Throwing a Googly.
- Thread starter garinda
- Start date
No one else wants to disagree with you; so, I might as well.
People who have responded to this thread have, in the main, stated that Google is a good product. There is no doubt about that. However, I don't think that this is the issue. It is more of a question of trans global, or multi-national corporations (call 'em what you like; we all know what they are) cornering a market to the detriment of smaller, national companies, and those national economies. And it is these mega corporations, not national governments, who are limiting free enterprise. Other companies, Walmart is a prime example, also do this. Limiting free enterprise in certain sections of the economy quite reasonbaly falls within the role of national governments. And they can play this role without having to resort to the kind of state capitalism that was the downfall of the Soviet Union. In Canada, fairly recently (I could google it to find out exactly when, but I'm feeling lazy
) an Australian mining company made a $40 billion bid for Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which out numbers the govt., supported by tories in Saskatchewan and Alberta called upon the government to block the sale. In effect, to put the value of a Canadian resource before free enterprise. Under pressure, the government did block the sale, putting purely national interests first. By the way, if anyone doesn't know what potash is, ask a farmer.Another point is that relating to the erosion of national economies by eliminating jobs. Many on here complain about how well-paid jobs are disappearing from the UK. Surprise, surprise. Of course they are. Industrial giants are moving their operations overseas to take advantage of low wages, horrendous working conditions, and no-questions-asked governments. You might like to wear Nike, but you don't want to hear about the conditions the workers have to put up with. It is the loss of these jobs that was the root cause of the collapse of the US economy, and quite possibly your own. The banks fueled the economy with NINJA loans which gave the impression of a strong consumer economy without the substance.
I think Mr. Jones has it right ... but I believe that his focus on google is a little too narrow.
(Won't quote you Eric, to save space, but...)
In a free market economy, the companies that people choose to use, will be the most successful, and therefore they will have influence, and power, if you want to call it that.
I referred earlier to The Sun, Britain's biggest selling Daily, because people want to buy it.
It's owners, and editor, does therefore wield some clout. Which is presumably why Blair brown-nosed them back in 1997, and the paper subsequently publicly proclaimed that their mammary loving readers should vote New Labour. Landslide. Result.
If legislation is passed, limiting access to goods/services that are offered by companies, you end up with the kind of state run/enforced bodies that they had under the old soviet system. The outcome being that there is a poor choice, and the inferior and shoddy become the most widely available.
Politicans have moaned about the 'unfair' power the press barons have had for well over a century.
Google is successful.
That will cease when people don't want to use it.
Politicans trying to limit it's success, by imposing artifical sanctions against it, is wrong. Wrong, if we are to carry on having free choice about what we buy/use.
I think politicans are just jealous.
Wishing only that they had as much power as companies such as Google.
China allows Google, but with the proviso that many political sites aren't listed. Just as in the Middle East Google is permitted, as long as certain civil/sexual right sites are not available to searchers in those locations.
We know Google's a company, out to make profit.
We understand that, and carry on using it, because it's the best at what it does.
This will carry on until we choose to use something better.
Not because some politican fears it's influence.
In a free market economy, the companies that people choose to use, will be the most successful, and therefore they will have influence, and power, if you want to call it that.
I referred earlier to The Sun, Britain's biggest selling Daily, because people want to buy it.
It's owners, and editor, does therefore wield some clout. Which is presumably why Blair brown-nosed them back in 1997, and the paper subsequently publicly proclaimed that their mammary loving readers should vote New Labour. Landslide. Result.
If legislation is passed, limiting access to goods/services that are offered by companies, you end up with the kind of state run/enforced bodies that they had under the old soviet system. The outcome being that there is a poor choice, and the inferior and shoddy become the most widely available.
Politicans have moaned about the 'unfair' power the press barons have had for well over a century.
Google is successful.
That will cease when people don't want to use it.
Politicans trying to limit it's success, by imposing artifical sanctions against it, is wrong. Wrong, if we are to carry on having free choice about what we buy/use.
I think politicans are just jealous.
Wishing only that they had as much power as companies such as Google.
China allows Google, but with the proviso that many political sites aren't listed. Just as in the Middle East Google is permitted, as long as certain civil/sexual right sites are not available to searchers in those locations.
We know Google's a company, out to make profit.
We understand that, and carry on using it, because it's the best at what it does.
This will carry on until we choose to use something better.
Not because some politican fears it's influence.
By the way, we already know about globalisation.
We accept that progress can't be halted.
No matter how many artifical dams are created, futilely attempting to stem the flow of change.
No longer being an industrial manufacturing nation, we work in our service centres, and spend our wages on clothes costing a fiver.
We might shed a tear or two, when watching a programme about some dark skinned kiddies sewing our clothes, but forget by the next time we need a new shirt.
Might not make everyone happy, but this is the reality we've chosen.
We accept that progress can't be halted.
No matter how many artifical dams are created, futilely attempting to stem the flow of change.
No longer being an industrial manufacturing nation, we work in our service centres, and spend our wages on clothes costing a fiver.
We might shed a tear or two, when watching a programme about some dark skinned kiddies sewing our clothes, but forget by the next time we need a new shirt.
