From the category archives:

Google

What happens when Google goes bad. Or, why Google and Verizon’s vision of net neutrality is a joke

by Tim on August 11, 2010

I have many friends who are attorneys. And despite the old joke that says it’s just 99% of the lawyers making the rest look bad, most of the time, most attorneys are good, decent human beings. That said, Verizon and Google’s recently released Legislative Framework Proposal is something only a lawyer could love. One of the ones in the 99%.

Seriously.

Who hates it? Well, Huffington Post announced the document with the headline Google Goes Evil (HuffPo clearly assumes Verizon already is Evil). Twitter was all, um, a-Twitter about the document, largely in the negative. And Jeff Jarvis compares this agreement with Britain, France and Italy ceding the Sudatenland to Nazi Germnay prior to World War II. No word on whether Jeff thinks Google or Verizon plays the part of the Nazis in this picture, but you get the idea.

I won’t parse the document line-by-line; plenty of others are doing a fine job of that (though I do have to say, the mobile provision is laughably bad, or would be if it weren’t so disturbing). However, the document is the largest collection of weasel words, caveats and head fakes I’ve seen in a long time. Effectively the document says, “We can do whatever we damned well please. But we’ll try to make it sound like we’re acting in your best interest.” I’ve embedded the entire document below for reference. If you think I’m wrong, well, that’s what the comments section is for.

Businesses of all sizes depend upon an Internet that allows all consumers equal access to all content. And sometimes the open, transparent nature of the Internet means you’ll lose that customer to a competitor who is just a click away. And, yes, network providers, the costs of increasing bandwidth requirements keep increasing. But, no one benefits when competitors can completely shut out others. We used to have that years ago. It was called AOL. It was called CompuServe. It was called Prodigy. And we all know how well those turned out for everyone. The Internet today is a level playing field because that’s what worked best for everyone. Works best for everyone. Anything that tilts that level playing field is a Very Bad Thing.

Google and Verizon’s document, despite its brevity, is far too long. If they were serious about maintaining an open, vibrant Internet, the first clause is all they’d need:

“Consumer Protections: A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from–

sending and receiving lawful content of their choice;

running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and

connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service.”

What more needs to be said?

Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal

Are you getting enough value out of your small business website? Want to make sure your business makes the most of the local, mobile, social web? thinks helps you understand how to grow your business via the web, every day. Get more than just news. Get understanding. Add thinks to your feed reader today.

Or subscribe via email.

And while you’re at it, don’t forget to follow Tim on Twitter.

Technorati Tags:
Google, google, internet business, jeff jarvis, mobile, strategy, Verizon, Net neutrality

Sphere: Related Content

Tagged as: Google, Mobile, mobile internet, net neutrality, verizon

{ 0 comments }

Well that didn’t take long: Google Buzz leads to class-action lawsuit

by Tim on February 18, 2010

in Google

Yesterday, we took a look at how Google’s Buzz screwed with its customers’ privacy. Well, it turns out Google’s customers are screwing them right back, hitting the search giant with a lawsuit. Um… whoops.

Facebook learned this one the hard way, with its Beacon program, which “only” cost the company $9.5 million dollars. Plus lawyer’s fees, of course.

You want customers to follow you on Twitter? Friend you on Facebook? Then remember that in the age of social marketing, it’s important for all companies – whether you’re a local retailer, a social media hub, or the biggest search engine in the land – to treat your customers like they’re your friends, too.

Or subscribe via email.

And while you’re at it, don’t forget to follow Tim on Twitter.

Sphere: Related Content

Tagged as: Facebook, facebook beacon, Google, google buzz, legal, regulation, social, social marketing, Social Media, social media marketing, social network, social networking, social networks, social search, social strategy

{ 2 comments }

How bad did Google Buzz screw their customers’ privacy?

by Tim on February 17, 2010

in Google, Strategy

Have you seen Google’s Buzz? The folks at This Week In Google have. And, they mostly like what they see. I do too. Except for this one little thing… During the podcast, Jaiku founder Jyri Engeström says (about 13 minutes into the show),

“One could argue, [this was] a brave choice from Google… as a brand to retain people’s trust… and I think that’s probably the single largest threat to Google that people would, on a large scale, lose their trust in Google… and I think this was one of those cases where a call had to be made…”

Seriously? It was a good idea for Google to say, “Privacy?!? We don’t need no stinkin’ privacy.”

Jyri’s right in that losing their customers’ trust is a huge threat to Google. And, given that, the right answer is never to say, “Eh. Let’s see what happens.” (A quick tip o’ the thinking cap to Jeff Jarvis, also of This Week in Google, for pointing that out, too).

Google could easily have sent an email, shown a banner or a content ad or all of the above to say, “Hey, here’s what we’re going to do in a week’s time: we’re going to immediately and automatically start sharing your Google Reader shared items, Picasa Web public albums and Google Chat status messages. ‘K? Oh, and here’s how you opt-out if you’re really freaked by that notion.”

Because, as they’ve demonstrated with Buzz, they know everything about how to reach you. And all your friends, too:

OK. Cheap shots aside, couldn’t an argument be made for taking this more proactive approach? Well, Jyri steps up to that, too:

“…honestly, I don’t think it’s a bad thing for people to kind of be exposed to it, issues, this way and for us to be having this conversation right now because, um, y’know, it’s kind of necessary for us to shift, I believe, from this world of the silo-ed social networks into a world where the data can flow freely.”

That’s fair. Google wants as large an adoption curve as possible. The success of Twitter and Facebook – or, more tellingly, the failures of MySpace and Friendster – have shown us that. And it’s clear that many businesses benefit from robust social tools.

But, when you’re dealing with your customers’ information, you have to remember that it’s your customers’ information. Yes, Jyri, it’s a good thing to have this conversation with your customers. It’s a good thing, too, to take steps to open the dialogue. But it’s a real bad thing for Google’s long-term best interests if they don’t start to give a little more thought to their customers’ long-term best interests. Because, as I noted above, trust is just one of Google’s significant threats. Another – and they can ask their friends at Microsoft about this one – is government intervention.