Google Explains Censorship: Disambiguation Not Included
July 23, 2021
Navigate to this Google “documentation” page: “Abuse Program Policies and Enforcement.”
Now a quick exam to determine how Googley you are. Keep your answers brief because you don’t want to exceed Google storage limits.
What do these words mean?
- Sites
- Positive
- Abide
- Artistic
- Scientific
- Considerations
- Delete content
- Abuse.
I think these mean censorship. What do you think? More important, I assume, is what Google thinks. Wait, does Google think? It is a giant corporation which used its intellectual capabilities to craft what I call the Timnit Gebru strategy?
Stephen E Arnold, July 23, 2021
A Semi Interesting Comment: The Google and ab Assistive Device or Prop?
July 20, 2021
Big news zipping around. China and Facebook criticized by some in the US government. Another cyber threat intelligence company purchased by a cyber security specialist in order to — wait for it — become more cyber security capable. The Bezos blast. The Delta variant. Spoiled trip for some vacationers looking forward to a safari in Kruger National Park. And, who can overlook, the publicity implosion for a Israeli special services company?
I almost overlooked “Google Uses Its Dominance to Artificially Prop Up Products in New, Unrelated Sectors, Says a Former Senior Exec.” Please, keep in mind that you will have to pay to read this write up on the “real” news site Business Insider. Yikes, a Xoogler explaining that as he cashed paychecks, the outfit writing those checks gnawed at his conscience. Remarkable.
What jumped out at me other than a Xoogler criticizing the estimable Google.
First, the story is easily overlooked in the rush of tech-related news.
Second, the Xoogler who founded a for-fee (no ads yet) search engine allegedly said:
“It is not right for one company to take the massive profits generated in one area to artificially prop up and achieve dominant positions in other completely unrelated areas,” said Ramaswamy.
My hunch is that the Google might take issue with that statement. Opinions are still permitted, but the “real” words spoken by a former Google professional who cashed those Google checks might irritate some at the Google. What do you think?
Third, I found this statement interesting:
Insider approached Google for comment.
I assume that Google either did not get the call or email, didn’t want to respond, or simply did not care. Xooglers are no longer Googlers. When one is not a Googler, one is not a priority. No wonder the comment about “propping up” is not getting traction. I think the word I would suggest if some wizard at Google asked me about the comment is “synergy”; for example, synergy allows Google products and services to cooperatively interact to generate a combined effect greater than the sum of each component’s effect. Not a prop. Intentional synergism. MBAs and accountants understand this basic idea for maximizing return. Props are for theater majors.
Stephen E Arnold, July 20, 2021
Google and France: Whoa, Will Googlers Put That Trip to Provence on Hold?
July 13, 2021
Many news sources reported that the French government has put a price tag on Google’s content frivolities. The fine is in the neighborhood of $600 million. To put this in perspective, Google generates about $600 million a day in revenue, so no big deal.
CNBC’s “Google Hit with Record $593 Million Fine in France over News Copyright Battle” reports:
Google was ordered to present an offer of remuneration to publishers within two months, or risk facing fines of up to 900,000 euros per day.
From a practical point of view, Google will work out a plan. The plan will be discussed over numerous two-hour lunches, and then revised if warranted. If agreement is not reached, Google will seek redress in an appropriate manner. Google could write a check, threaten Apple-style to pull out of the country, or embrace the fascinating French legal system. Keep in mind that red tape is allegedly an invention of the Spanish has been a favorite method in France for centuries.
I found the Russian viewpoint interesting. “France slaps Google with Biggest Fine Ever of €500 Million for Failing to Comply with Copyright Rules” states:
The US company expressed upset at the French authority’s decision in a statement: “We have acted in good faith during the entire negotiation period. This fine does not reflect the efforts put in place, nor the reality of the use of news content on our platform.” The battle between Google and French publishers, including Agence France-Presse, has been going on since early 2020. Despite Google claiming that it has acted appropriately, French publishers insist that the company has used copyrighted articles and images without fairly paying the original authors under the EU “neighboring rights” rule. In February, Google was forced to pay out $76 million dollars to 121 French news outlets, with $22 million to be paid annually over three years.
The French fine might encourage other European Union entities to take a harder line with regard to what Google has been doing for the last 20 years. If that happens, the fines might consume a week or two of Google’s revenue. This begs the question, “What’s the point?” Either regulators take action that incentivizes different behavior at Google or just use the money, buy a good Beaujolais, rent a super yacht, and cruise to Antarctica to look at the big penguins.
Stephen E Arnold, July 13, 2021
Google Comix: Like Batman Sort Of
July 13, 2021
I read “Site Republishes Comics Strips Circulated Internally at Google.” I am not sure this is the type of humor which makes Google top dogs chuckle with delight. In fact, creating fungible evidence of Google foibles is probably a bad idea. The write up points out:
Goomics collects comics strips that went around inside Google. Many concern abstruse industry topics; some offer an insight on the company’s politics, inefficiencies and cultural problems.
Navigate to Goomics and here’s what was on display on July 9, 2021:
Laughing with tears in your eyes yet?
Google, like most of the technopolies, is a hoot. Take Google’s management handling of human resource issues related to ethical artificial intelligence. That phrase on its own is funny. Now visualize the set of the 1950 TV show “You Bet Your Life.” George Fenneman asks Groucho Marx: Would you work in Google artificial intelligence ethics unit? Groucho: Ethics? In AI? Audience laughs for 10 seconds.
One of the Goomics which caught my eye shows the Google motto “Don’t be evil” with the statement “Pray that nobody notices.” Once again, really funny. Evil? Ho ho ho.
And those Googlers. A hoot as I said.
Stephen E Arnold, July 13, 2021
How Do You Spell Control? Maybe Google?
July 8, 2021
The lack of a standardized format has made it difficult to manage vulnerabilities in open source software. Now, SiliconAngle reports, “Google Announces Unified Schema to Make Sharing Vulnerabilities Easier.” Writer Duncan Riley explains:
“Google LLC today announced a unified schema for describing vulnerabilities precisely to make it easier to share vulnerabilities between databases. The idea behind the unified schema is to address an issue with existing vulnerability databases where various ecosystems and organizations create their own data. As each uses its own format to describe vulnerabilities, a client tracking vulnerabilities across multiple databases must handle each separately. Because of the lack of a common standard, sharing vulnerabilities among databases is challenging. The new unified schema for describing vulnerabilities has been designed by the Google Open Source Security Team, Go Team and the broader open-source community and has been designed from the beginning for open-source ecosystems. The unified format will allow vulnerability databases, open-source users and security researchers to share tooling and consume vulnerabilities more easily across open source, providing a complete view of vulnerabilities in open source.”
Google also launched its Open Source Vulnerabilities database in February, describing it as the “first step toward improving vulnerability triage for developers and consumers of open-source software.” Originally populated with a few thousand vulnerabilities from the OSS-Fuzz project, the database is being expanded to open-source ecosystems Go, Rust, Python and DWF. These seems like moves in the right direction, but can we trust Google deliver objective, unfiltered reports? Or will it operate as it has with YouTube filtering and AI ethics staff management?
Cynthia Murrell, July 8, 2021
Institutional Knowledge: A Metric about the Google
July 6, 2021
I read an unusual “I left Google” essay called “Leaving Google.” I am not sure I understand how an apparently valued employee would find bureaucratic processes a reason for leaving what seems to be an okay job. You can read the write up by a Xoogler who worked at the mom-and-pop online ad company for 17 years.
I noted one factoid which struck me as quite interesting. Here it is:
At the time I left, out of ~150k employees, only ~300 had worked there longer than me.
That means that the institutional “knowledge” of Google, its thousands of technical components, its hundreds of thousands contracts, its millions of inter- and intra-process dependencies from the days of Backrub to the weirdness of solving death to the incredibly brilliant but Floc’ed solution to user tracking resides in exactly 0.1935 percent of the staff.
Perhaps some of Google’s more interesting behaviors, products, pronouncements, and personnel decisions have drifted from what the company was first engineered to deliver?
Questions:
- When a component buried deep in code created in 1999 goes wrong, who knows how to fix it?
- What if the issue cannot be fixed? What then?
- How much of modern Google is code wrappers slapped over something that mostly works?
- Are disconnects between engineering and marketing created by this loss of institutional knowledge?
I suppose one can use a Web search engine like Bing, Swisscows, or Yandex to seek answers. Google search is not particularly useful for this type of query.
Stephen E Arnold, July 6, 2021
Google and Personnel: Progress or Regress?
July 5, 2021
I read a write up from Verdict, a UK information service. The story “Google: We’re Hiring Lots of Minorities! Sadly They Are Leaving Even Faster” provides some useful information about Google’s management practices. The story reports:
Big Tech has a diversity problem, a fact underlined by Google’s latest diversity report revealing how minorities are leaving Mountain View in droves.
And from whence does this factoid come? Heh, heh, the information comes from the Google, if the Verdict story is on the money. Google issued an annual diversity report. I think this was the first one since the diversity report for 2014. Hey, we are on Internet time, so those seven years are really many, many more. Logically, if Google operates on Internet time and that “time” is accelerated, the Google is not late. Google is on time and on target. Non Googlers need to process Google’s definition of annual and understand that the faster you go, stuff slows down to observers. Hence, 2021 is simply the next annual report in the quantum supremacy world. Google uses a variation of this logic when it misses European regulators’ requests for documents by invoking the “dog ate my homework” enhancement.
Onward. The article includes this interesting passage:
True to form, the latest report kicks off by highlighting all the efforts that it’s made to ensure diversity among its staff. Some highlights to that end include how 84% of Google’s people managers have completed unconscious bias training and that Mountain View has spent $55m since 2014 to boost economic empowerment for women. To put that last figure into perspective: that’s 0.4% of Google’s total revenue of $13.059bn from 2020…
And there’s more:
Hiring among black employees jumped from 5.5% to 8.8% between 2020 and 2021. Similarly, hiring of Latin employees jumped from 6.6% to 8.8%. However, hiring of Asian employees shrunk from 48.5% to 42.8% and Native American hiring slumped from 0.8% to 0.7%. The hiring of white employees rose from 43.1% to 44.5%.
The article includes a somewhat negative statement too:
However, the report also reveals that Google is bleeding staff from ethnic minorities.
And here are the data presented by Verdict:
The biggest change was seen among its black staff. The attrition index demonstrated a jump from 112 in 2020 to 121 in 2021 among black employees. It was particularly bad for black women, whose attrition rate grew from 110 to 146 over the last year. For black men, the number decreased from 114 to 106. A similar increase was seen among Latin employees, with the rate of attrition increasing from 97 to 105 over the period. For women in the group, attrition decreased from 93 to 81. For the Latin men, it jumped from 98 in 2020 to 117 in 2021. For women in the group, attrition decreased from 93 to 81. For the Latin men, it jumped from 98 in 2020 to 117 in 2021. The attrition of Native American Google employees grew from 131 to 136. The increase was led by by Native American women whose attrition rate increased from 123 in 2020 to 148 in 2021 while the men in the group saw attrition decrease from 143 to 127.
Hmmm. The next report will be due next year. Please, don’t forget to calculate what annual means in Google speak.
Stephen E Arnold, July 5, 2021
Google and Unreliable Results: Like the Jack Benny One Liner, I Am Thinking, I Am Thinking
June 25, 2021
I read a “real” news story called “Google Is Starting to Warn Users When It Doesn’t Have a Reliable Answer.” (No, I will not ask, What’s reliable mean.)
Here’s the statement which snagged my attention in the write up:
“When anybody does a search on Google, we’re trying to show you the most relevant, reliable information we can,” said Danny Sullivan, a public liaison for Google Search. “But we get a lot of things that are entirely new,” Sullivan said the notice isn’t saying that what you’re seeing in search results is right or wrong — but that it’s a changing situation, and more information may come out later.
I think Mr. Sullivan, a former search engine optimization guru and conference organizer, is the “new” Matt Cutts, a Google professional helping to point the way to the digital future at the US government. Is key word packing the path to more patents than China?
I loved this statement which I know is pretty Tasmanian devil like: “Most relevant, reliable information we can.” I did a query for garage floor epoxy coating in Louisville. I gathered about 20 businesses display on the first two pages of Google search results. Two companies were in this business. Others were out of business. One “company” called me back and said, “My loser son has been gone for two years.”
I have other examples as well of search either being out of date, spoofed, or just weird.
Let’s look at some of the reasons why Google made a statement about “reliable answers.”
First, I think the difficulty of providing real-time indexing is beyond three Google capabilities: Outfits with real time content won’t play ball with Google unless Google pays up and works out a mechanism to move the content to a Google indexing queue. (Yep, queue as in long line at the McDonald’s drive through.)
Second, Google is not set up to do real time. I think the notion of having a short list of “must ping frequently sites” may be a hold over from the distant past. The reason? As the cost of indexing, updating, and making the Google indexes “consistent” – some of the practices no longer fit the current iteration of “relevant” and “reliable.” Google is not Twitter, and it is not Facebook. Therefore, the pipelines for real time content simply don’t exist. Googlers tried but seemed to be better at selling ads than dealing with new content types.
Third, hot info appears in non text form on Instagram, TikTok, and even places like DailyMotion and Vimeo sometimes days before the content plops into YouTube. Ever try to locate a video using the creator assigned index terms. That’s an exercise in futility. Ads, gentle reader, not relevant and reliable information.
From my vantage point on the porch overlooking a mine drainage pond, I have some hypotheses:
- Google is under financial pressure, a competitive pressure from Amazon and Facebook, and a legal pressure. Almost any nation state with an appetite to drag the Google into court is in gear.
- Google is just not able to handle the real time flows of content, either textual or imagery. Too bad, but that’s the excitement of Hegel’s these, antithese, synthese which “real” Googlers learn along with search engine optimization marketing methods.
- Google’s propagandistic and jingoistic assurances that it returns relevant and reliable results is more and more widely seen as key word spam.
- Google’s management methods are not tuned for the current business environment. I may be alone in noticing that high school science club thinking and management from assumed superiority is out of favor. (If Sergey Brin were to ride a Russian rocket into space, wou8ld he attract more signatures that Jeff Bezos. The quasi referendum did not want Mr. Bezos to return to earth. Mr. Brin’s ride did not materialize, so I won’t know who “won” the most votes.)
Net net: Relevant and reliable. That’s a line worthy of Jack Benny when he is asked about Fred Allen. I give up, “What does ‘reliable’ mean, Googlers.” My suggestion is marketing hoo haa with metatags.
Stephen E Arnold, June 25, 2021
Google: So Darned Useful to Good and Bad Actors
June 25, 2021
Never underestimate hackers’ adaptability and opportunism. E Hacking News reports, “Threat Actors Use Google Drives and Docs to Host Novel Phishing Attacks.” For the first time, security firm Avanan has found, attackers are able to bypass link scanners and other security protections and use Google’s standard document tools to deliver malicious, credential-stealing links. Previously, bad actors have had to lure their victims to a legitimate website in order to exploit its security flaws. Now they can do so right from users’ inboxes. The article cites a recent report from Trend Micro as well as the research from Avanan:
“According to researchers, once the hacker publishes the lure, ‘Google provides a link with embed tags that are meant to be used on forums to render custom content. The attacker does not need the iframe tags and only needs to copy the part with the Google Docs link. This link will now render the full HTML file as intended by the attacker and it will also contain the redirect hyperlink to the actual malicious website.’ The hackers then use the phishing lure to get the victim to ‘Click here to download the document.’ Once the victim clicks, the page redirects to the actual malicious phishing website through a web page designed to mimic the Google Login portal. Friedrich said Avanan researchers also spotted this same attack method used to spoof a DocuSign phishing email. In this case, the ‘View Document’ button was a published Google Docs link that actually was a fake DocuSign login page that would transmit the entered password to an attacker-controlled server via a ‘Log in’ button.”
Stolen login credentials are the most effective way to infiltrate any organization, and with a little social engineering hackers can attract many of them with this approach. It is a good reminder that educated users who do not fall for phishing schemes provide the best protection against such attackers. Alternatively, just download some interesting apps from the Google Play Store.
Cynthia Murrell, June 25, 2021
The Google: EU Action Generates a Meh
June 24, 2021
I read “Europe Is Finally Hitting Google Where It Hurts Most.”
Here’s a passage I found interesting:
The fact that it owns the biggest search engine, video streaming website and e-mail client isn’t the top cause for concern — it’s that the finances of all three are tied together through the ads that pay for them.
Yep, but I would suggest that Google is doing the synergy thing better than most mom and pop outfits.
Here’s another interesting statement:
The problem is that Google holds all of the power. In the auction house analogy, the company is the buyer’s agent, the seller’s agent and often the seller too. It has both the opportunity and incentive to A) overcharge advertisers who have no visibility into the value of competing bids; and B) send more revenue toward its own websites. It can decide to direct my advertising spend towards YouTube, rather than another video site.
I think Google is holding the cards in the online ad game. To make the game more profitable, Google can pull cards from its other data decks. Will the EU try to end the game or just walk out of the Googlegarch’s casino?
Stephen E Arnold, June 24, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