Might not make everyone happy, but this is the reality we've chosen.
At least Graham's got some global support...in Canada.
The people he's paid to represent seemingly couldn't give a 'Google - Process of flight' 'Google Anglo-Saxon profanity relating to intercourse'.
Just to add my two ha'pporthworth. I don't use google, I never have and never will. There are lots of search engines out there, and most of them don't collect and keep your search data. But, you have to want to keep your data private,you have to want to keep your searches private. You have to WANT to keep yourself private, or you can give everything about yourself to a corporation. There are very good search engines out there. You just have to look for yourself rather than just GOOGLE.
Choice.
At the moment we have it.
You choose an alternative.
The majority decide Google's their tool of preference.
Fully aware that nothing in this world is free.
Happy searching Google, unafraid that what they're searching for will bite 'em on the ass.
yer entitled to use what yeh prefer simples, you just have to look fer yourself, at previous posts, i have used others n my preference is google
Unless she takes me off ignore and reads this, mags will be along with one of her conspiracy links proving big business and politicians have already removed our free choice.
Na Less they gave up on school reports, the woodwork teacher was the only one I like, because he could actually teach me something I wanted to learn, the others didn't interest me
There are plenty of other Search Engines - you just have to look for them, but don't use Google to do your search - Simples
If you're using firefox, you automatically get a large choice of browsers to choose from:-
Search bar | How to | Firefox Help
Hurrah freedom of choice, (I'll stick to google though, my freedom of choice).
So will Graham now be taking a pop at firefox? For their restrictive behaviour.
wow grahams realy serving us well in his position isnt he?
of all the issues out there to take up he thinks nit picking about an internet search engine is the best way to represent the people of hyndburn
im not anti labour but jesus christ how much is he getting paid to spew out garbage like this.
common sense dictates that if a particular search engine gets more hits on your website then use that one and if you want to compete with rivals make your prices competative
what i am more curious about is who exactly in our area asked him to look into this matter because by rights he should be busy doing what he can for his constituants not other companies whinging about how google isnt fair
the only way i would ask this question if i was an mp would be if someone acting on the part of a competitor search engine paid me to which apparently is legal although not nescessarly moral , not that i am saying this is the case here lol
of all the issues out there to take up he thinks nit picking about an internet search engine is the best way to represent the people of hyndburn
im not anti labour but jesus christ how much is he getting paid to spew out garbage like this.
common sense dictates that if a particular search engine gets more hits on your website then use that one and if you want to compete with rivals make your prices competative
what i am more curious about is who exactly in our area asked him to look into this matter because by rights he should be busy doing what he can for his constituants not other companies whinging about how google isnt fair
the only way i would ask this question if i was an mp would be if someone acting on the part of a competitor search engine paid me to which apparently is legal although not nescessarly moral , not that i am saying this is the case here lol
I seem to recall that about a year or 18 months ago there was a discussion on here about a company located on Bridge Street, Church who were recruiting staff. That same company claimed to host the largest UK based search engine. Whether it is true or not, I don't know.
However, I do know that if you try and google it, you come up with very little. It would therefore seem to me that, as a Hyndburn employer, they would be perfectly within their rights to request the assistance of their MP in questioning the existing competition laws in relation to IT provision.
If that is the case, Graham is doing exactly the job he is paid to do in protecting the economic well-being of his constituency. So carry on, Graham.
If there was an accyweb mark 2 suddenly started up should accyweb under similar circumstances give them free advertising and perhaps even subsidise them until they got on their feet?
Reach Global.
Reach Global Profile
Seem to have been fairly active in lobbying politicans to help them.
28/01/2011 - Reach Global to welcome Ed Vaizey
26/01/2011 - Downing Street calls
Reach Global Press Releases - 2010
Reach Global and Searchers director Israr Sarwar
Reach Global Press Releases - 2010
Interesting article here about Reach Global director, by someone not too happy with his way of doing business.
'You would have thought that a company headed by a man who has met the Prime Minister and who earlier this year was talking of a stock market flotation to raise £75 million (whether it came off I’ve no idea) would approach smaller property websites, asking them to join the program.
That you might think would be the decent thing to do. The “noble” thing to do to borrow a word from Reach Global’s own description of its own foundation.
But then again why pay out commissions when you can simply take copy with a few clicks of a mouse and resell it as your own work?
Needless to say I won’t be applying to join their affiliate program any time soon.'
Why I Won’t Be Joining The Netmovers Affiliate Program Entrepreneur
In answer to Tealeaf about Reach Global, I just Googled it and got this page.
reach global - Google Search
reach global - Google Search
The guide illustrates the sanguine apporach to New Labour amongst the Trans National corporate class. for further evidence we can point to the support given to Labour by the Sun. Its proporietor Rupert Murdoh only backs parties willing to do his bidding. More extensive, if less impressive, is the list of 63 business leaders who wrote to the Financial times to back Labour.
Israr Sarwar – Operations Director, Searchers.com
Vote Big Business, Vote Labour
You scratch our balls.
We'll tickle your's.
Israr Sarwar – Operations Director, Searchers.com
Vote Big Business, Vote Labour
You scratch our balls.
We'll tickle your's.