Profile
Search
Register
Log in
internet control.. youtube and google?
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
doogs



Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Posts: 410
Location: Verbier, Switzerland
internet control.. youtube and google?  Reply with quote  

so i cant watch youtube without linking my gmail account to them.
Just like that...? whats the deal, this is the second time ive felt the net tighten.
Last time i was kicked out of facebook for having a fake name and i think it was my gmail account provided them with that information.
whats going on here... in a couple of years will it all be on lock down,
everything censored and you pay through the nose for it?
feels like it to me..
Post Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:08 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6497
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

Pretty much. I think it's the Greys.
Post Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:11 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Mr Jenkins



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 602
Location: Aotearoa
 Reply with quote  

google drove past your house, got your wifi details & took a photo.
Post Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
doogs



Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Posts: 410
Location: Verbier, Switzerland
 Reply with quote  

they took a picture of my dog,, really. He was in the garden. Now HE is on file. Have they no shame..?
Post Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

Post Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
corporateslave



Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 1110
Location: Lawrence, KS
 Reply with quote  

I've noticed several small things in the last six months that seem to signal that we're in a big restructuring of how the internet works. For the last 10 or 15 years the internet was a place without rules, but so many major functions of society have an online presence now that it's become necessary to start setting up a structure.

People are having to start figuring out how to make money off the internet the same way they did before it, and part of that is companies snatching up online real estate while it's still cheap. Right now my blogger account is free, but now that google has a hand in that, as well as my email and a few other accounts, what's to stop them from charging me a small fee for each account? I don't want to restart all that shit from scratch. Monetizing and structuring the internet is just a necessary part of maintaining the status quo.
Post Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:41 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2019
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

Each of us has two separate and competing needs from the Internet.

First, we need the Internet to be an empowering tool for speech and creativity. We need this as both creators and consumers of content, and on these levels we need the ability to conduct business with total anonymity, and we need the ability to conduct business through pseudonyms.

We also, each and every one of us, need the Internet to be a functional tool for real-life business; the exchange of money for goods and services, unspoofable communication with real people operating under real names, etc.

When we are using the Internet in the first sense we are terrified by the idea that it is tracking more data about us than we want it to have. When we are using the Internet in the second sense we are terrified by the idea that people and systems with whom we are connecting might not be who they say they are.

It's an imperfect system subject to multiple conflict-of-interest layers. There are no solutions, only an ongoing dialog about appropriate degrees of compromise.

The post that started this thread stinks of Wants It All to me. It's not that I don't sympathize, so much as that I am just completely disinterested in the particulars of your complaint. You are not solution-oriented and your unspoken assumptions about what the Internet is Supposed To Be make me feel dirty and jaded.

"In a couple of years it will all be on lock down" isn't a proposed solution to a specific problem. It isn't even a coherent description of a general problem, so much as a vague statement about fear of a future in which nameless parties are spoiling your fun in non-specific ways for non-specific reasons. Please describe what you think the Internet should do better and what you are willing to trade to get those improvements. Please describe what things you think are steps backward and why you believe they aren't necessary.

If you can't do these things, you risk coming off as paranoid, neophobic, and maybe a little bit high.
Post Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:11 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2019
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

More specifically speaking:
1. I'm glad your fake name got kicked off of Facebook. Real names are part of their mission statement and there are other communities available to you (including this one within certain limits) if you're not comfortable providing yours. I have serious questions about why you feel like you need a fake name to use that system, particularly when Facebook's TOS specifically says you shouldn't do that.
2. Google has real business reasons why they need to know more about the identities of people who participate on YouTube, particularly with respect to playlisting, uploading, commenting, etc. Your reluctance to share information with Google about your video viewing habits is understandable, but at the same time companies that allow their userbase to engage in open-ended uploading of video content cannot survive unless they collect some amount of information about those users. In my mind the paradigm should be "anonymous reads except where authorized, identifiable writes except where prohibited by law" with a general abandonment of "adult content" flags a being: a) a lost cause, and b) a threat to key civil-liberties principles that are relevant to the discussion.

