Criticism of Google
Criticism of Google includes aggressive and contrived tax avoidance, alleged misuse and manipulation of search results, its use of others' intellectual property, concerns that its compilation of data may violate people's privacy, censorship of search results and content, and the energy consumption of its servers as well as concerns over traditional business issues such as monopoly, restraint of trade, antitrust, and idea borrowing.
Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational public corporation invested in Internet search, cloud computing, and advertising technologies. Google hosts and develops a number of Internet-based services and products, and generates profit primarily from advertising through its AdWords program.
Google's stated mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful"; this mission, and the means used to accomplish it, have raised concerns among the company's critics. Much of the criticism pertains to issues that have not yet been addressed by cyber law.
- 1 Aggressive tax avoidance
- 2 Antitrust
- 3 Possible misuse of search results
- 4 Page Rank
- 5 Google Shopping rankings
- 6 Copyright issues
- 7 Privacy
- 8 Censorship
- 9 Other
- 10 See also
- 11 References
- 12 External links
Aggressive tax avoidance
|Wikinews has related news: Tax evasion investigators raid Google's Paris headquarters|
Google has been accused by a number of countries of avoiding paying tens of billions of dollars of tax through a convoluted scheme of inter-company licensing agreements and transfers to tax havens. For example, Google has used highly contrived and artificial distinctions to avoid paying billions of pounds in corporation tax owed by its UK operations. On 16 May 2013, Margaret Hodge MP, the chair of the United Kingdom Public Accounts Committee accused Google's of being "calculated and unethical" over its use of the scheme. In 2015, the UK Government introduced a new law intended to penalise Google and other large multinational corporations's artificial tax avoidance. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has claimed that this scheme of Google is "capitalism". and that he was "very proud of it". Schmidt was also criticised for his inaccurate use of the term 'capitalism' to describe billions of dollars being transferred into tax havens where no economic activity was actually taking place. On 23 January 2016, Google agreed to make a payment of £130m to the UK tax authorities "in respect of previous years."
Google cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the period of 2007 to 2009 using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and The Netherlands to Bermuda. Google's income shifting—involving strategies known to lawyers as the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich"—helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries.
According to Joe Wilcox of Microsoft-Watch, Google has increased its dominance of search, becoming an information gatekeeper, despite the conflict of interest between information gathering and the advertising surrounding that information. His colleagues do not share the same view.
The European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, opened a formal inquiry into Google in 2010 over concerns that the company was abusing its dominant position in search. The commission laid out its main points in May 2012, and early in 2013 Google came back with an offer to change its practices in certain search categories, hoping to settle the case and avoid a protracted antitrust inquiry. At a news conference on July 17, 2013 Joaquín Almunia, the European Union competition commissioner, said that he "concluded that the proposals that Google sent to us months ago are not enough to overcome our concerns" and he had written to Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman, "asking Google to present better proposals or improved proposals."
U.S. antitrust issues
||The neutrality of this section is disputed. (September 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
In the case of the now-defunct Google-Yahoo! deal of 2008—a pact for Google to sell advertising on Yahoo! search pages—the U.S. Department of Justice found that the deal would be "materially reducing important competitive rivalry between the two companies" and would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.
In testimony before a U.S. Senate antitrust panel in September 2011, Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman, said that "the Internet is the ultimate level playing field" where users were "one click away" from competitors. Beyond the existence of alternatives, Google's large market share was another aspect of the debate, as this exchange between Senator Herb Kohl and Mr. Schmidt at the September Senate hearing illustrates:[neutrality is disputed]
- Senator Kohl asked: "But you do recognize that in the words that are used and antitrust kind of oversight, your market share constitutes monopoly, dominant – special power dominant – special power dominant for a monopoly firm. You recognize you're in that area?"
- Schmidt replied: "I would agree, sir, that we're in that area.... I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of monopoly findings is this is a judicial process."
In testimony before the same Senate panel, Jeffrey Katz and Jeremy Stoppelman, the chief executives from Google's competitors Nextag and Yelp, said that Google tilts search results in its own favor, limiting choice and stifling competition.
In October 2012, it was reported that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission staff were preparing a recommendation that the government sue Google on antitrust grounds. The areas of concern include accusations of manipulating the search results to favor Google services such as Google Shopping for buying goods and Google Places for advertising local restaurants and businesses; whether Google's automated advertising marketplace, AdWords, discriminates against advertisers from competing online commerce services like comparison shopping sites and consumer review Web sites; whether Google's contracts with smartphone makers and carriers prevent them from removing or modifying Google products, such as its Android operating system or Google search; and Google's use of its smartphone patents. A likely outcome of the antitrust investigations is a negotiated settlement where Google would agree not to discriminate in favor of its products over smaller competitors. Federal Trade Commission ended its investigation during a period which the co-founder of Google, Larry Page, had met with individuals at the White House and the Federal Trade Commission, leading to voluntary changes by Google; since January 2009 to March 2015 employees of Google have met with officials in the White House about 230 times according to the Wall Street Journal.
Possible misuse of search results
In 2006/2007, a group of Austrian researchers observed a tendency to misuse the Google engine as a "reality interface". Ordinary users as well as journalists tend to rely on the first pages of Google search, assuming that everything not listed there is either not important or simply does not exist. The researchers say that "Google has become the main interface for our whole reality. To be precise: with the Google interface the user gets the impression that the search results imply a kind of totality. In fact, one only sees a small part of what one could see if one also integrates other research tools".
Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, said in a 2007 interview with the Financial Times: "The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as 'What shall I do tomorrow?' and 'What job shall I take?'". Schmidt reaffirmed this during a 2010 interview with the Wall Street Journal: "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions, they want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."
Numerous companies and individuals, for example, MyTriggers.com and transport tycoon Sir Brian Souter have voiced concerns regarding the fairness of Google's PageRank and search results after their web sites disappeared from Google's first-page results. In the case of MyTriggers.com, the Ohio-based shopping comparison search site accused Google of favoring its own services in search results (although the judge eventually ruled that the site failed to show harm to other similar businesses).
The Aliyun OS affair
Google forced its partner Acer to cancel a planned announcement of an Aliyun OS powered smartphone in September 2012, because the Google senior VP Andy Rubin said that Acer is not allowed to work on a non-compatible "fork" of Android if they want to stay in the Open Handset Alliance. The VP of the Chinese company Alibaba, the developer of Aliyun OS, responded by arguing that Aliyun is not a fork, and criticised Android for not actually being open, since Google is in control of the app market through Google Play.
Danger of Page Rank manipulation
The page ranking algorithm of Google can and has been manipulated for political and humorous reasons. To illustrate the view that Google's search engine could be subjected to manipulation, Google Watch implemented a Google bomb by linking the phrase "out-of-touch executives" to Google's own page on its corporate management. The attempt was mistakenly attributed to disgruntled Google employees by The New York Times, which later printed a correction.
Daniel Brandt started the Google Watch website and has criticized Google's PageRank algorithms, saying that they discriminate against new websites and favor established sites. Chris Beasley, who started Google Watch[clarification needed] and disagrees, saying that Mr. Brandt overstates the amount of discrimination that new websites face and that new websites will naturally rank lower when the ranking is based on a site's "reputation". In Google's world a site's reputation is in part determined by how many and which other sites link to it (links from sites with a "better" reputation of their own carry more weight). Since new sites will seldom be as heavily linked as older more established sites, they aren't as well known, won't have as much of a reputation, and will receive a lower page ranking.
In testimony before a U.S. Senate antitrust panel in September 2011, Jeffrey Katz, the chief executive of NexTag, said that Google's business interests conflict with its engineering commitment to an open-for-all Internet and that: "Google doesn't play fair. Google rigs its results, biasing in favor of Google Shopping and against competitors like us." Jeremy Stoppelman, the chief of Yelp, said sites like his have to cooperate with Google because it is the gateway to so many users and "Google then gives its own product preferential treatment." In earlier testimony at the same hearing Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman, said that Google does not "cook the books" to favor its own products and services.
Google Shopping rankings
|This section is outdated. (March 2015)|
In late May 2012, Google announced that they will no longer be maintaining a strict separation between search results and advertising. Google Shopping will be replaced with a nearly identical interface, according to the announcement, but only paid advertisers will be listed instead of the neutral aggregate listings shown previously. Furthermore, rankings will be determined primarily by which advertisers place the highest "bid", though the announcement does not elaborate on this process. The transition will be complete in the fall of 2012.
As a result of this change to Google Shopping, Microsoft, who operates the competing search engine Bing, launched a public information campaign titled Scroogled. The ad campaign was developed by leading political campaign strategist Mark Penn.
It is unclear how consumers will react to this move. Critics charge that Google has effectively abandoned its "Don't be evil" motto and that small businesses will be unable to compete against their larger counterparts. There is also concern that consumers who did not see this announcement will be unaware that they are now looking at paid advertisements and that the top results are no longer determined solely based on relevance but instead will be manipulated according to which company paid the most.
Google Print, Books, and Library
Google's ambitious plans to scan millions of books and make them readable through its search engine have been criticized for copyright infringement. The Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers and the Association of American University Presses both issued statements strongly opposing Google Print, stating that "Google, an enormously successful company, claims a sweeping right to appropriate the property of others for its own commercial use unless it is told, case by case and instance by instance, not to."
China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS)
In a separate dispute in November 2009, the China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS), which protects Chinese writers' copyrights, accused Google of scanning 18,000 books by 570 Chinese writers without authorization, for its Google Books library. Toward the end of 2009 representatives of the CWWCS said talks with Google about copyright issues are progressing well, that first they "want Google to admit their mistake and apologize", then talk about compensation, while at the same time they "don't want Google to give up China in its digital library project". On November 20, 2009, Google agreed to provide a list of Chinese books it had scanned, but did not admit having "infringed" copyright laws. In a January 9, 2010 statement the head of Google Books in the Asia-Pacific said "communications with Chinese writers have not been good enough" and apologized to the writers.
Links and cached data
Search engines such as Google's that link to sites in "good faith" fall under the safe harbor provisions of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act which is part of DMCA. If they remove links to infringing content after receiving a take down notice, they are not liable. Google removes links to infringing content when requested, providing supporting evidence is supplied. However, it is sometimes difficult to judge whether or not certain sites are infringing and Google (and other search engines) will sometimes refuse to remove web pages from its index. To complicate matters there have been conflicting rulings from U.S. courts on whether simply linking to infringing content constitutes "contributory infringement" or not.
The New York Times has complained that the caching of their content during a web crawl, a feature utilized by search engines including Google Web Search, violates copyright. Google observes Internet standard mechanisms for requesting that caching be disabled via the robots.txt file, which is another mechanism that allows operators of a website to request that part or all of their site not be included in search engine results, or via META tags, which allow a content editor to specify whether a document can be crawled or archived, or whether the links on the document can be followed. The U.S. District Court of Nevada ruled that Google's caches do not constitute copyright infringement under American law in Field v. Google and Parker v. Google.
Google Map Maker
Google Map Maker allows user contributed data to be put into the Google Maps service, similar to OpenStreetMap it includes concepts such as organising mapping parties and mapping for humanitarian efforts. It has been criticised for taking work done for free by the general public and claiming commercial ownership of it without returning any contributions back to the commons as their restrictive license makes it incompatible with most open projects by preventing commercial use or use by competitive services.
Google's March 1, 2012 privacy change, enables the company to share data across a wide variety of services. This includes embedded services in millions of third-party websites using Adsense and Analytics. The policy was widely criticized as creating an environment that discourages Internet innovation by making Internet users more fearful online.
In December 2009, after privacy concerns were raised, Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, declared: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines—including Google—do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
Privacy International has raised concerns regarding the dangers and privacy implications of having a centrally located, widely popular data warehouse of millions of Internet users' searches, and how under controversial existing U.S. law, Google can be forced to hand over all such information to the U.S. government. In its 2007 Consultation Report, Privacy International ranked Google as "Hostile to Privacy", its lowest rating on their report, making Google the only company in the list to receive that ranking.
At the Techonomy conference in 2010, Eric Schmidt predicted that "true transparency and no anonymity" is the way forward for the internet: "In a world of asynchronous threats it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it." He also said that "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go. Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!"
Google has been criticized for various instances of censoring its search results, many times in compliance with the laws of various countries, most notably while it operated in China from January 2006 to March 2010.
As of December 12, 2012, Google's SafeSearch feature applies to image searches in the United States. Prior to the change three SafeSearch settings—"on", "moderate", and "off"—were available to users. Following the change, two "Filter explicit results" settings—"on" and "off"—were newly established. The former and new "on" settings are similar, and exclude explicit images from search results. The new "off" setting still permits explicit images to appear in search results, but users need to enter more specific search requests, and no direct equivalent of the old "off" setting exists following the change. The change brings image search results into line with Google's existing settings for web and video search.
Some users have stated that the lack of a completely unfiltered option amounts to "censorship" by Google. A Google spokesperson disagreed, saying that Google is "not censoring any adult content," but "want to show users exactly what they are looking for—but we aim not to show sexually-explicit results unless a user is specifically searching for them."
