A Googley Book for the Google-Aspiring Person
October 29, 2020
Another free book? Yep, and it comes from the IBM-centric and Epstein-allied Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The other entity providing conceptual support is the Google, the online advertising company. MIT is an elite generator. Google is a lawsuit attractor. You will, however, look in vain through the 1,000 page volume for explanations of the numerical theorems explaining the amplification of value when generators and attractors interact.
The book, published in 2017, is “Mathematics for Computer Science.” The authors are a Googler named Eric Lehman, the MIT professors F Thomas Leighton and Albert R Meyer, and possibly a number of graduate students who work helped inform the the content.
The books numerical recipes, procedures, and explanations fall into five categories:
- Proofs, you know, that’s Googley truth stuff to skeptical colleagues who don’t want to be in a meat space or a virtual meeting
- Structures. These are the nuts and bolts of being able to solve problems the Googley way
- Counting. Addition and such on steroids
- Probability. This is the reality of the Google. And you thought Robinhood was the manifestation of winning a game. Ho ho ho.
- Recurrences. Revisiting the Towers of Hanoi. This is a walk down memory lane.
You can download your copy at this link. Will the MIT Press crank out 50,000 copies for those who lack access to an industrial strength laser printer?
Another IBM infusion of cash may be need to make that happen. Mr. Epstein is no longer able to contribute money to the fascinating MIT. What’s the catch? Perhaps that will be a question on a reader’s Google interview?
Stephen E Arnold, October 29, 2020
Google: Chugging Forward with Oblivious Cyber Archaeologists
October 27, 2020
I read “Google’s 20-year Path from David to Goliath.” The article makes four points about the company’s 20 year journey from free Web search to “free” Web search. I agree with the points in general, but a bit of color for each puts the observations in context.
The first point made in the Axios write up is: “Google figured out how to make money.” I think it is useful to note that the way to make money was to emulate the Overture/GoTo “pay to play” approach to appearing in search results. Yahoo owned Overture. There was a legal spat between the two outstanding Silicon Valley outfits. After a negotiated deal, Google implemented a variant of the Overture system, and Yahoo banked about $1 billion. Key point: The making money was based on another outfit’s innovation. Cyber historians take note: The foundations of the Google are “interesting” and indicative of Googley behavior.
The second point is “Google bought other companies.” Indeed, Google did acquire companies and technologies and people. My research for my three Google monographs revealed that somehow Google has managed to keep details of some of the acquisitions out of the public eye. One example will illustrate what Google achieved. The firm acquired Transformics, a firm which developed technology to facilitate “knitting together” disparate items of data. Locating information about this deal and the Transformics’ data system is challenging. Some of Google’s capabilities are, therefore, essentially unknown.
The third point is “Google moved into all sorts of businesses beyond search.” As my blog Beyond Search documents, finding information is the fundamental function for any work or knowledge process in our digital world, what I call the “datasphere.” Google, therefore, did not move anywhere. People needing information flow to the service or services which enable them to “do work” or “perform a function.” The consequence is that Google is more pervasive than most pundits, experts, and analysts realize.
The fourth point is “Google built a free mobile operating system.” I would suggest that we are back at point number one. Google appropriated and diffused the operating system using the functions of two or three. Google’s technology can shape information and tap into the natural flow of users to information resources.
My key point: Google is a dynamic system built on feedback loops and creative inspiration from the work of others.
So what?
I learned after publishing my three Google monographs (2003 to 2008) that most Googlers don’t grasp the generative power of Google. If Googlers don’t get it, will those who proudly state, “I am an expert in doing research” understand the Google legacy. Well, the legacy is here and cyber historians have not seen the high-res picture yet.
Stephen E Arnold, October 27, 2020
Google Publisher Payoff is Murdoch Approved
October 26, 2020
Back in 2018, News Corp. Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch took Google and Facebook to task for publishing news sites’ content on their platforms without compensation. News Corp has also consulted on a number of investigations into these companies’ practices and pressed for new regulations. Now, though, it looks like Google’s recent move to appease regulators has the news magnate convinced that company is ready to play fair. Axios reports, “News Corp. Changes its Tune on Big Tech.” Writer Sara Fischer tells us:
“One of the biggest news publishing companies in the world has slowly backed away from its harsh public criticism of Big Tech platforms, as companies like Google and Facebook have begun to open up their wallets to news companies.
