Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Jan 2012 22:45 UTC
Google Google has updated its privacy policy - in fact, it has consolidated a mess of over 70 different privacy policies each covering an individual service into one, simpler policy. You'll now be treated as a single account, and data will be shared between Google services to make search results and ads more personalised (I assumed they already did that - makes sense).
Thread beginning with comment 504773
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Alternative perspective
by Tony Swash on Thu 26th Jan 2012 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Alternative perspective"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

"Google artificially ranks Google services such as Google+ above other sites (such as Twitter or Facebook) even when those non-Google sites clearly have vastly better and more up to date data.

I personally think the video is pretty damning but I urge you to watch it yourself


I made my mind when its a video produced by… Twitter, Facebook & MySpace.
Companies competing for the same social space that also PUSHED GOOGLE AWAY FROM MAKING THEIR CONTENT INDEXABLE. They asked for this. Maybe they should ask for inclusion again rather than trying to manipulate public opinion.
"

So did you actually watch it? How can you possible make your mind up based not on the content of the video but on who made it? That's so absurdly narrow minded.

If you did watch it do you think what Google is doing is OK?

The whole point of what was demonstrated in the video is that the data from places like Twitter and Facebook that is being demoted in search results is all 100% accessible by Google, it's data Google already has but which it chooses to obscure in search results in order to attack another company. Do you really think that is OK?

Facebook and anybody else should have the right to not share data with Google without Google artificially demoting their search results in order to put pressure on them and to promote Google services.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Alternative perspective
by Beta on Fri 27th Jan 2012 10:53 in reply to "RE[5]: Alternative perspective"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Facebook and anybody else should have the right to not share data with Google


They have that right, they exorcised their data from Google.

without Google artificially demoting their search results

Which is exactly the problem, how does Google with its algorithm ‘fairly’ rank data that’s opaque to them.
These companies cannot have it both ways.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"Facebook and anybody else should have the right to not share data with Google


They have that right, they exorcised their data from Google.

without Google artificially demoting their search results

Which is exactly the problem, how does Google with its algorithm ‘fairly’ rank data that’s opaque to them.
These companies cannot have it both ways.
"


I fear you are being obtuse - perhaps deliberately.

As I pointed out and as the video demonstration makes abundantly clear, Google is demoting search results that relate to its competitors (for example Twitter) even when it has all the data.

The free bookmarklet 'Don't Be Evil' that is associated with video I linked to rectifies the distortion Google has incorporated into search results and it does so by using Google's own system and data that Google already has. None of the down ranking of competitors products highlighted in the video is the result of Google lacking, or being shut out of, data.

So let me reiterate and make as clear as possible - this has nothing to do with anybody with holding data from Google. Google is deliberately distorting search results even when it has data in order to prioritise its own social offering and down ranking competitors.

The issue of Twitter, Facebook and others making their systems opaque to Google is the reasons that Google sees such systems as a threat. Google is driven to pry open all doors, if it finds a door locked then it attacks that hidden data source and if it cannot pry the door open it tries to kill the owner of the door by offering an alternative and free product. All of Google's PR talk, like much that it says, is intended to sound reasonable but to conceal the real dynamic at work. The irony is that Google realised that the constant use of the word 'open' was all that was needed to confuse and demobilise much of the constituency that would have normally been expected to call Google out on it's actions.

Reply Parent Score: 2