You're pushing back against these policies without seriously examining why companies like Google and Facebook might believe these policies to be necessary. I think that this is irresponsible and facile and diverts attention from more specific, relevant, and forward-looking discussion of the issues. You should try to do a better job of articulating why your anonymous access to these sites should be protected. Public policy in this arena is still forming but your voice won't contribute the discussion when you frame an argument the way you framed yours here.
Post Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:25 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lonely Shinobi



Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 349
Location: adelaide, AUS
 Reply with quote  

ha

i was gonna try and say it, but i knew mark would pop in and drop such greatness

kudos for clarity, as always
Post Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:29 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

There goes Mark being all serious business again.

I guess since we're just not joking anymore I should point out that Google is one of the few companies that you should not worry too greatly about switching to a subscription model. It's not that I'm being naive and believe that their do no evil paradigm will prevent them from such a move. It's because they are one of the companies most dedicated to the advertisement model. They will resist change to the bitter end, because switching over to subscription on any major service is so very dangerous. It would signal that they've given up on the advertising model and it would threaten the rest of their business.

Also, basic microeconomics says that so long as the market is priced at zero that google cannot move beyond that price without offering a significantly different and better service. So if they were to charge for blogger, for instance, and WordPress/Tumblr/etc. didn't raise their price from zero it would become a loss for Google. They would first lose the customers unwilling to pay. Next they would lose the customers who are willing to leave after tools to export your content and repost it to another site are created (assuming they don't already exist). Finally, you'd be left with a paying user base that is much smaller, meaning that the price they have to pay per user would need to be much higher, so you'd start to lose people who cannot afford it or have the cost/value ratio fall outside their accepted parameters. Also of note is that they would have to completely supplant their advertisement revenue because most users who pay for a subscription service expect no advertisements. If they don't eliminate ads then they will lose users who would otherwise pay. The same basic concept applies to most of Google's services.

Lastly, there's no need for Google to switch to a subscription model so long as their advertising model remains highly profitable. There is one subscription model success story that I can readily think of - Netflix - but they don't offer user driven content, and increasingly they deliver content via appliances. Google is a hugely success advertisement-based firm. When other firms that try to charge people for things like email, user uploaded videos, and blogs are not as profitable as Google what would make Google suddenly abandon their model? Nothing foreseeable.
Post Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:10 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
breakreep
homophobic yet curious


Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem
 Reply with quote  

Things are bad man. I think it has to do with magnetic gravity.
Post Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:47 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Inedible Condiment



Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Posts: 1045
Location: Halifax, NS
 Reply with quote  

Redball that clip was amazing. I'm hesitant to call it hypocrisy, because I wonder if Glenn Beck is a hinged as you or I, but wow.
Post Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:52 am
 View user's profile Send private message
AharonHebert



Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 123
Location: maine
 Reply with quote  

I WAS JUST HULU TO WATCH SNL AND THE ADVERTISEMENT BEFORE THE CLIP WAS FOR GOOGLE! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON!?
Post Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:02 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Finn



Joined: 05 Jan 2011
Posts: 53
Location: Boston, MA
 Reply with quote  

redball wrote:
Google is a hugely success advertisement-based firm. When other firms that try to charge people for things like email, user uploaded videos, and blogs are not as profitable as Google what would make Google suddenly abandon their model? Nothing foreseeable.


Declining revenues? You mentioned "the bitter end" in your post, so, you sort of answered your own question I guess. I am very skeptical of the long-term viability of the advertisement model, especially as energy costs continue to rise.
Post Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2019
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

Finn wrote:
redball wrote:
Google is a hugely success advertisement-based firm. When other firms that try to charge people for things like email, user uploaded videos, and blogs are not as profitable as Google what would make Google suddenly abandon their model? Nothing foreseeable.


Declining revenues? You mentioned "the bitter end" in your post, so, you sort of answered your own question I guess. I am very skeptical of the long-term viability of the advertisement model, especially as energy costs continue to rise.


Google isn't in the advertisement business, it just looks like that because advertisers have the most direct use for Google's actual product. The actual product is extremely detailed marketing-oriented analytics about a very significant percentage of all Internet users. Advertising is what you do when you have that data, but it's not the only thing you do with it. Sometimes you make Farmville instead. Google services like gmail and YouTube will remain free for as long as there is a market for detailed data about how we use the Internet.

Facebook is in the exact same business. Ad revenue is a big part of it in both cases but it's not the real game. The real game is being in a position to watch what we do, take detailed notes, and either sell the conclusions or build internal products based on those conclusions.
Post Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:17 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon