Google really is being evil (25 May, 2018)

[aardvark_admin]

This column is archived at: https://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2018/0525.shtml

It seems that Google knew exactly what it was doing when it struck the infamous "Don't be evil" motto from its code of conduct.

Now, having deleted this directive, it appears that Google is embracing the nasty culture of corporatism with passion and saying "to hell with ethics, morals and the law -- we want profit!".

How hypocritical is it that Google has effectively destroyed the livelihoods of countless YouTubers by deleting their channels on potentially trumped-up or false copyright strikes -- while it now shows utter contempt for copyright law by stealing the intellectual property of someone without any hint of compensation?

Can we expect to see more of this total disregard for honesty and ethics from Alphabet and its myriad of underling companies?

Is there any way we can mitigate this nastiness? Or is Google now simply too large, too ubiquitous and to crucial to the entire internet infrastructure?

[Perry]

I've said it before: gooble, microcrapt, faecesbook et al are the cyber terrorists of today.

Many other USAmercian companies are hell-bent on the same extortion model, too.

I wonder how long it is before doing so much evil creates the way for another ethical outfit to muscle in?

How is duck duck go doing?

Anyone know?

Doing a search t'other day got one result from gooble and 5 from duck duck go.

[phill]

i stopped using duck duck and went to startpage when i read somewhere google took it over

i was wrong duck duck is still independent
but i what i read may have had something to do with this

https://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/ ... irects-to/

[latewings]

GDPR may be the downfall of Google's mantra that it cannot possibly change as per the claim recently their search engine technology was outside the jurisdiction of New Zealand's courts.

I have a European passport (of convenience) and were I to visit the Old Bailey and serve clink time in NZ, with additional benefit of name suppression during my stitch up then any Google release of my name, regardless of location is a breach of GDPR (as I'm a European citizen). It might alter the company's behaviour once the law suits roll in.

[aardvark_admin]

But latewings, Google (and others) are already above the law. How much tax does Google pay in NZ, Australia and the raft of other countries where it generates *significant* incomes?

Remember... the law is only as effective as the legal team you hire to enforce it and Google has more money than the entire GDP of New Zealand so we're never going to win if/when it comes to a fight with them.

We have a corporate-elite in the world today. Multinationals who can break the spirit of the law with impunity and, if challenged, simply tie the courts up with endless legal arguments and appeals for an eternity. And I'm sure that if there were to be a resounding victory scored, of a magnitude that threatened one of these corporate's viability, they'd simply wind up, cash-out and start again before the courts could act. I mean, what assets does Google have in NZ that the courts could seize?

No... it's the little guys, who don't have the legal muscle or the huge wallets who get roundly trounced by the authorities for their (much smaller) sins. Low hanging fruit is always the fruit of choice eh? Why go through the hassle, expense and effort of climbing the tree when there are so many tasty delights at eye-level anyway?

For example... did you know that over the past three years, Exxon Mobil has generated around A$24 billion in revenue out of Australia and paid not one single cent of tax on those revenues? Seriously, what company in their right mind would operate at zero profit for three years and consider it worth continuing? Far better to cash-out, put that capital in the bank and earn billions in interest eh?

[mad]

Seriously, what company in their right mind would operate at zero profit for three years and consider it worth continuing? Far better to cash-out, put that capital in the bank and earn billions in interest eh?

Most subsidiaries of Global multinationals try to make as little profit as they can because profit" is but one of the ways to extract funds from a subsidiary company and is actually the worse thing a subsidiary can have, because you are required to pay tax on it.

Related party loans at higher than market rates are a great way to funnel funds out from a subsidiary, along with IP expenses relating to corporate branding and overheads along with other "costs and expenses" that a head office might burden a foreign branch with.....

[latewings]

Business practices to avoid tax are slightly easier for corporate bully-boys than practices to avoid privacy law breaches. However all those extra 0s after the significant digit in the company piggy bank does allow a better class of bottom dwelling wig wearer to fight the charges.

GDPR is about Eurocitizens, wherever they are; rather than location. If you're a Eurobod and your juicy details are irked by an UncSam corporate you have every right to dig for gold^w^w^w sue for damages. It will be interesting who's first cab off the rank to be fined in Trumpyland.

[Muscular Jam]

Some other major search engines store their potentially x-rated image results on a separate server to facilitate easy blocking by admins and family-filter type software. eg Bing has chosen to host potentially explicit thumbnails from "explicit.bing.net". For some reason known only to themselves google chooses not to do so. Its very difficult to block p0rn without blocking everything. Of course you can opt-out of seeing these results pop up in what you thought were innocent searches by creating a google account and activing safe-search. But you have to be OVER 13 in most countries to create an account. So there is no legit way for an under 13 to opt out from getting these results. Don't be evil? Don't make me laugh.