wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] David Rakowski from Allentown, PA July 08, 2009 - 07:37AM

  Please ask Jeff (who teaches journalism at CUNY) what he thinks about Mayor Bloomberg's new "MediaNYC2020" program, and whether he thinks such programs are necessary.

  Thanks!

  Dave Rakowski

  Allentown, PA

  
  
• [2] Brian from Weehawken, NJ July 08, 2009 - 10:13AM

  I thought we've just learned that once a corporation becomes so big, its too big to fail and beyond regulation...

  
  
• [3] hjs from 11211 July 08, 2009 - 10:21AM

  we should be talking about network neutrality not any one company.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

  
  
• [4] Tony from San Jose, CA July 08, 2009 - 10:42AM

  I agree that network neutrality is the biggest threat to an open, free, and innovating internet. But congress is filled with moronic and/or corrupt people...

  
  
• [5] the truth from bkny July 08, 2009 - 10:51AM

  Absolutely not, do not regulate Google. Maybe Microsoft will bring their prices within reason with a little competition on their heels.

  Now if we could just strike that fear into the cable people.

  
  
• [6] the truth from bkny July 08, 2009 - 10:52AM

  Print is dying...recycling and online access is what's killing them.

  
  
• [7] Alan from Manhattan July 08, 2009 - 11:12AM

  Regulating Google as a utility would probably kill its usefulness— right now, it makes its money by being pretty useful to folks and thus sucking in eyeballs; a regulatory process controlling its results would mean they'd somehow be tailored to public interests.

  The real area where regulation is needed, and not just for Google, is accumulation of private information. They make their money as one of the biggest advertising companies out there, and thus they have a big incentive to do questionable things with all the data they can gather on most of your internet surfing, considering they have ad content on a healthy percentage of the websites out there. I don't want Google (or anyone else) knowing everything about me.

  That's also why I (and friends I have that work for Google) don't use GMail. It doesn't cost money to use it; the real price is that Google ad systems are reading all of your email.

  
  
• [8] fuva from Harlem, NY July 08, 2009 - 11:14AM

  Please, someone recommend OTHER RELIABLE SEARCH ENGINES. Seriously. Consumers need to drive diversification...

  
  
• [9] c j July 08, 2009 - 11:14AM

  Google Plans a PC Operating System

  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/companies/08operate.html?hp

  
  
• [10] Alan from Manhattan July 08, 2009 - 11:16AM

  Typo above: I mean to say " a regulatory process controlling its results would mean they'd somehow be tailored to powerful lobbying interests."

  
  
• [11] bob.suter from huntington July 08, 2009 - 11:17AM

  one problem with google is its advertising-dependent profit model. in fact, google sells advertisers the ability to make their web sites appear more prominently in google web searches. talk about "pay to play."

  google needs competition. there are alternatives such as alltheweb.com.

  
  
• [12] Alan from Manhattan July 08, 2009 - 11:19AM

  Oh, also tell that Jeff fellow Google Chrome is a browser, not an OS. It still runs on Windows (and is being ported to Linux & OS X).

  
  
• [13] KC from NYC July 08, 2009 - 11:20AM

  Jarvis, enough with the straw men. If you don't have a good counter-argument, don't pretend Vaidhyanathan is making arguments he isn't.

  Interestingly, Jarvis wrote his Google book without visiting Google's facilities or learning much about how the business actually works. Is that good reporting? Much like Neoconservatism embraces theories over reality, so Jarvis' techno-boosterism studiously avoids messy reality in favor of clean theory.

  
  
• [14] Alan from Manhattan July 08, 2009 - 11:23AM

  fuva:

  There's bing.com in case you want to support a Microsoft tentacle, and good ol' Yahoo as well.

  
  
• [15] hjs from 11211 July 08, 2009 - 11:23AM

  shouldn't we wait for a problem before the government is asked to come in?

  
  
• [16] c j July 08, 2009 - 11:24AM

  Firefox has been gaining ground on Microsoft's IE, while google's browser is barely used.

  With a google OS, what's going to happen to alternative browsers like Firefox?

  
  
• [17] KC from NYC July 08, 2009 - 11:25AM

  hjs: yes. That worked perfectly with the banks...

  
  
• [18] arrogantandignorantisworsebutstill July 08, 2009 - 11:28AM

  China's privacy violations deserve special attention from google? This guy is talking out of his @@s -- get out of your office buddy -- for the first time I agree with Mr. Buzzmachine. Jesus.

  
  
• [19] hjs from 11211 July 08, 2009 - 11:30AM

  kc

  good point BUT there WAS regulation for the banks,but the GOP & bush were looking the other way!!

  
  
• [20] Moshe Feder from Flushing, NY July 08, 2009 - 11:31AM

  Like Brian, I use Google constantly. So I'd like to be an uncritical fan, but I do fear that Google has reached the point of being so big that it's free to be dangerously arbitrary. It can do a lot of harm simply by choosing to ignore you.

  Look, for example, at the impossibility of providing Google with corrections to Google Maps. They've just chosen not to be bothered. I don't understand why they don't want to take help freely offered, but a quick Google search will show you that many, many people have been frustrated and angered by Google's deliberate deafness to correction -- or is it reluctance to admit error? This is a bad omen.

  Google becoming a Kafkaesque impenetrable and unaccountable bureaucracy? Isn't that a nightmare in the making?

  
  
• [21] KC from NYC July 08, 2009 - 11:32AM

  Oh honestly, Jarvis. They put a little subtitle on their logo that says "don't be evil," your read it, and assume that alone guarantees their business practices are good? Really? That's like some kind of anti-investigative journalism right there.

  
  
• [22] KC from NYC July 08, 2009 - 11:38AM

  hjs: Yeah, sorry to be snarky. But (as Brian alluded to in his initial question), regulation doesn't necessarily mean massive takeover. If Google really is so revolutionary, surely existing business regulations should be revised to deal with these new information-gathering behemoths? Or maybe not, I certainly don't know. But it's a decent question, I think.

  [I would blame a lot of Democrats for the banking regulation fiasco, too...but thankfully Matt Taibbi is writing on that stuff, so I don't have to.]

  
  
• [23] Jordan from New York July 08, 2009 - 11:56AM

  We keep learning that monocultures don't work. Whether it be agriculture, finance, energy or human culture, we've seen over and over that monocultures are more vulnerable and get sick more often and with greater force. Google, Microsoft and computing in general are no different. I don't know if regulating Google is the answer, but we do need to ensure a diversity of competition and culture in computing if we want to avoid a massive vulnerability.