Google: Fighting the Fake News Fight. Err. Where Is YouTube in This Altercation?
April 6, 2021
I read a short item with the snappy title “Google to Contribute $29 Million to New EU Fund to Fight Fake News.” The hook is a big number for a mom-and-pop, online ad outfit, $29 million.
Where is the money going? The write up says:
The European Media and Information Fund, launched by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute last week, aims to enlist researchers, fact-checkers, not-for-profits and other public interest-oriented bodies to help in the fight against fake news….The fund has a duration of five years. The European Digital Media Observatory, which is a European Commission project set up last year and whose members include fact checkers and academic researchers, will evaluate and select the projects.
Will YouTube become a focal point? My thought is that YouTube is not news, certainly not news in the sense of the Facebook- or Twitter-type of service. Should YouTube become a focal point? That’s a different question. What about informational ads which surf on a timely topic? Are those advertisements news? Obviously an advertisement cannot be news generated by an objective entity like Forbes Magazine. Wait. Hold that statement. Forbes, the capitalist’s tool, does run pay-to-play essays.
Without a definition of news, how can one determine what’s accurate, what’s fake, and what’s just business? Perhaps that is why the mom-and-pop online ad service is contributing a PR worthy sum to an European effort.
Is there any correlation to the EU’s legal probe of Google?
That’s a hard question just like, “Is YouTube a deliverer of fake news?”
Stephen E Arnold, April 6, 2021
Google: Cookies Not Enough! More More More!
April 6, 2021
Cookies are a necessary Internet evil. They are annoying, but they power Internet commerce at the expense of user privacy. And users demand more privacy, tech giants are already designing technology and the Internet for a post-cookie world. Google, says One Zero via Medium, wants to control everything a user does on the Internet: “Google’s ‘Privacy-First Web’ Is Really A Google-First Web.”
Google promised that third-party cookies would disappear by 2022. The company also promises not to support ad technology that tracks user information across the Web. Google is not doing this to be kind, instead Google wants to be a become a better contender in private Internet browsing. Apple and Mozilla, companies that do not rely on targeted advertising revenue, already protect users from cookies with their Internet browsers.
Google’s business strategy is to use its status as the world’s most popular search engine and provider of many free Internet services to its advantage. That means Google has access to loads of first-party data aka the stuff that advertisers want to create targeted ads.
Google is also working on alternate tracking frameworks, but some tech experts see it as a bad idea. These alternate tracking frameworks would delete the old cookie problems and replace them with a brand new set of problems.
It appears cookies will become obsolete by the middle of the 2020s, but how does that translate into money and user privacy?
“Merits aside, it’s clear that Google is positioning itself for a more privacy-conscious future in ways that seek to preserve its dominance — likely at the expense of a slew of smaller rivals. There is a whole value chain built around third-party cookies and individual user tracking, and a lot of that value is likely to go poof…. The big picture here is that a handful of giants — in this case, Apple and Google — are powerful enough to essentially dictate the terms of the modern internet to everyone else. That they’re now moving toward models that are (arguably) better for consumer privacy is welcome. The problem is that they’re also quite obviously remolding the playing field in their own interests.”
Users will effectively have better privacy protections, but their information will be in the hands of a few powerful companies. Is that good? Is that bad? History shows it is better for there to be competition to ensure stability in a mixed capitalist economy.
Whitney Grace, April 6, 2021
Google Maps to Drive Profits
April 2, 2021
Google loves money. Google wants to make more money. How does Google make more money when it already monopolizes Internet ads and search engine traffic? Auto Evolution tells how in the article, “Google Has Crazy Idea To Bring More Ads To Google Maps.”
Google recently filed a new patent called “Valuing advertisements on a map” that essentially will put more ads on Google Maps. The patent reads:
“Depending on a user’s view of a map, different combinations of locations can be shown. Similarly, different combinations of advertisements associated with those locations can also be shown depending on the user’s view of the map and the amount of display space available for advertisements, Advertisers can advertise on a map to promote businesses that may satisfy a user’s intent, such as to identify a navigational route, to explore a geographical area, or locate desired products or services. These advertisers may also find value in differentiating themselves from other advertisers, and/or from being unique in their local area.”
Google continues that it could “have a positive impact on the user.” In other words, it is more targeted ads in places that do not need them.
Market Screener explains another way Google is trying to make money: “Alphabet: Google To Offer Travel Sites Free Hotel Booking Links.” Google will now offer hotel and travel sites the ability to list empty hotel rooms for free on price-comparison pages. The goal is to support vendor competition and give users more options. Google is under mounting scrutiny for influencing Internet commerce. Travel sites have a love-hate relationship with Google because of this influence:
“Travel sites have seen Google as one of the biggest drivers for new business. But some of them say the company is also a big competitive threat, with critics saying that Google’s travel boxes and other kinds of specialized search products increasingly keep users within the Google ecosystem, encouraging them to use Google products rather than clicking to other sites to transact business.”
Google will continue to search for new ways to wrestle money from the Internet. One wonders if they even see Amazon as a threat.
Whitney Grace, April 2, 2021
Hard-to-Detect Cybercrime Bots Target Young and Old
April 2, 2021
A recent report from research firm LexisNexis emphasizes bad actors’ growing reliance on bots to pull off their attacks. Not only that, these bots are becoming harder to catch. As TechBullion states, “Cybercrime Report Highlights the Need for Greater Security Visibility.” Reporter Oren Rofman writes:
“While hacks and attacks primarily driven by humans tend to be more sophisticated, bot attacks are not much easier to detect and remediate. Former Akamai security expert Ido Safruti, who is now CTO at PerimeterX, describes new bot attacks as invisible invaders that are becoming more difficult to detect. … Having evolved over the decades, these attacks have become more sophisticated than ever. While previous bots can be detected because of their inability to perform tasks humans are expected to do easily, advanced bots are now capable of doing complex actions and can even interact with humans. They can latch onto host users like parasites and perform actions that make them appear as human users.”
Since bot attacks tend to infect multiple devices, IP blacklists do little against them. Application firewalls and similar defenses are also ineffective because attacks successfully mimic legitimate users. Instead, we’re advised, companies must boost their security visibility so they can react to threats promptly. Rofman suggests continuous security validation as an effective approach. He writes:
“This entails the use of multiple strategies including behavioral detection solutions, SIEM/SOC validation, full-kill chain APT simulation, and purple team automation. The creation of the MITRE ATT&CK framework also helps in dealing with the most recent bot attacks, as it provides comprehensive and up-to-date threat intelligence along with detailed descriptions and information on attack patterns and processes. Many security solutions already integrate ATT&CK in their systems.”
Another important, though perhaps obvious, point is the role age plays in user vulnerability—those over 75 are more likely to fall victim because they are less familiar with technology in general. Those under 25, on the other hand, are profitable targets due to their lack of experience and tendency to forgo security best practices. The report also found that mobile e-commerce transactions are especially vulnerable, and that streaming media has opened new opportunities for hackers. One thing is clear—the problem of cybercrime is only getting worse, and users of all ages need to learn, and follow, security best practices.
Cynthia Murrell, April 2, 2021
Does Google Manifest Addiction to Personal Data?
March 31, 2021
I read an amusing “we don’t do that!” write up in “Google Collects 20 Times More Telemetry from Android Devices Than Apple from iOS.” The cyber security firm Recorded Future points to academic research asserting:
The study unearthed some uncomfortable results. For starters, Prof. Leith said that “both iOS and Google Android transmit telemetry, despite the user explicitly opting out of this [option].” Furthermore, “this data is sent even when a user is not logged in (indeed even if they have never logged in),” the researcher said. [Weird bold face in original text removed.]
Okay, this is the stuff of tenure. The horrors of monopolies and clueless users who happily gobble up free services.
What’s amazing is that the write up does not point out the value of these data for predictive analytics. That’s the business of Recorded Future, right? Quite an oversight. That’s what happens when “news” stumbles over the business model paying for marketing via content. Clever? Of course.
The reliability of the probabilities generated by the Recorded Future methods pivot on having historical and real time data. No wonder Google and Apple suggest that “we don’t do that.”
Recorded Future’s marketing is one thing, but Google’s addiction to data is presenting itself in quite fascinating ways. Navigate to “Google’s New App Automagically Organizes Your Scanned Documents.” The write up states:
The app lets you scan documents and then it uses AI to automatically name and sort them into different categories such as bills, IDs, and vehicles.
And what happens?
To make it easy to find documents, you can also search through the full text of the document.
What types of documents does a happy user scan? Maybe the Covid vaccination card? Maybe legal documents like mortgages, past due notices from a lawyer, divorce papers, and similar tough-to-obtain information of a quite private and personal nature?
My point is that mobile devices are data collection devices. The data are used to enable the Apple and Google business models. Ads, information about preferences, clues to future actions, and similar insights are now routinely available to those with access to the data and analytic systems.
The professor on the tenure track or gunning for an endowed chair can be surprised by practices which have been refined over many years. Not exactly ground breaking research.
Google obtaining access to scanned personal documents? No big deal. Think how easy and how convenient the free app makes taming old fashioned paper. I wonder if Google has an addiction to data and can no longer help itself?
Without meaningful regulation, stunned professors and mobile device users in love with convenience are cementing monopoly control over information flows.
Oh, Recorded Future was once a start up funded by Google and In-Q-Tel. Is that a useful fact?
Stephen E Arnold, March 31, 2021
The Google and Web Indexing: An Issue of Control or Good, Old Fear?
March 29, 2021
I read “Google’s Got A Secret.” No kidding, but Google has many, many secrets. Most of them are unknown to today’s Googlers. After 20 plus years, even Xooglers are blissfully unaware of the “big idea,” the logic of low profiling data slurping, how those with the ability to make “changes” to search from various offices around the world can have massive consequences for those who “trust” the company, and the increasing pressure to control Googzilla’s appetite for cash. But enough of these long-ignored issues.
The “secret” in the article is that Google actively pushes as many buttons and pulls as many levers as its minions can to make it tough for competitors to “index” the publicly accessible Web. The write up states:
Only a select few crawlers are allowed access to the entire web, and Google is given extra special privileges on top of that.
The write up adds:
Only a select few crawlers are allowed access to the entire web, and Google is given extra special privileges on top of that. This isn’t illegal and it isn’t Google’s fault, but this monopoly on web crawling that has naturally emerged prevents any other company from being able to effectively compete with Google in the search engine market.
I am not in total agreement with these assertions. For example, consider the world of public relations distribution agencies. Do a search for “news release distribution” and you get a list of outfits. Now write a news release which reveals previously unknown and impactful information about a public traded company. These firms like PR Underground-type operations will explain that a one-day or longer review process is needed. The “reason” is that these firms have “rules of the road.” Is it possible that these distribution outlets are conforming to some vague guidelines imposed by Google. Crossing a blurry line means that the releases won’t be indexed. No indexing in Google means the agency failed and, of course, the information is effectively censored.
What about a company which publishes information on a consumer-type topic like automobiles. What if that Web site operator uses advertising from sources not linked to the Google combine? That Web site is indexed on a less frequent basis by the friendly Google crawler. Then those citations are suppressed for some unknown reason by a Google algorithm. (These are written by humans, but the Google never talks much about the capabilities of a person in a Google office laboring on core search to address issues.)
The ideas of the Knuckleheads’ Club are interesting. Implementing them, however, is going to require some momentum to overcome the Google habit which has become part of the online user’s DNA over the last 20 years.
The real questions remain. Is Google in control of the public Web? Are people fearful of irritating Mother Google (It’s not nice to anger Mother Google)?
Stephen E Arnold, March 29, 2021
How Is Your Web Traffic? Ah, What Web Traffic?
March 29, 2021
I read an interesting article called “In 2020, Two Thirds of Google Searches Ended Without a Click.” Where are those clicks? The clicks belong to the Google. And your Web traffic? Not so good unless one “pays to play”; that is, buy adds get traffic usually.
The write up explains that data from one outfit which has failed and another called SimilarWeb suggest that more than 60 percent of searches do not end with a click to another Web property.
There is fancy search engine optimization for this situation, but in simple terms, it means that once a query’s results are displayed, Google either answers the question, looks at Google’s in results “cards”, or the user clicks on a phone number. Hasta la vista Web site of yore.
One colorful way to explain this Google strategy of becoming the Web is “click cannibalization.” I like the term. Google is eating the clicks. The long term play is for Web sites to disappear, and the Google will die. But that is unlikely in the short term.
What is happening is that many Web sites no longer get traffic, flail away with search engine optimization craziness, and end up buying some ads. The challenge is for a small out fit to generate enough cash to buy sufficient ads to make it worth the GOOG’s while to direct some traffic to these tiny fish.
The SEO slant inn the write up does offer a solution. The reason? There isn’t one in my opinion. Googzilla likes cannibalization. Yum yum yum.
Stephen E Arnold, April xx, 2021
Sounds Good: Financial Firms Need Organic Search Strategies
March 26, 2021
ATM Marketplace draws our attention to a recent study from SEO firm Terakeet in, “Google Study Shows Companies Need to Tap Into Organic Search Strategies to Drive Greater Traffic.” Hmm, sounds like Google’s algorithm may be at odds with its goal of selling paid-search ads. We learn:
“The report, Google Market Share Report for Personal Finance, focuses on three primary areas of personal finance: consumer banking, credit cards and personal investing, along with nine underlying market sectors to reveal that non-bank websites are dominating Google across all sectors. For example, non-banks hold 90% of the market share for cash back credit cards and for rewards credit cards, with NerdWallet owning the large percentage of both categories at 19.62% and 24.92% respectively.”
The study observes that, though organic search drive more than five times the ROI than paid search in the financial market, most banks put little value on organic search. NerdWallet, of course, is a financial information and comparison site. It is a good illustration of the sort of site that is edging banks out of search results. The write-up continues:
“The competitive SEO landscape has evolved and encompasses more than just traditional offline competitors, including publishers, aggregators, comparison sites, government sites and others.
Many of the websites have long-form content clearly organized by topic areas. For example, Bankrate’s long-form content has helped it capture more than 29% of the organic search market share for keywords examined. The websites offer a range of free, interactive online tools and calculators (i.e. financial literacy scoring tools, free credit score tools, free credit reports, and free credit monitoring) that are not only helpful to site visitors, but offer backlinks to other websites to increase SEO visibility.”
Terakeet used its own proprietary search-engine market-share analysis tool, Carina, to crunch the data. Founded in 2001, the private SEO company is headquartered in Syracuse, New York.
Cynthia Murrell, March 26, 2021
The Google: Accused of Going Slow
March 25, 2021
I love the automated emails which inform me that one of my WordPress posts has violated Google AMP requirements. We use an automated system to post. We don’t make changes on the fly to our posts. Yet Google wants us to stop everything and fix an AMP issue. The only problem is that we did not create the AMP issue, and the GOOG does not bother to explain what the issue is. We are, however, are supposed to hop to it.
However, those expectations of snappy reaction to order from authorities do not apply to the Google. (Does that surprise you?)
“U.S. DOJ Accuses Google of Dragging Its Feet in Antitrust Trial” makes it clear that there is Google’s definition of “snappy” and the US legal system’s definition. The write up reports:
…the Justice Department said that Alphabet’s Google had balked at some search terms that the government wanted it to use to locate relevant documents.
Google is quoted as telling US legal authorities:
“The DOJ Plaintiffs’ proposal is unreasonable and not proportional to the needs of this case,” Google said in the filing.
Beyond Search thinks that it understands the Google’s position; to wit:
- Google has more money and lawyers and time than the US Department of Justice.
- Google has a wealth of delaying tactics to use; for example, the firm can explain that it cannot locate documents. This worked when Google was asked to provide salary data which the mom and pop ad shop could not gin up. Imagine that.
- Churn among lawyers in the US Department of Justice is a constant. Perhaps the idea is, “Let’s wait and see if more friendly lawyers get assigned to the case.”
Logical, right? That’s why I have to react immediately to an AMP message caused by Google’s onw system. Absolutely.
Stephen E Arnold, March 26, 2021
High Tech Tension: Sparks Visible, Escalation Likely
March 25, 2021
I read Google’s “Our Ongoing Commitment to Supporting Journalism.” The write up is interesting because it seems to be a dig at a couple of other technology giants. The bone of contention is news, specifically, indexing and displaying it.
The write up begins with a remarkable statement:Google has always been committed to providing high-quality and relevant information, and to supporting the news publishers who help create it.
This is a sentence pregnant with baby Googzillas. Note the word “always.” I am not certain that Google is in the “always” business nor am I sure that the company had much commitment. As I recall, when Google News went live, it created some modest conversation. Then Google News was fenced out of the nuclear ad machinery. Over time, Google negotiated and kept on doing what feisty, mom and pop Silicon Valley companies do; namely, keep doing what they want and then ask for forgiveness.
Flash forward to Australia. That country wanted to get money in exchange for Australian news. Google made some growling noises, but in the end the company agreed to pay some money.
Facebook on the other hand resisted, turned off its service, and returned to the Australian negotiating table.
Where was Microsoft in this technical square dance?
Microsoft was a cheerleader for the forces of truth, justice, and the Microsoft way. This Google blog post strikes me as Google’s reminding Microsoft that Google wants to be the new Microsoft. Microsoft has not done itself any favors because the battle lines between these two giants is swathed in the cloud of business war.
Google has mobile devices. Microsoft has the enterprise. Google has the Chromebook. Microsoft has the Surface. And on it goes.
Now Microsoft is on the ropes: SolarWinds, the Exchange glitch, and wonky updates which have required the invention of KIR (an update to remove bad updates).
Microsoft may be a JEDI warrior with the feature-burdened Teams and the military’s go to software PowerPoint. Google knows that every bump and scrape slows the reflexes of the Redmond giant.
Both mom and pop outfits are looking after each firm’s self interests. Fancy words and big ideas are window dressing.
Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
