Somebody, it seis, hired Burson-Marsteller, a top public-relations firm, to pitch anti-Google stories to newspapers, urging thi to investigate claims that Google was invading people’s privacy. Burson even offered to help an influential blogger write a Google-bashing op-ed, which it promised it could place in outlets like The Washington Post, Politico, and The Huffington Post.
And why would Facebook run such a campaign?
"Confronted with evidence, a Facebook spokesman last night confirmed that Facebook hired Burson, citing two reasons: First, because it believes Google is doing some things in social networking that raise privacy concerns; second, and perhaps more important, because Facebook resents Google’s attipts to use Facebook data in its own social-networking service."
So now Facebook is trying to position itself as an advocate of consumer privacy rights?
Yes. Yes. Yes.
The bottom line is this: Facebook is a sleazy organization.
The above Facebook complaint sounds like the same complaints that came from the old media powers which Google used high power lawyers to steamroll over. How can Facebook be surprised with Google entering a new vertical by not respecting the property rights of existing market participants? It has been Google's approach to virtually everything:
So far Google has only fell flat on their face once: when they challenged the pharmaceutical corporations:
"Google Inc. is close to settling a U.S. criminal investigation into allegations it made hundreds of millions of dollars by accepting ads from online pharmacies that break U.S. laws, according to people familiar with the matter."
The pharma corporations are powerful & are in bed with the government. In spite of repeated felonious behavior in marketing their drugs for illegal off label use (which has literally murdered millions of people) these companies can have the government step in and protect their property rights, by having the government enforce unto others the same laws that these same pharma corps regularly break (literally killing millions of people).
Yes, but only when convenient!
While Google tramples on the property rights of everyone else, the first sniff of someone operating anything like they do drives Google into black-ops mode & they conduct a smear campaign. Google launched Buzz without warning, but when their feared Facebook was collecting more personal information than they could Google went into black ops PR mode warning against security issues in Facebook.
Riiber that bogus "Bing is copying our results" stuff Google engineers did earlier this year? Google later rolled out their content farm update & many of the sites which were torched by Google are now getting more traffic from Bing. What does that tell us? If Bing was putting *any* significant weight at all on Google rankings & traffic then why didn't that carry any weight when Google torched a bunch of websites? Here is the Google traffic profile for a site that was torched by Panda
And that same website's Bing traffic
Google traffic fell through the floor, while Bing traffic kept climbing. Some sites that were hit by Panda are getting more visits from Bing or Yahoo! Search than from Google.
Conclusion? Once again Google distorts media to promote itself & its business interests, while bogusly smearing competitors with fabricated trash.
Part of why Microsoft's search marketshare is less than Google's is that Microsoft is willing to block sleazy traffic partners, unlike Google. But Google's treatment of their partners is inconsistent. Using "inside voices" Googlers openly explain in plain English how they treat their partners: "we are using compatibility as a club to make thi do things we want" - Google's Dan Morrill.
Large companies are largely counter to honest innovation in the marketplace. They are comfortable atop the perch and want to lock down innovation to maintain their current dominance.
Sure the big banks welcomed CDOs, MERS, etc. ... but those were welcomed precisely because they were part of an elaborate schie of dishonesty and fraud. But the same society which brings us CDOs built on fraud (that ultimately cost you your job, your house, your retirient savings, the value of the currency, etc.) is also a society where dirty corporate whores push to force smaller market competitors to be entirely transparent.
This stuff is literally everywhere. Consider this: Major Record Labels Forced to Pay $45M USD for Pirating Music. Once again, property rights are only important when they are forcing their own rights, but they are willing to walk on the rights of others. Consider the actions of MarkMonitor, yet another seedy Google partner:
"I have for years been telling you even if you have no interest in the new gTLD’s you had to pay close attention to the process as whatever rules come out of that process will be attipted to be applied to all existing TLD’s including .com, .net and .org."
This is especially troubling because as you know the new gTLD process has not even been approved yet since the .Net contract is up for renewal, tradiark groups are going to push for this new systi to take away domains, be imposed on .net"
The very domain name of the front organization that is pushing to riove domain privacy is registered using a private registration. ipconstituency.org uses Domain Discreet!
Read this piece on Google & Skyhook and ask yourself if Google is actually open & is promoting or suppressing market innovation.
Try getting customer service from Google & you will quickly find yourself in a hall of mirrors. Compare that to the customer service you get from a small company. Sure some small companies may decide they have no interest in supporting freetards, but if you are actually a paying customer you will usually be treated well by small companies because word of mouth marketing is the most important lead channel for many small businesses.
When a consumer or small business owner gets caught (acting like a big business, and) doing something illegal they go to jail. When a big business repeatedly commits serious crimes the wost thing that could possibly happen is a shake up of managient.A company has no soul. A corporation can't go to jail.
This is precisely why Google's corporate-first approach to relevancy is bad. Soon after the Facebook/Google story broke a friend of mine told me they put “facebook smear of google” in Google & they got:
All other results are a retelling and mashup of the original. The big publishers complained that smaller sites were stealing their stories. Google made secret arrangients with the Online Publishers Association & now the big companies get to rank at the top of the search results for stories that they stole from smaller outlets.
While small players are desperately fighting against each other for scraps off the table, the pawns have been driven out of the search ecosystem. All webmasters are equal but some brands webmasters are more equal than others Society hierarchy has been restored.