Oh, The Irony

I shared Brian Beutler's initial reaction to the Google public policy blog:

At first I thought it strange that they host their site on blogspot, which all good people agree is inferior blogging software. But then I realized that, duh, Google OWNS blogspot and it would be a significant heresy if they were on typepad or wordpress or a standalone domain. But THEN I though, well, why doesn't Google just buy a better hosting company, which would allow them to both run their blog on a decent platform and have the added bonus of letting them advertise for themselves

Quite so. I wonder what impact this will have. Google has a wildly better reputation among American elites than do most major companies, so a blog about what Google thinks about policy issues (here, for example is the company's take on net neutrality) has a much better chance of being taken seriously than would, say, an ExxonMobil blog. The availability of these kinds of methods of communication might undercut some of the efficacy of "astroturf" organizing tactics and advantage interest groups and companies that have good enough reputations to try to energize people under their own names.

Comments

Thanks for the shout out Matt!

Posted by Google | June 20, 2007 9:41 AM

I had the same question when I saw a YouTube video on the Policy Blog's top post. "Why don't they use Google Video?" I wondered. "Duh, they own YouTube now, too."

Posted by Will | June 20, 2007 9:48 AM

Google demonstrates how full of shit people are. People who railed against Microsoft for years love Google. Newsflash: Google is an enormous bully of a corporation that has had some nascent complaints of monopolizing, intellectual property theft and strong arm tactics. But, hey, their logo is cute!

Posted by Freddie | June 20, 2007 9:58 AM

Google provides me with a large number of useful services without asking me to give them any money. Their employees seem genuinely happy, and they (at least superficially) seem to stick to being socially responsibile (with the notable and serious exception of their China b.s.). Also, there being an enormous bully is inconsistent with there only being nascent complaints against them. Now, it could be that there are a lot of valid criticisms of Google, but the fact that most people (including me) don't hear them doesn't make them full of shit.

Posted by washerdreyer | June 20, 2007 10:59 AM

People who railed against Microsoft for years love Google.

Microsoft abused their monopoly position in operating systems to try to achieve monopoly positions in other markets (web browsers, web servers, media players). And they make crappy software.

Posted by dob | June 20, 2007 11:14 AM

Crap, Matt's spam filter seems to have eaten my post since I included two links to Wikipedia, but, yes, there are reasons Google has a good reputation. Despite their bad behavior noted above as re China and a none-too-good reputation on privacy matters, they're coasting on a wave of good will from being the first company to really derail Microsoft, an actual legally attested monopolist with a history of anticompetitive behavior. Unlike Google's IP "theft", which I suspect the general public finds none too disreputable (four-minute clips of TV shows on YouTube! indexing libraries and published books!), Microsoft did things like steal code (Google for details of the Stac Corporation's lawsuit). And the general public thinks highly of Google's signature tool. It's hardly surprising that they get better treatment than Microsoft at the moment. Give it a few years and see if it stays that way.

Posted by Steve | June 20, 2007 11:25 AM

Yeah, there's a big difference between Microsoft and
Google. Microsoft never really had better software than anyone else, they just had a better business sense and an understanding of where the market was heading. As they developed into a legitimate monopoly, they used their position to shove crappy software down our throats. They're still doing it. I don't want to upgrade to Vista from XP b/c it doesn't add value and it hogs resources, but by removing support for XP, they may eventually force me to.

Google, on the other hand, built its success on the idea of taking a common product, a search engine, and doing it better than other people. Now they are building on that success by providing all sorts of new useful tools to consumers. It may suck to compete with them, but that's business. When they start using their leverage to force us to use crappy tools, then criticism will be justified.

Posted by mpowell | June 20, 2007 3:19 PM

Well, one thing in Google's favor is that their blog includes a link to this post, which is pretty critical of Google. This is a fair indication of Google's overall posture--that information is valuable, and that they don't discriminate on the information that they facilitate access to, even if it is information that reflects a less than favorable light on Google itself.

Can you imagine a Verizon or ATT blog including a link to comments unfavorable to the host company?

Posted by Eric Artman | June 20, 2007 4:25 PM

Of course the first thing Google wants is to drive down wages by hiring another 100,000+ indentured slaves into the American workforce with a H1B visa expansion. Tech companies like Google use these to hire foreign workers for low, low wages and the threat of immediate deportation if they displease their employer or are fired for any reason.

Sure, it's illegal to pay H1B's less or fire them for organizing or asking for safer working conditions or legally protected benefits or a 40 hour week. Those protections are enforced as well as our southern border.

"Don't be evil" only applies until there is the possibility of making more money by being evil.

Posted by Brian | June 21, 2007 12:46 PM