Whitey
msg:4317897 | 1:06 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Hmmm ... doesn't Google regulate the SERP's anyway for it's own strategic purposes.
and Facebook's likely to follow the same commercial line.
Isn't this like calling the kettle black [en.wikipedia.org ]
|
walkman
msg:4317905 | 1:19 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I hate govt control but a monopoly is not good either. So maybe no regulation, just break them up. Or regulate only if they reach a certain market share.
btw, Google might now BAN the entire domain if a few blogs are spamming. Like banning all wp.com blogs because some spam. Sound like control to me ;)
|
albo
msg:4317924 | 1:56 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Exactly right, Whitey and walkman. If I could, I'd give you each a FB Like and a G +1. :)
|
Bewenched
msg:4317967 | 2:45 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0) |
The only warning that FB and G should be giving are to their stock holders.
|
coachm
msg:4317988 | 3:42 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Interesting. I recently came across ongoing use of Twitter, Tumblr, Blogger and similar sites and service combined, to distribute p*ography.
The form is unique and machine generated so it seems. If you search for (various common terms) on Twitter, you'll come up with a link to p*rn hosted on free blog platforms (including Google's blogger along with keyword stuffing in the tweet. You can't tell where the link goes or its content by the words in the tweet.
Point is, if SM companies don't clean up their acts, they invite outside regulation, particularly with the number of children, even under 13, using SM.
|
shallow
msg:4318305 | 10:57 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| governments cannot cherry pick which aspects of the web to control and which not to. |
|
Except if the gov't does a Panda update.
|
Leosghost
msg:4318325 | 11:42 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0) |
re: facebook and controls ..or lack of them ..I can't link to the site here due to TOS ..But if one goes to the "zuckerberg age" [forums.theregister.co.uk...] article on the register and then to page two of the comments..one finds a URL mentioned ..facebookwatcher.
Yes they need controls ..because they have proved many times that the glint of money, and the shine on the levers of power, blinds them totally to the dirt in the corners of their empires.
Both Zuckerberg and Schmidt say one can't control the Internet ( when they actually mean them, and their parts of the Internet ) ..but they don't say why :)..their urge for power and their greed is why..and if they cant control their urges..and actually don't see why they should, such things are for lesser beings*..they certainly don't want anyone else doing so for them.
They and many others think none of it applies to them, its for us, mere mortals*.
|
celgins
msg:4318331 | 11:56 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0) |
They don't want the Internet over-regulated so they can continue getting access to all that personal data! :)
|
Whitey
msg:4318332 | 11:56 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0) |
This smacks of inherent corporate America's double standards like when the the Auto CEO's rocked up to Capitol Hill during the GFC begging for the sympathy of the US public and politicians to subsidise their lifestyle.
I take the point about "freedom" of the internet and the good it can bring, but what i see in reality is "censorship" and "rules" being unavoidable.
But just what " Over Regulation" means to whom depends on who's pitching it. Wall Street - make the cash, that's your game - and good luck in contributing to the overall economies , but don't try convincing me you represent the masses from a moral standpoint - which is what a section of this representation implies by default. Millions of persons and Nations are heavily reliant on your technology and you offer anything but freedom for commercial and operational purposes.
Perhaps the press releases should be a little more specific on what aspects they are pitching for.
.... a PR stunt
|
drall
msg:4318383 | 3:43 am on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0) |
What Google and FB really meant to say is "do not take away OUR power to regulate the internet".
|
heisje
msg:4318453 | 9:03 am on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Cheap monopoly-defence talk by the monopolies themselves. I don't blame them for trying to defend their turf, I blame the anti-trust authorities for paying attention to such bs & PR spin, and not doing their job properly.
.
|
|