“Why it matters: News Corp. has for years been the driving force behind much of the regulatory scrutiny of Big Tech and its impact on the publishing industry. Now it’s becoming a beneficiary of the massive pockets of several of the largest tech companies.
“Driving the news: News Corp. CEO Robert Thomson put out a statement lauding Google’s new efforts to pay publishers around the world more than $1 billion to license and curate their content last week. ‘There are complex negotiations ahead but the principle and the precedent are now established,’ he wrote.”
In fact, News Corp already has profitable partnerships with Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Spotify, Snapchat, and Amazon. Google may just be next to fall in line. Fischer observes:
“There was a time several years ago that media companies, with proper investment and scale, could demand big ad dollars via traffic from platforms like Google and Facebook. Today, media companies with value and investment can pull something even more sustainable from those platforms: licensing fees.”
There is nothing like a boost to the bottom line to change one’s point of view.
Cynthia Murrell, October 26, 2020
Google: Small, Irrelevant Services?
October 26, 2020
I noted “Google Shuts Down Trusted Contacts App, Will End Support By December 1.” The idea is that a user can share his or her location during an emergency. No more. This service became available in 2016. Five years is a long time for the Google.
A possibly related announcement was reported in “Google Confirms the Nest Secure Has Been Discontinued”. The Android Police write up reports:
Google released the Nest Guard in 2017 as a simple security system with motion sensors and a keypad, but it never received an upgrade, even as other Nest devices were updated again and again. Google has now confirmed to Android Police that the Nest Guard is discontinued, though it will continue functioning.
Perhaps Google will find other security related products to terminate? A trend in the time of Rona? Social unrest, a pandemic, financial stress, and individuals lacking money for essentials – who needs security? Is there a way to hook advertising into home security?
Stephen E Arnold, October 26, 2020
Google: Simplifying Excellence
October 22, 2020
Almost everyone knows Google. I spotted an eclectic write up in Entertainment Overdose (an estimable publication). The article “Eric Schmidt, Who Got YouTube for a Premium, Assumes Social Media Networks Are Amplifiers for Idiots” contains a quote. This is an alleged statement attributed to Eric Schmidt, the overseer of Google until 2018.
Here’s the alleged pearl of wisdom:
The context of social networks serving as amplifiers for idiots and crazy people is not what we intended.
But it happened with YouTube, right? Who was running the company at this time? I think it was Mr. Schmidt.
It seems that Mr. Schmidt’s social world view is divided into those who are not crazy (possibly Google employees and those who share some Google mental characteristics but are in some way in touch with reality) and those who are crazy. Crazy means mentally deranged, which may be a bad thing. Plus, the “crazy” group uses social media as “amplifiers.” This seems to suggest that anyone using social media falls into the crazy category. Is this correct?
Note the “we”. The royal “we” appears to embrace the senior management of Google.
Now check out the Rupert Murdoch “real” news Wall Street Journal for October 22, 2020. The story to which I direct your attention is called “Google Ex-CEO Hits DOJ As Antitrust Battle Looms.” [When the story is posted to wsj.com, you will have an opportunity to purchase access. Until then, hunt for the dead tree edition and look on Page A-1.]
The write up reports that Mr. Schmidt said:
There’s a difference between dominance and excellence.
Is the idea may be that operating like a plain vanilla monopoly not acceptable. This suggests that monopoly delivering “excellence” is a positive for everyone.
Is YouTube dominant or excellent? Are those who post links to children’s playgrounds to the delight of individuals with proscribed tendencies idiots? (There are other, more suitable terms I believe.)
Google to Government: Deeply Flawed Are Your Arguments
October 21, 2020
Google publishes The Keyword, a blog about public policy. The blog presented an essay called “A Deeply Flawed Lawsuit That Would Do Nothing to Help Consumers.” The argument is interesting. The important section is meta; specifically, “The bigger point the lawsuit misses.” The article asserts:
The bigger point is that people don’t use Google because they have to, they use it because they choose to.
One click away from another services, right? People are smart enough to use a service like Swisscows.com, Qwant.com, or Izito.com.
Another key point:
It’s also trivially easy to change your search engine in our browser, Chrome.
Those who use mobile phones can navigate the menus and options in Chrome on a mobile phone or in a desktop computer.
The essay includes “Next Steps.” In this conclusion to the essay, the article states what appears to be the obvious:
We understand that with our success comes scrutiny, but we stand by our position. American antitrust law is designed to promote innovation and help consumers, not tilt the playing field in favor of particular competitors or make it harder for people to get the services they want.
My summary of the essay is: “If you are Googley, you get it. If not, you are not Googley, and there is not much we can do to assist you.”
What happens when governments asleep at the switch for 20 years are told the Google facts about Google? Not much. Habits like a soft bed are easy to get into and hard to get out of.
Ask someone addicted to an opioid, alcohol, shaping information flows, or just doing whatever one wants.
Stephen E Arnold, October 21, 2020
Surprise! Google Allegedly Collaborates with Enforcement Authorities
October 21, 2020
Google collects user information to create customized, targeted ads. Google has stated more than once that it protects its users’ privacy, including search history. It might even seem impossible for Google to keep the entire world’s search history given the amount of space needed to store that information…but it is not. CNet shares that, “Google Is Giving Data To Police Based On Search Keywords, Court Docs Show.”
Police need a warrant to access someone’s digital information, but a loophole allows law enforcement to go around privacy laws. Instead of requesting a specific individual’s search history, law enforcement can go directly to Google and request data on anyone who searched for a specific term.
This recently happened in August 2020, when Florida police asked Google to disclose the identities of people who searched for a specific address. Michael Williams, an associate of singer and sex offender R. Kelly, was arrested for arson and witness tampering. Williams apparently set fire to a car that belonged to a witness in the ongoing R. Kelly sex offender case.
Google released the IP addresses of people who searched for the arson victim’s address and one of them led back to Williams. Williams used his phone to search for the victim’s address and that tied him to the crime.
While it is great that a bad actor like Williams is brought to justice, law enforcement could use a reverse order for Google information for evil purposes. The law enforcement could effectively become bad actors with a badge. The large search history information requests are a loophole to the Fourth Amendment:
“ ‘This ‘keyword warrant’ evades the Fourth Amendment checks on police surveillance,’ said Albert Fox Cahn, the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. ‘When a court authorizes a data dump of every person who searched for a specific term or address, it’s likely unconstitutional.’
The keyword warrants are similar to geofence warrants, in which police make requests to Google for data on all devices logged in at a specific area and time. Google received 15 times more geofence warrant requests in 2018 compared with 2017, and five times more in 2019 than 2018. The rise in reverse requests from police have troubled Google staffers, according to internal emails.”
Google states they support user privacy and support law enforcement. Google requires a search warrant for broad data requests and they only represent 1% of the total legal demands for user data the company receives.
Broad data requests are a growing concern. Legal professionals are challenging their validity, including Williams’s lawyer. Broad data requests do require probable cause like other search warrants. In Williams’ case, he did conduct other searches that includes the phrases: “where can i buy a .50 custom machine gun,” “witness intimidation” and “countries that don’t have extradition with the United States.” These search phrases were discovered when an individual search warrant for Williams was issued.
Broad search requests have positive results, but all it takes is one misinterpretation of the information to harm an innocent. It also does not take much to abuse this power too.
Whitney Grace, October 21, 2020
Google: Handwaving before the Regulators Arrive
October 15, 2020
Google News Makes a Show of Playing Fair
Well this is an interesting attempt to buy off an industry. Fast Company reports, “Google Will Pay Publishers $1 Billion to Quell Claims of Unfairly Profiting from their Content.” Google recently unveiled Google News Showcase, an initiative that will pay some publishers for content it already swiped. I mean, published. The company’s announcement on its blog calls this Google’s biggest financial commitment to publishers to date—all to avoid a much larger, legally mandated payout later, we’d warrant. Writer Michael Grothaus observes:
“But the Showcase initiative isn’t an altruistic move on Google’s part. The search giant has come under increasing pressure from publishers and regulators in recent years about the way it profits from the work publishers do. In short, Google’s News service currently works by pulling story headlines and descriptions from the publishers’ websites, populating the News service with their content. Google has always maintained its News service is good for publishers, as it sends traffic to their sites. However, publishers say Google gets the far better end of the deal since their content drives clicks to the Google News platform and because Google keeps most of the profits from the ads served on its platform. Given the profits Google generates, $1 billion over three years doesn’t seem like a whole lot of money. But for now, some publishers, at least, seem willing to take any handouts. Google says over 200 publishers have already signed up, including Germany’s Der Spiegel. As for the News Showcase itself, the new platform will first launch on Google News on Android devices, followed by iOS devices later this year.”
