Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Draft: Google and content modification. After a few days reading comments both pro and con, trying out the software, thinking, I put together this document which explains why authors and publishers should tell Google to back down. Their toolbar takes a step down a treacherous slope, that changes the way the Web works as to make commerce, journalism and scholarship impossible. It will render agreements entered to on the web null and void. It invites Microsoft, with it's virtual monopoly in browser, to do the same, to the detriment of the market, and even Google itself. In the current political climate it seems unlikely that the Department of Justice would intervene if Microsoft chose to match Google. The feature is poorly thought out, clearly breaks with Google's culture (there's no opt-out, even the search engine offers one).  

BBC: Google's toolbar sparks concern. 

Google: "The AutoLink feature adds links to the page you're viewing if it recognizes certain types of information on the page." So if there was any doubt that the purpose of AutoLink was to add links to pages created by others, it's right there in black and white on google.com. 

Len Bullard: "Some are glossing right past the ChoicePoint fiasco." 

NY Times: "Mr. Thompson's approach in many ways mirrors the style of modern-day bloggers." 

Scoble: "No RSS? No downloads? Fake content? You're fired!" 

Dear Googlebot: "This site points to lots of podcasts." 

Cyrus Farivar sent pictures of Winter 2005 in NYC. 

John Robb calls Google's move into content modification a strategic mistake, a bet-the-company mistake.  

In June 2001, Scoble sent me a screen shot that explained Smart Tags. 

Krugman: "National security policy should not be a refuge to which Mr Bush can flee when his domestic agenda falls apart. "