What is Digg?173 Comments
- DrMickhead, on 10/11/2007, -5/+94Regardless, how is Apple across the "evil spectrum" from Microsoft?! Both are corporations who wish nothing more than to make money, and are doing so in different inventive ways. To say Microsoft is evil and Apple is good is an incredibly unfair position to take.
- wewa, on 10/11/2007, -38/+92And so we see the Google dream come to an end. The company has transformed itself from the best search engine in the world and one of the greatest storied startups in Silicon Valley history, to a search advertising monopoly using the oldest tricks in the book to avoid Washington taking too close a look at its position - especially when its position is decidedly more in keeping with its old-money aspirations than its customers and users might like.
Google rallies for corporate healthcare and for monopolies - hardly the incarnation of the oft-quoted 'Don't be Evil' that the public still has at the back of its mind. How long before public perception catches up to the reality? With more stunts like the Health Blog, it can't be too long. - thejokker, on 10/11/2007, -9/+42First, love the fact that we get an article on objectivity from that includes the following
"Here's the recap. Michael Moore's new film, Sicko, goes on general release this week and has been widely applauded by critics, pundits and bloggers - across party lines, interestingly enough - as a well-made and powerful document of the flaws in the American health care system and the providers of that care."
Next, what is the big deal here? A advertising sales agent suggests health care companies buy ads around the Moore film. Its not that bad. She just said, they dont understand you, you need to get your name out there, you need to advertise... with us. Its was a great marketing line to try and drum up sales because of a movie. She tells them that they 'understand' their plight, and can help -- by selling them advertising space. - theonlyvlad, on 10/11/2007, -6/+33People love to be have a hero. But in the corporate world, use a company for its services, not for its entity. That makes the fanboy distortion field easier to avoid once company hits critical mass and stops giving a ***** about your needs.
- ElGuano, on 10/11/2007, -6/+28Google's not evil, it's just too big. You run out of A people, you hire B people. Then they hire C people. That's when Lauren Turner gets on the payroll.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -8/+29Google actively helps China's authoritarian government restrict its citizens internet access.
- acAeris99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22Inaccurate. Google didn't actually apologize, rather the blogger, who was a representative of Google, just said that it was her opinion and not Google's.
- zcreem, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24To be fair to Google, it is a very large company and sometimes this kind of crap is going to slip through. I think one radical marketing woman is not necessarily indicitve of the company philosophy as a whole, at least I hope not.
- argeaux, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Watch the movie "The Corporation".
It's totally naive of anyone, ANYONE to ever expect a corporation to show any sense of morality or ethics. Moore even recognizes this in "Sicko" by saying these healthcare companies are mandated by law to be profitable -- they're not mandated by law to be "non-evil". It doesn't matter whether the corporation is in healthcare or internet services. You'd have to be a fool to expect any of these companies to not do whatever they can get away with in order to maximize profitability. - bradbaxter, on 10/11/2007, -8/+21Ok. Big deal. This "documentary" like all his others has huge problems... even many Canadians are pissed at his movie because he holds their system up as the shining example, while many Canadians can't even get help when they need it -- so they come here.
I agree it isn't a good idea for a Google rep to advise buying keywords to compete with an idea they don't like -- but it just doesn't make me that angry in this case. - trypnotic, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22A copy and paste from the article. Dugg down.
- nationalist, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16and yet i'm still googling...
- TellarHK, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16Agreed.
She's an ad sales person, trying to sell ads for the company, to make money. It's a controversial issue to be sure, and I hate big pharma as much as the next guy, but where's the problem here? Only a fool would think an entire company's views could be represented by a single employee, except in the case of fully-private businesses.
There's no evil here, just business. - JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14I agree. While Apple definitely has a cool factor going, I know people that hate how every product they release seems to be designed to go obsolete before you can unwrap it.
- verifex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I can't believe no-one has linked to the offical Google apology blog post.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/google-and-health-care.html - zcreem, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Harbour Favourite Colour Apologise etc. It's called English.
- daftman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Do you think that if Apple is in the position of Microsoft, they would not do the same? Look at Apple products and see how much lock in they have. When OS X run on any Apple compatible machine instead of only the one made by Apple, you can come back here and talk to me.
- pandasonic, on 10/11/2007, -14/+24And Americans actively help the US Government rape and destroy the rest of the world for their own economic gain.
