Re Repeat Yes, Google Uses Its Power to Quash Ideas It Doesn't Like - I Know Because It Happened to Me

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Stefano Quintarelli <stefano () quintarelli it>
> Date: September 1, 2017 at 10:21:49 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] Repeat Yes, Google Uses Its Power to Quash Ideas It Doesn't Like - I Know Because It Happened to Me
>
> Dave,
> I will surely be wrong, but I don't think G+ was a real effort to contrast facebook, but rather a plausible reason to 
> integrate user profile data across all propertie - until then - separated.
> An immense value to Google (IMHO)
> ciao, s.
>
> > On 01/09/2017 14:42, Dave Farber wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> > > *From:* Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne () warpspeed com>>
> > > *Date:* September 1, 2017 at 4:35:36 AM EDT
> > > *To:* Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne-net () warpspeed com>>
> > > *Subject:* *[Dewayne-Net] Yes, Google Uses Its Power to Quash Ideas It Doesn't Like - I Know Because It Happened to 
> > > Me*
> > > *Reply-To:* dewayne-net () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> > >
> > > Yes, Google Uses Its Power to Quash Ideas It Doesn’t Like—I Know Because It Happened to Me
> > > By Kashmir Hill
> > > Aug 31 2017
> > > <https://gizmodo.com/yes-google-uses-its-power-to-quash-ideas-it-doesn-t-li-1798646437>
> > >
> > > The story in the New York Times this week was unsettling: The New America Foundation, a major think tank, was 
> > > getting rid of one of its teams of scholars, the Open Markets group. New America had warned its leader Barry Lynn 
> > > that he was “imperiling the institution,” the Times reported, after he and his group had repeatedly criticized 
> > > Google, a major funder of the think tank, for its market dominance.
> > >
> > > The criticism of Google had culminated in Lynn posting a statement to the think tank’s website “applauding” the 
> > > European Commission’s decision to slap the company with a record-breaking $2.7 billion fine for privileging its 
> > > price-comparison service over others in search results. That post was briefly taken down, then republished. Soon 
> > > afterward, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the head of New America, told Lynn that his group had to leave the foundation for 
> > > failing to abide by “institutional norms of transparency and collegiality.”
> > >
> > > Google denied any role in Lynn’s firing, and Slaughter tweeted that the “facts are largely right, but quotes are 
> > > taken way out of context and interpretation is wrong.” Despite the conflicting story lines, the underlying premise 
> > > felt familiar to me: Six years ago, I was pressured to unpublish a critical piece about Google’s monopolistic 
> > > practices after the company got upset about it. In my case, the post stayed unpublished.
> > >
> > > I was working for Forbes at the time, and was new to my job. In addition to writing and reporting, I helped run 
> > > social media there, so I got pulled into a meeting with Google salespeople about Google’s then-new social network, 
> > > Plus.
> > >
> > > The Google salespeople were encouraging Forbes to add Plus’s “+1" social buttons to articles on the site, alongside 
> > > the Facebook Like button and the Reddit share button. They said it was important to do because the Plus 
> > > recommendations would be a factor in search results—a crucial source of traffic to publishers.
> > >
> > > This sounded like a news story to me. Google’s dominance in search and news give it tremendous power over 
> > > publishers. By tying search results to the use of Plus, Google was using that muscle to force people to promote its 
> > > social network.
> > >
> > > I asked the Google people if I understood correctly: If a publisher didn’t put a +1 button on the page, its search 
> > > results would suffer? The answer was yes.
> > >
> > > After the meeting, I approached Google’s public relations team as a reporter, told them I’d been in the meeting, 
> > > and asked if I understood correctly. The press office confirmed it, though they preferred to say the Plus button 
> > > “influences the ranking.” They didn’t deny what their sales people told me: If you don’t feature the +1 button, 
> > > your stories will be harder to find with Google.
> > >
> > > With that, I published a story headlined, “Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic 
> > > Suffers,” that included bits of conversation from the meeting.
> > >
> > > The Google guys explained how the new recommendation system will be a factor in search. “Universally, or just among 
> > > Google Plus friends?” I asked. ‘Universal’ was the answer. “So if Forbes doesn’t put +1 buttons on its pages, it 
> > > will suffer in search rankings?” I asked. Google guy says he wouldn’t phrase it that way, but basically yes.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
> > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp
> > Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> 
> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/24698215-c6dd89bb> | Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your 
> > Subscription | Unsubscribe Now 
> > <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20170901084216:FA777678-8F12-11E7-B4C6-AEF96BB4AA08>    [Powered by 
> > Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170901102134:D96B89D4-8F20-11E7-917D-BE131B379A2C
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com