Google steals; distorts search results to hide it


Genesis cover

On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.

 
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit.

 
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
 

"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs." --San Antonio Express-News

Reason 10,328,467 to stop using Google: Google routinely steals the intellectual property of others for its own benefit, and then distorts all search results to hide any news stories that report on this theft.

The author at the article documents in great detail Google’s history of theft. He then compares search results from Google, Bing, and Yahoo to show how Google then manipulates search results to hide any stories that report these thefts.

The bottom line: Stop using Google! There are plenty of other search engines, some of which, like DuckDuckGo, that protect the privacy of your searches. Google is a corrupt, unethical company that needs to lose business, fast.

Readers!
 

My July fund-raiser for Behind the Black is now over. The support from my readers was unprecedented, making this July campaign the best ever, twice over. What a marvelous way to celebrate the website's tenth anniversary!
 

Thank you! The number of donations in July, and continuing now at the beginning of August, is too many for me to thank you all personally. Please forgive me by accepting my thank you here, in public, on the website.
 

If you did not donate or subscribe in July and still wish to, note that the tip jar remains available year round.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

17 comments

  • David K

    Bing does seem to be a bit less biased if you are looking for one of the top search engines.

    Microsoft in general has mellowed down a lot now that it nearing its 50s, whereas google is still a teenager as a company and all woke.

  • wayne

    “Unethical Algorithms of Massive Scale”
    Prof Robert Epstein
    June 2017; Stanford Computer Systems Colloquium Seminar
    https://youtu.be/-7qT_38iRSc
    1:23:55

  • LocalFluff

    Joe Rogan has left (Google owned) Youtube, and he is said to be their largest podcaster with more viewers than any MSM outlet. Instead he’s made a $100 million licensing deal with Spotify (founded by Swedes, ehum).

  • wayne

    LocalFluff–
    ..was not aware of that…..

    Personally, I check once a week at YouTube, to see if he has anyone interesting. (Not into his MMA stuff, but his Comedy is not bad. I fortunately totally missed the Fear Factor ‘thing.)
    –His 2-3+ hour long-format is highly appealing to me. (I like Joe, he is however deficient in some knowledge of historical-American-cultural-experiences.)

    [ADULT Language]
    “Joey Diaz – No Susquehanna, Moment”
    Joe Rogan Experience #128
    https://youtu.be/WhkgnD8JTI4
    4:39

  • mpthompson

    For personal use, about six months ago I switched my Chromebook to run Gallium Linux, switched to using Brave for my browser, and DuckDuckGo as my search engine. For day-to-day use these are all perfectly reasonable substitutes and they leave a minimal footprint on Google. I’m especially impressed by DuckDuckGo being as painless a transition as it has been.

    On the downside, I’ve had a hard time switching from Gmail to Protonmail as unwinding an email provider has proved to be more difficult, but part of that is laziness on my part. I’m also a frequent watcher of a handful of creators on Youtube to follow news about SpaceX and science, electronics and hobby related topics. These forages into Google territory probably undoes much of the benefits of my earlier actions.

  • mpthompson: One way you can reduce Google’s tracking of you is to never sign into youtube. They use that information to track you more closely.

    Also, have you gone on Google and erased your past history? There is a story I linked to in the past that explained how (they hide it well). Do a search and BtB and do it.

  • Andi

    One feature of DuckDuckGo is used by appending “!g” to your search criteria. It will then anonymously use Google to do the search. I’ve use this when the native search did not return enough results.

    Off topic – have you heard from Lee S recently? I know you (Bob) mentioned hearing from him a little while ago.

  • Andi: Lee S just sent me an evening pause suggestion. Still reading BtB, all is fine, just continuing his break from commenting.

  • Bob, you can rag on Google all you want. And they deserve it, at least some of the time. But not this time…

    The article you link to talks about “Google v. Oracle America” currently at the US Supreme Court, and states “Google admits stealing the intellectual property in question”. Not exactly — the dispute here is whether this type of intellectual property, specifically an “application programming interface” or API, can be copyrighted at all. If an API cannot be copyrighted, then there is no infringement, and certainly no “stealing”.

    APIs enable interoperability. They are a fundamental aspect of modern software design. Allowing a company to charge license fees for use of an API could cause great harm to software development and innovation.

    Bob, we both love Linux. Well, Linux was developed by following the API of an existing commercial product, Unix. If Oracle wins, then a future product such as Linux might never be developed. Oracle is the bad guy here, not Google.

  • Edward

    Steve Golson,
    Interesting analysis.

    dispute here is whether this type of intellectual property, specifically an ‘application programming interface’ or API, can be copyrighted at all. If an API cannot be copyrighted, then there is no infringement, and certainly no ‘stealing’.

    Stated more generically, Google stole the IP and now wants to change the copyright laws to make it legal theft.

    Allowing a company to charge license fees for use of an API could cause great harm to software development and innovation.

    That is an argument for denying any IP rights at all. It sounds like: “if someone can charge for his innovation, then how can anyone else improve upon that innovation?”

    Or is the idea of intellectual property that the innovator be rewarded for being innovative?

  • Edward:
    “Stated more generically, Google stole the IP and now wants to change the copyright laws to make it legal theft.”

    No, a more accurate summary would be: Google used IP that everyone in the industry agreed was not subject to copyright and thus free for all to use, and now Oracle wants to change the copyright law so Oracle can prevent others from using this IP.

    “Or is the idea of intellectual property that the innovator be rewarded for being innovative?”

    Yes, exactly. Innovation is protected by patents and copyright. But there are limits — not everything you create is entitled to copyright. That’s the dispute here. What are the limits? What is fair use?

    ( somewhat on-topic: here’s a presentation I gave where I mention various IP disputes I’ve been involved with https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023366/Classic-Game-Postmortem-Ms-Pac )

  • Edward

    No, a more accurate summary would be:

    I love it! If everyone steals from someone then the theft should be legal. What a country!

  • Edward: “I love it! If everyone steals from someone then the theft should be legal. What a country!”

    Again, no. What is at issue: Not everything you create is entitled to copyright. That’s the dispute here. What are the limits? What is fair use?

    Copyright protects the expression of an idea, but *not* the idea itself. Software API has aspects of both — so is an API protected by copyright? Is it more idea, or expression? An interesting legal question, which this case will answer.

    Use of pejorative terms like “steal” and “theft” does not advance your position…

  • Edward

    Steve Golson,
    You wrote: “What is fair use?

    Sounds like theft has become the new fair use. If you can steal it, you can keep it. That is the philosophy of many con men.

    You seem to think that they created an idea, not a product. It is the product that has been stolen.

  • Edward, again with the pejorative terms: theft, steal, con men. Sorry but that doesn’t advance your argument.

    Whether the Java API is an “idea” or a “product” (to use your term) is really the key to this case. If it’s an “idea” then it cannot be protected by copyright.

  • I think you are both missing my main point: Google is distorting search results for its own benefit. This makes their product garbage, and not worth using. We should all stop.

  • Bob: “Google is distorting search results for its own benefit.”

    My point is, based on this *one* example, it’s not at all clear that search results are “distorted”. Different algorithms will give different search results, even for different people. I think you are seeing bias where there is none.

    Google isn’t ashamed of their behavior in this lawsuit. Rather, they see themselves as the valiant protectors of the status quo in software development, defending all that is good against the rapacious Oracle. They could easily afford to pay the license fee. But they don’t because they are fighting on principle for the greater good. (Spoken from Google’s point of view…) So there’s no reason for them to “distort” search results as reported in the story.

    Finally, Google is all about making money. They want to complete that search query as fast as possible (some five billion searches a day). *Anything* that slows down the search calculation will cost them money. It doesn’t make sense that they would deliberately “distort” the results.

    There are all sorts of reasons to dislike Google. And by all means use other products, if you want. After all, that’s the beauty of capitalism! But I think this is a flawed example of “bias”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *