Mr. T Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Its employees supported Obama and four Googlers served on his transition team. Now the Internet giant hopes to win support for so-called network neutrality and expanding high-speed Internet access. Who said money cant buy you a monopoly Reporting from Washington -- Another inauguration took place in Washington this week -- Google Inc. officially became a political power player. In October, Google was only hours from being sued by the Justice Department as a Web-search monopolist. Today, less than three years after it made its first Washington hire, the Internet giant is poised to capitalize on its backing of President Obama and pursue its agenda in the nation's capital. Google's executives and employees overwhelmingly supported Obama's candidacy, contributing more money than all but three companies or universities. And only DreamWorks employees gave more toward inauguration festivities. Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt campaigned for Obama and was one of four Googlers on his transition team. He is now as likely as any corporate chieftain to get his calls to the White House returned. At the top of the company's policy priorities are two that consumer advocates largely champion. First, it wants to expand high-speed Internet access so people can use its Web services more often. It also is pushing for so-called network neutrality: prohibitions on telecommunications companies charging websites for faster delivery of their content. "Google is not just a benign corporate entity. It has a variety of special interests," said Jeff Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, who has sparred with Google over data-privacy issues. "They're in a great position to push their agenda through with the support of the president and the Democrats in Congress." But Google's newfound political ties heighten concerns about its grip on the online advertising market. The company could play better defense against strong competitors trying to curb its influence. Last fall, Justice Department lawyers, who had been lobbied heavily by Microsoft Corp. and large telecommunications companies, were about to sue Google on antitrust grounds. They wanted to block its controversial search-advertising partnership with Yahoo Inc., but Google abandoned the deal rather than fight in court. Competitors worry about Google's close relationship with the Obama administration, said Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. "The question going forward is: Will Google turn into just another business entity looking for favors in Washington, or will it manage to keep the 767 flying at 30,000 feet above the political din?" he said, a playful reference to the Google founders' private plane. White House officials did not respond to requests for comment. Obama vowed generally this week that his administration would not be beholden to anyone. Google says the main reason it has improved its standing in Washington is that Obama's tech priorities mirror its own. He has endorsed network neutrality. His technology agenda also calls for expanding broadband Internet access to rural areas and appointing the first government-wide chief technology officer (Schmidt has been mentioned for the position but reiterated this week he was not interested). "This administration is more focused on science and technology," Schmidt said in an interview. "That's positive for all of technology, and particularly Google." Symbolizing its new stature, the Internet giant co-hosted a glitzy Inauguration Day party here. The event was studded with celebrities, including Ben Affleck, Jessica Alba and Glenn Close. Though Obama did not make an appearance, the event drew influential political figures such as Obama transition chief John Podesta and Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.). "A lot of people are united to create a grass-roots service democracy, and Google is playing a bigger role in that than anyone knows," Craigslist founder Craig Newmark said as dance music echoed through the grand Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium. Obama's campaign and administration have already embraced Google products. Video of his weekly address is available on YouTube. During the shift from the transition office to the White House, Obama's press office staff created free e-mail accounts on Gmail until their government accounts were activated. In November 2007, Obama unveiled his "innovation agenda" during a visit to Google's Silicon Valley campus. And at an economic forum in Florida two weeks before the presidential election, Obama praised the company as "a cutting-edge innovator." On stage with him in Florida was Schmidt, who had publicly endorsed Obama days before (he said that the support was personal and that the company remained officially neutral). Schmidt also appeared in a 30-minute infomercial for Obama, and he was appointed to the Transition Economic Advisory Board after the election. Google's spokesman in Washington, Adam Kovacevich, said despite Schmidt's personal support for Obama, the company has a bipartisan strategy. "We know that the incoming administration supports a lot of things that we like," he said. "But we also know you cannot get anything done here unless you have relationships on both sides of the aisle. The company's political action committee gave 57% of its $264,000 in contributions during the 2008 campaign cycle to Democrats, and 43% to Republicans. Google also had a presence at both party's national conventions last summer. But Google's employees left little doubt whom they supported. They contributed $782,964 to Obama's campaign and just $20,800 to John McCain's , according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Googlers also donated $166,000 for Obama's inauguration. Still, the company doesn't have a clear path in Washington. Its biggest rival, Microsoft, came in third on the list of top Obama contributors (it has more than three times as many employees as Google). And Microsoft's PAC handed out nearly three times as much money in 2008 as Google's did. Microsoft is an old hand here after facing down the government in an antitrust battle a decade ago. And its savvy shows: Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Jeffrey Lindsay said Microsoft outmaneuvered Google last year, drumming up opposition that helped derail the Yahoo search deal. Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a digital rights groups that has worked with Google to advance network neutrality, downplayed concerns about the Web giant's new clout. "They can put things on the radar screen that might not otherwise be on the radar screen . . . but it's a long way from being on the radar screen to being put into law," she said. "There are people on the opposite side of what Google wants who can pick up the phone too." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,5255660.story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiperBowl Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 here you go...... Critics warn of danger in giving online leader more power http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/...gdrive-internet they will store your info, you will no longer need a hard drive. big brother or big baby sitter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Big controller of everything. They can figure out more things to tax if they can search electronically. egad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Millions hit by Google 'breakdown' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechn...-breakdown.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Do you guys oppose net neutrality? Or do you just oppose anything that Obama supports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Do you guys oppose net neutrality? Or do you just oppose anything that Obama supports. Can you name me a list of those countries that burned books? At The History Place - Part of the World Two Timeline. May 10, 1933 - An event unseen since the Middle Ages occurs as German students from universities formerly regarded as among the finest in the world, The speech and book burning were accompanied by the singing of Nazi songs and anthems. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/bookburn.htm http://www.savetheinternet.com/ ????? Will it be Free and Full exchange of information or will all searches done on the internet be redirected to one view? Within 2 years we will not even recognize this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Within 2 years we will not even recognize this country. You may truly be the biggest putz alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 You may truly be the biggest putz alive. and what explains your ignorance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 And what exactly am I ignorant to? You goons and your Doomsday paranoia?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Can you name me a list of those countries that burned books? At The History Place - Part of the World Two Timeline. May 10, 1933 - An event unseen since the Middle Ages occurs as German students from universities formerly regarded as among the finest in the world, The speech and book burning were accompanied by the singing of Nazi songs and anthems. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/bookburn.htm http://www.savetheinternet.com/ ????? Will it be Free and Full exchange of information or will all searches done on the internet be redirected to one view? Within 2 years we will not even recognize this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 'Anti-gay' Proposition 8 donors pinpointed by new Google Maps mashup Valleywag is reporting today on a new Google Maps mashup, eightmaps.com, which gives the name and profession of every Proposition 8 donor. It also lists how much they donated and shows where they live. The site's strapline is distinctly creepy: http://sfist.com/2009/01/09/mash-up_map_of...ps_and_prop.php Proposition 8 changed the California state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. These are the people who donated in order to pass it. According to the New York Times: Visitors can see markers indicating a contributor's name, approximate location, amount donated and, if the donor listed it, employer. That is often enough information for interested parties to find the rest - like an e-mail or home address [...] Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted. The site's owners have elected to remain anonymous. After monumentally screwing up their earlier efforts at protest, let's hope the "No To Prop 8" crowd are not now resorting to bullying and intimidation. That would be a terrible mistake. Lets see where the shoe drops on this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB&J Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 So you see that somebody, not google, creates this using google's tool and you try to say it is google's fault? If a guy buys a rifle, and uses it to murder people, is it the gun maker's fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received envelopes containing a powdery white substance. Lucky bastards. I usually receive nothing but a lame-ass courtesy phone call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Lucky bastards. I usually receive nothing but a lame-ass courtesy phone call. "I hated the gays and all I got was this lousy t-shirt." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Regardless of who did it, it reeks of the harrassment of Joe the Plumber, via government records, singling him out to find info that may help discredit him for political reasons. To publicly support certain issues, and have your location provided for harrassment, seems to me to be illegal. The supporters of the issue are targeted, demagogued, as is the usual attack of prominent leftists. Supporting an issue and getting death threats is a joking matter? Come on. That isn't necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Regardless of who did it, it reeks of the harrassment of Joe the Plumber, via government records, singling him out to find info that may help discredit him for political reasons. To publicly support certain issues, and have your location provided for harrassment, seems to me to be illegal. The supporters of the issue are targeted, demagogued, as is the usual attack of prominent leftists. Supporting an issue and getting death threats is a joking matter? Come on. That isn't necessary. As opposed to singling out out Joe the Plumber for political reasons to credit him with being a plumber (he's not) and owning his own business (he doesn't)? Again, it's not google's problem, unless they are soliciting their service for the specific purpose of harassing citizens (they aren't). PB&J cleared up the argument nicely with the statement that was immortalized on the Happy Gilmore t-shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 The investigation was for some possible failure to pay child support. It was for strictly political reasons. It had nothing to do with Joe not being officially a -licensed- plumber, and he can't have his own business until he was licensed. Have you ever looked into the requirements to get that license? It was something like you have to work as an apprentice for 5 years I think it was. Like becoming a journeyman machinist, Legacy. You work for 4 years as an apprentice and go to school etc, to become one. But, he is STILL a machinist, but he is an apprentice machinist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 so we're damned if we do, damned if we dont...either way, they're gonna limit our net access. its simply a difference of who you wanna pay. on one side, you will have to pay the ISP for permission to visit site A. on the other, you wont be able to find site A on a search. funny thing about choice.....there's other search engines to avoid the latter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 The investigation was for some possible failure to pay child support. It was for strictly political reasons. It had nothing to do with Joe not being officially a -licensed- plumber, and he can't have his own business until he was licensed. Have you ever looked into the requirements to get that license? It was something like you have to work as an apprentice for 5 years I think it was. Like becoming a journeyman machinist, Legacy. You work for 4 years as an apprentice and go to school etc, to become one. But, he is STILL a machinist, but he is an apprentice machinist. No, but I know what it takes to acquire SSPC QP1 certification, what it takes to acquire a Class A contractors license (I took the test in lieu of my former boss - kind of a rule bender ) and I'm currently in the death-throes of finding out what it takes to become a Dentist. The 1 thing those 3 have in common: You aren't shit until you've completed the requirements. But, that wasn't my point. The political motivation that was employed to trash "Joe's" reputation is the same motivation that was employed to establish one, just a different side of the aisle. To fuss over one but not the other is hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.