Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

March 2026
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Archives

No longer, it would appear Updated [ahem]

In the past year, Google also faced criticism on Capitol Hill for its business arrangements with China that allow Internet censorship, and for not shutting off access to pornography. Google executives argued that much of the criticism was unfair, but sometimes the company had to struggle to get its message heard in Washington.

Emphasis, mine. It’s only and ever about the money.

Actually, I would amend that. The capitol is full of whores on both sides of the aisle who’ll sell their vote for a buck. But for Google, itself, it’s all about power. To what end?

Update: Michelle Malkin reminds us that Google’s motto is “Don’t Be Evil”. That would give me greater comfort if I knew that Google and I agreed on what constitutes evil. I doubt that is true.

As I said in an earlier thread, the sooner we marginalize the far left, the better it will be for us all.

10 Replies to “No longer, it would appear Updated [ahem]”

  1. actus says:

    Tech—and google included—has been kind of late to the policy game. Specially compared to hollywood.

    But for Google, itself, it’s all about power. To what end?

    I’d bet their legislative priorities are net neutrality, preventing hollywood from being able to sue them, and limiting oversight of their shenanigans abroad.

  2. For the politicians, it is also about power. The power to “investigate” non-contributors.

    Once Google stock hit $400, these politicians saw a large pile of money. That’s when the congressional “investigations” began.

    Google was smart enough to take the hint, and start paying the bribe money. They also realize that they have to pay tribute to both Republicans and Democrats.

    You’re right, it was only ever about the money: about the money Google wasn’t donating.

  3. ed says:

    Hmmmm.

    Considering the past behavior of Google News and the recent creation of a Google PAC.

    I don’t think it’ll be good for conservatives or the GOP.

  4. actus says:

    That’s when the congressional “investigations” began.

    They were brought in, along with yahoo and some others, for hearings before. Last year i think.

  5. BJTexs says:

    I just checked…

    If one goes to Google Search, types in “failure” and clicks “I Feel Lucky” ine will be directed to the White House web page. Try it.

    Any other questions as to Google’s intentions?

  6. actus says:

    Any other questions as to Google’s intentions?

    Ever heard of a google bomb? Try typing in ‘santorum’ followed by ‘i’m feeling lucky.’

  7. BJTexs says:

    Ever heard of a google bomb?

    In early 2005 I wrote Google about this particular situation and they responded with a form letter describing the “bomb” and “algorithms” ending with the equivalent of “hey, what can we do?”

    Based upon Google’s founders outspoken left wing views, the entire response felt like “plausible deniability.”

  8. ahem says:

    I’d bet their legislative priorities are net neutrality, preventing hollywood from being able to sue them, and limiting oversight of their shenanigans abroad.

    actus: For once, I agree completely. I think these are their short-term goals. My concern is their long-term goals. Once an organization is created, it’s very hard–nigh unto impossible–to disband. It finds a justification for its existence.

    The inherent nature of Google allows it to have a profound–possibly devastating–effect on our society. It’s become so much a part of our information fabric that it can no longer be separated or extracted from it. That worries me a lot.

  9. BoZ says:

    It’s only and ever about the money.

    Google is a corporation, not a company. They don’t do money. They do government.

    Viewed purely financially, their acquisitions since their IPO show a pattern of perfect negligence. Aside from the day-to-day fraud that is their ad business, they’re not even trying to make money. They’re throwing billions down a hole. Which hole?

    The youtube buy is the best evidence, since all it can gain them (except the destruction of a superior rival, an action money-making companies consider pointless and wasteful) is an endless stream of expensive lawsuits. Why do they want those?

    Because they want to be the internet government, and the courts, in siding “against” them in a fistful of youtube suits, will lay much of that responsibility power on them.

    This PAC is the penultimate step. Once an election goes D on their dime, the Family cuts them in all the way.

    Google’s oppressive collusions with totalitarian governments aren’t anomalies—they’re aspirations. And they’ll make Halliburton look like a street pretzel vendor. Soon.

  10. actus says:

    The youtube buy is the best evidence, since all it can gain them (except the destruction of a superior rival, an action money-making companies consider pointless and wasteful) is an endless stream of expensive lawsuits. Why do they want those?

    Look at the numbers—google announced the deal and their valuation went up by something like 5 billion. Then they gave 1.6 billion in stock to youtube. Sounds like their shareholders got a good deal.

Comments are closed.