- nusuni, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14People have got to stop making companies out to be Gods, it isn't healthy.
- JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Oh you Brits and your funny words...
=P - wjackson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I think I missed the part about the apology.
Consequently, the intransitive form of the word is markedly devoid of that first "s." - falstaff, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12That's not going to be a popular sentiment, but it's correct.
The health care industry has a party line, and it's not exactly balanced in its coverage of the issue, but neither is this film. Moore offers another point of view, but suggesting that it's a purely matter-of-fact-based work is no better than schilling for the industry. Allowing (or in this case, encouraging, by offering ad space for sale) the object of the film to answer the criticisms isn't taking sides, it's capitalism, with the side benefit of encouraging further discussion. - tbrad054, on 10/11/2007, -9/+16this is ridiculous, and anyone that has any basic knowledge of the health care industry in America should agree that while sicko does a fine job of hitting some of the problems, it is a one sided narrative of the situation. unfortunately, people will watch sicko and come out of the theater thinking. "i hate health insurance companies its all their fault!" the movie must be taken in stride and people should realize that Moore is telling a persuasive story here, not a fair representation of both sides (he never gives one statistic about the high taxes in countries with socialized health care, for example).
That being said, I think it is stupid that people are getting this upset at google for what they did. It is a business and they were offering a business solution, because you can bet that advertising for health insurance companies is going to bump up. These companies are going to advertise regardless, even if google never came out and said this so i see it as a company anticipating a change and adapting to it - what all great companies try to do. It would be a little different if we were dealing with the tobacco industry or something here but give the health care companies a chance to tell their side of the story and the way they have helped thousands of people if you want a fair report. Then you'll start to see why getting rid of all private insurance companies isn't an immediate solution and why this problem is so complex... - EXreaction, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12All of you suddenly go overboard saying how "google" is evil and all...wtf are you thinking?
It is a business trying to gain money, just like every business, but 1 person had a personal grudge against Moore and we should punish the entire company for it? - Bishop256, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7P.S. Its on the front page
- jmontes, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6"If being evil is more profitable, and a company can get away with it, it is obligated by law to pursue that course."
Obligated by law?!? Not even close. - vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -0/+6 A Google employee posted her thoughts on Michael Moore's film, people took her opinion as Google's opinion, she gets told off by Google exec and forced to apologise, Google PR left to clear up the mess. What part of a person expressing personal opinion via a company is Google being evil?
- PuffyC, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10RE "how is Apple across the "evil spectrum" from Microsoft"
Indeed. Apple, with their proprietary software and hardware is probably more evil overall than Microsoft, it's just that Apple is a boutique manufacturer so they get a pass from the fanboys. Oh, wait, this is The Inquirer. Nevermind, I thought this was from a reputable new source. - WaterJake, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9come on. Google is a company, just like Apple and Microsoft. They are all the same.
- smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6really? give me on search company with a better record than google.
who is helping the little guys in the struggle to preserve net neutrality? who funds open source projects and encourages young developers with programs like the summer of code? who has resisted the government's attempt at getting user info on their servers to protect our privacy? who is encouraging the free exchange of information and trying to archive all published works and put them online for anyone to view? - smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9right, that kind of attitude is why Walmart continues to destroy small businesses across the nation while their profits soar.
luckily some people think differently, which is why Walmarts in European countries have been able to unionize (or remain unionized even after these former European chains were bought out by Walmart) unlike their U.S. counterparts. it's also why a growing number of cities in the U.S. have been able to protect themselves from Walmart's predatory business practices invading their local economy while others fall victim to it.
due to more and more deregulation, the subsequent unmitigated growth of big business, and the increasingly powerful industry lobbies, our society is becoming more and more like a corporate plutocracy than a government of the people. in a world controlled and run by corporate conglomerates, where corporations are given the same or perhaps more legal rights than individuals, why shouldn't we demand corporate responsibility?
every individual in society has a civic duty to the community he lives in. so as increasingly powerful members of our society who often have more power than the public in influencing public policy, why shouldn't corporations be held to the same moral standards as individuals? why shouldn't business ethics be considered important if only as part of maintaining good public relations? - tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Yeah. Google's core business is ads that are tied to keywords. It makes perfect business sense for them to suggest that the health care companies take out ads tied to "Sicko" and "Michael Moore". They're doing nothing wrong. People who feel that the health care companies are Satan Incorporated believe that by not attacking them, Google is evil and no longer a "cool" company.
- Billions, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5As for the concerns over the article being 'opinionated' and lacking objectivity... The Register is a tech BLOG with a lot of humor involved, not a unopinionated news source. It's often accurate and provides a lot of news, but it's not bound to be objective.
- ericrous, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6*****. Behind those "real people" are real shareholders and real laws that REQUIRE them to maximize profits, morality be damned.
When Google says "Do no evil" what it means is "Make a lot of money"
When Steve Jobs says "I'm going to change the world" what he means is "I'm going to make a lot of money." - Shadowsaint, on 10/11/2007, -1/+63. Did anyone else even stop to read Turner's blog?
Nothing out of line imo. - aRgusChung, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9First off @deenine
"We are watching you Google. We made you, we can break you."
You are a moron. How did you make Google? How will you break Google exactly?
The quality of the Google services has only improved over time. They haven't made an effort to monopolize a market. Their service is simply better, faster, and free to the vast majority of people using it. One person who works for Google posts a sales pitch for advertising. OH NOEZ GOOGLE WILL SELL ADZ TO EVIL CORPORATIONZ!!
Should Google refuse advertising from whomever you decide to dislike this week? - Samzo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"Ads by Google" right at the bottom of the page...
- Shadowsaint, on 10/11/2007, -1/+61. Thanks for the link to The Inquirer... (no comment)
2. This was bias and one person's opinion in a blog. Don't hate on the company for that... - dlsspy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8I'm still not sure how I feel about this issue. Google provides them more information in a restricted form than they'd have if they just didn't provide anything at all. I don't think China would cave to google if they just didn't cooperate at all. While I'm no fan of censorship, it does seem that some information is better than no information.
- JPie, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9"Michael Moore's new film, Sicko, goes on general release this week and has been widely applauded by critics, pundits and bloggers - across party lines, interestingly enough - as a well-made and powerful document of the flaws in the American health care system and the providers of that care".
What does that have to do with the article? This reads like an ad for the movie. - hyaena, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Google didn't really take a side on this issue. Providing moral opinions isn't their business; selling ad space, is.
- hordak, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8The problem stems from the fact that was acting as a Google rep and speaking in a Google venue. If she had posted on her own personal blog outside of Google, she may have gotten less heat for this. I know, it's silly, but these are the rules of the "game" --- it's all about perception.
- Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6At least you spelled '*****' right.
- vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -0/+4So, let me put my WMA files onto my iPod, oh wait, it doesn't have WMA support. Ok, let me load the WMA drivers on to my iPod. Oh wait, Apple wont let other companies create drivers etc. for the iPod.
- ElGuano, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Must be the iphone halo effect. At this particular moment in time, at least Apple is pleasing customers (I guess).
- jordan314, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4What a ***** story...The title is "Google apolgoises for Sicko outburst" and then goes on to regurgitate information that was already available. No mention of the apology except in the headline. How about a link to the actual apology or a quote of what they said?
- tuzziel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4>"corporations wish nothing more than to make money"
Good companies make good products so they make money, those that go after money (only) will hit the wall soon.
This page of digg resembles more Myspace messageboard then a digg page. - BinDrinkin, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8The article is a bunch of ***** opinionated biased twaddle (same could be said for most of moore's output).
Its a straight up attack on google as a company when a fairer report would have concerned itself with the fact that it was one person, who granted works for google, posting an opinion on how positive advertising for their product along side search results for the movie slamming them might offset some of the bad press. Its a perfectly valid argument, so what.
This is not google taking a stance on the state of the health care system in america. its not even one of their employee's taking a stance. its a sound piece of business advice.
Corporations, whether their microsoft, apple, google or anyone else, are not their to serve their customers interests. They are there to serve the interests of the shareholders, as is required by law. The sooner people stop thinking that these companies are there to wash and dry their arse's the better.
They have no personal interest in you as a person, they want your money, get over it.
Google doesn't love you. Apple doesn't love you. Microsoft doesn't even like you.
You want affection, companionship and loyalty? Buy a ***** dog. - simondotcalvin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I've got news for you, buddy: the vast majority of the people that walk into that movie theater thinking "i hate health insurance companies its all their fault" [sic]. And do you know why? Because health insurance companies, big pharma, etc., don't exactly give us a reason to think any differently.
- Billions, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5...But still interesting information. Why shoot the messenger because he stuttered?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 165 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is