Just how different will this “Showcase” be from the existing Google News? The platform will probably highlight content from publishers that agreed to play ball. Otherwise, we expect the differences to be minor.
Cynthia Murrell, October 15, 2020
Googzilla Versus the Bezos Bulldozer: Shopping Search, Ads, and Sales
October 9, 2020
The battle between the two ethical outfits is becoming more interesting. “Google Tries to Turn YouTube into a Major Shopping Destination” reports that there will be more advertising than ever on the precursor to TikTok. The write up reports:
The world’s largest video site recently started asking creators to use YouTube software to tag and track products featured in their clips. The data will then be linked to analytics and shopping tools from parent Google. The goal is to convert YouTube’s bounty of videos into a vast catalogue of items that viewers can peruse, click on and buy directly, according to people familiar with the situation. The company is also testing a new integration with Shopify for selling items through YouTube.
The essay / analysis includes another sourceless factoid:
However, the pandemic has hammered marketing budgets, particularly in the travel and physical retail sectors that are major Google advertisers. Meanwhile, e-commerce has boomed as people stay home and order more products online. That’s left Google watching from the sidelines as rivals such as Facebook and its Instagram app become hotbeds of online shopping. Amazon, the US e-commerce Goliath, has seen sales soar, while Google suffered its first-ever revenue decline in the second quarter.
There may be some other facets to this concern; for example:
- Amazon’s product search function may be taking bulldozer-sized chunks out of Google search traffic. One of my research team’s estimates pegged the downturn at about 35 percent in the last year.
- The Google has a history of getting excited and then failing; for example, Froogle and Google Plus. Shopping is of interest now, but as the competitive toll is collected, the Googlers eager to work on a bonus-guaranteed project may look elsewhere for career satisfaction.
- The write up suggests that Google may not have worked out some of the administrivia to cash in on products in YouTube videos appropriately tagged by “creators” who might be skeptical of the actual payoff for their “creativity.”
To sum up: If the write up is accurate, Googzilla may have to investigate acquiring more firepower; for example, Shopify, Dr. Scott Galloway’s favorite stock to hype.
Worth watching. Googzilla Confronts the Bezos Bulldozer, a Netflix original.
Stephen E Arnold, October 9, 2020
Google and Avoiding the Next Chaos Monkeys
October 8, 2020
Is Google nervous about what employees and contractors may say or do. “Google Contractors Allege Company Prevents Them from Whisleblowing, Writing Silicon Valley Novels” asserts:
Google contract employees are alleging the company’s confidentiality agreements prevent them from a range of legal rights from whistleblowing to telling their parents how much they make, according to a recent court filing. A California appeals court recently discussed a lawsuit accusing Alphabet’s Google and one of its staffing firms, Adecco, of violating a number of California labor laws, including free speech, by requiring workers to sign extensive confidentiality agreements.
The write up runs down a number of examples of Google taking steps to batten down its information hatches.
In the new distributed Silicon Valley, control and management of staff and part timers is difficult. For an outfit built on high school science club management methods, the job is probably Herculean or bigger. The fix? Impose tighter controls on all but the top tier of Google professionals. The company’s elite may recognize that the jazzy days of 2003 and 2004 are long gone, but there are artifacts littering the information superhighway.
These include dalliances in the legal department, an alleged suicide attempt by a marketing professional despondent after being discarded by a top Googler, and the unfortunate death from a controlled substance inflicted on Googler’s family.
Is the fix an improvement in the management methods? Maybe not. Imposing rules on those outside of the elite may be an easier, more logical path. By the way, how much did the Googler working on mobile phones get when he lost his “essential” label?
Enforcing a caste system appears to be an obvious solution to one skilled in the arts of the high school science club management methods.
Stephen E Arnold, October 8, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
