section since the sources don't seem to mention cookies. Expand the remaining ref description. It is possible that the deleted material should go somewhere in this or another article, just not here.", and reinserted by User:Tthisisjenn at the end of the "Government requests" section.

In a recent article, a family for a visit of from the FBI for searching "pressure cookers" and "backpacks" from Google. The infrastructure of the NSA was leaked by Edward Snowden, who indicated that the NSA interacted with Google servers. Thus, supplying the information from users' Google searches to the NSA. The NSA uses "man in the middle" attack to hijack users' interaction with Google servers. The NSA has a router that requests to route data from Google in between other routers that are trying to get data from Google servers. It is essentially the same thing as if a user was trying to send a message to a friend, but the NSA would see it first, before sending it to the friend. Thus, calling it the "man in the middle" attack.

I am uncomfortable with the paragraph and its placement in the "Government requests" section as that seems to imply that Google assisted the government by providing access, something that Google denies and something that, from my reading at least, isn't supported by the sources cited. I'm not sure where man in the middle attacks fit into the picture since they are not discussed in relationship to the incident and certainly not something that the government requests. I think the incident is interesting and raises all sorts of questions, but it may or may not be a "criticism of Google". To remain in this article I think it would need to be rewritten to be much clearer about what the "criticism" is and it would need to be supported by stronger sources. I'll remove the paragraph if it isn't rewritten and if no consensus develops that the material should remain. See WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted the paragraph with an edit summary of "removing questionable paragraph tagged as "original research", see talk page". If anyone cares to, we can still have a discussion of the appropriateness of this material in this article or where else the material might go. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

German + French hate laws

"Islamic and other websites had been removed from the German and French versions of Google. Google has complied with these laws by not including sites"

Which laws ? None are mentioned ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

see : Volksverhetzung — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristophThomas (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Here the French WP article: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitation_%C3%A0_la_haine_raciale christophe (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)