Comments on: Google on “Open”: Myopic Self-Focus

By: Mio Navman M305

Mio Navman M305 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:31:05 +0000

Google is in a buying most of the internet organization and he is
using its skill for running, no one knows that what he will be doing.

By: Mio Navman M305

Mio Navman M305 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:31:05 +0000

Google is in a buying most of the internet organization and he is
using its skill for running, no one knows that what he will be doing.

By: Paladin

Paladin — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:43:13 +0000

Ah, "The meaning of open". I must admit, i'm a little confused by the term, as Google uses it.

Do they mean "open" as in the Android Market, where users can not download the client or can not access it if their Android phone or device doesn't come with it pre-installed - i assume that means the manufacturers paid Google for that right, or that Google means to get money from the future manufacturers?

Or do they mean "open" as in sending C&D letters (you know what i'm talking about, or you should) to developers that make their products better and more useful?

I'm a partisan of open source, but Google is pretty clearly not.

By: “Search Neutrality” — Technology Liberation Front

“Search Neutrality” — Technology Liberation Front — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:15:08 +0000

[...] is wrong to seek public utility regulation of ISPs, but it is just as wrong for others to seek public utility regulation of [...]

By: Jim Harper

Jim Harper — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:16:24 +0000

The fact that ISPs use some public property isn't a reason to regulate. It's just post hoc justification once Google deems regulation appropriate. The question here is Google's (weak) rationale for supporting regulation, not the bases on which it justifies it. You're collapsing "imposing philosophy" with the theory on which one would claim it's just to do so.

By: dmarti

dmarti — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:03:24 +0000

You said that it doesn't matter except when Google “tries to impose its philosophy on others.” If AT&T ran its entire network on private property obtained from willing sellers, then net neutrality would be imposing philosophy.

By: Google on “Open”: Myopic Self-Focus — Technology Liberation Front

Google on “Open”: Myopic Self-Focus — Technology Liberation Front — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:05:15 +0000

[...] this article: Google upon “Open”: Myopic Self-Focus — Technology Liberation Front Share this [...]

By: Jim Harper

Jim Harper — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:10:42 +0000

Thanks for the clarification. I think its important to consider the significance of government-granted rights of way, but I don't think doing that is germane to this post.

Google says they are in favor of openness, but stops short on that virtue right when it comes to their cash cattle: search and ad placement.

The question of what authority or justification government has to regulate arises only after Google's entirely self-regarding decision that regulation serves its interests.

By: Google on “Open”: Myopic Self-Focus — Technology Liberation Front | BLOGSKID

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:53:47 +0000

[...] The flooded news crapper be read/found on here [...]

By: dmarti

dmarti — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:45:06 +0000

I'm just having trouble seeing any hypocrisy in being for regulation of fiber that runs through public rights of way (or land granted on favorable terms for common carrier railroad and telegraph operations, or land obtained through eminent domain) and against regulation of the advertising market.

By: crisatunity

crisatunity — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:20:19 +0000

I call this hypocrisy the "food effect". As a software developer, I've experienced the process behind the choice to close or not a particular software. The choice to close is made because this software's reward is viewed as an asset to directly feed my family.

Software, no matter how successful it is, that is perceived to be something that could never feed my family is easy to choose to keep open.

I suspect the choice is similar for large corporations and stock price, dividends, etc.

By: Jim Harper

Jim Harper — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:59:39 +0000

Please flesh out your point. I think you are saying something important, but neither your question nor the link convey it. What is the relationship between rights of way over and through public lands and Google's statement of philosophy?

By: dmarti

dmarti — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:58:03 +0000

But does Google build its facilities on the public sidewalk?