Google has been involved in censorship of certain sites in specific countries and regions. Until March 2010, Google adhered to the Internet censorship policies of China, enforced by filters colloquially known as "The Great Firewall of China". Google.cn search results were filtered to remove some results concerning the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, sites supporting the independence movements of Tibet and Taiwan, the Falun Gong movement, and other information perceived to be harmful to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Google claimed that some censorship is necessary in order to keep the Chinese government from blocking Google entirely, as occurred in 2002. The company claims it did not plan to give the government information about users who search for blocked content, and will inform users that content has been restricted if they attempt to search for it. As of 2009, Google was the only major China-based search engine to explicitly inform the user when search results are blocked or hidden. As of December 2012, Google no longer informs the user of possible censorship for certain queries during search.
Some Chinese Internet users were critical of Google for assisting the Chinese government in repressing its own citizens, particularly those dissenting against the government and advocating for human rights. Furthermore, Google had been denounced and called hypocritical by Free Media Movement for agreeing to China's demands while simultaneously fighting the United States government's requests for similar information. Google China had also been condemned by Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
In 2009, China Central Television, Xinhua News Agency, and People's Daily all reported on Google's "dissemination of obscene information", and People's Daily claimed that "Google's 'don't be evil' motto becomes a fig leaf". The Chinese government imposed administrative penalties to Google China, and demanded a reinforcement of censorship.
In 2010, according to a leaked diplomatic cable from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, there were reports that the Chinese Politburo directed the intrusion of Google's computer systems in a worldwide coordinated campaign of computer sabotage and the attempt to access information about Chinese dissidents, carried out by "government operatives, public security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government." The report suggested that it was part of an ongoing campaign in which attackers have "broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002."
In response to the attack, Google announced that they were "no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all." On March 22, 2010, after talks with Chinese authorities failed to reach an agreement, the company redirected its censor-complying Google China service to its Google Hong Kong service, which is outside the jurisdiction of Chinese censorship laws. From the business perspective, many recognize that the move was likely to affect Google's profits: "Google is going to pay a heavy price for its move, which is why it deserves praise for refusing to censor its service in China." However, at least as of March 23, 2010, "The Great Firewall" continues to censor search results from the Hong Kong portal, www.google.com.hk (as it does with the US portal, www.google.com) for controversial terms such as "Falun gong" and "the June 4 incident" (Tiananmen Square incident).
Google has been involved in censorship of google maps satellite imagery countrywide affecting android&ios apps using .com.tr tld automatically. Pc users can easily evade this censorship by just removing .tr tld from the url but same technique is impossible with smart phone apps.
In February 2003, Google stopped showing the advertisements of Oceana, a non-profit organization protesting a major cruise ship operation's sewage treatment practices. Google cited its editorial policy at the time, stating "Google does not accept advertising if the ad or site advocates against other individuals, groups, or organizations." The policy was later changed.
In April 2008, Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion, explaining that "At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content.'" The UK Christian group sued Google for discrimination, and as a result in September 2008 Google changed its policy and anti-abortion ads were allowed.
In August 2008, Google closed the AdSense account of a site that carried a negative view of Scientology, the second closing of such a site within 3 months. It is not certain if the account revocations actually were on the grounds of anti-religious content, however the cases have raised questions about Google's terms in regards to AdSense/AdWords. The AdSense policy states that "Sites displaying Google ads may not include […] advocacy against any individual, group, or organization", which allows Google to revoke the above-mentioned AdSense accounts.
In May 2011, Google cancelled the AdWord advertisement purchased by a Dublin sex worker rights group named "Turn Off the Blue Light" (TOBL), claiming that it represented an "egregious violation" of company ad policy by "selling adult sexual services". However, TOBL is a nonprofit campaign for sex worker rights and is not advertising or selling adult sexual services. In July, after TOBL members held a protest outside Google's European headquarters in Dublin and wrote to complain, Google relented, reviewed the group's website, found its content to be advocating a political position, and restored the AdWord advertisement.
In June 2012, Google rejected the Australian Sex Party's ads for AdWords and sponsored search results for the July 12 by-election for the state seat of Melbourne, saying the Party breached its rules which prevent solicitation of donations by a website that did not display tax exempt status. Although the Sex Party amended its website to display tax deductibility information, Google continued to ban the ads. The ads were reinstated on election eve after it was reported in the media that the Sex Party was considering suing Google. On September 13, 2012 the Party lodged formal complaints against Google with the US Department of Justice and the Australian competition watchdog, accusing Google of "unlawful interference in the conduct of a state election in Victoria with corrupt intent" in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
YouTube is a video sharing website acquired by Google in 2006. YouTube's Terms of Service prohibits the posting of videos which violate copyrights or depict pornography, illegal acts, gratuitous violence, or hate speech. User-posted videos that violate such terms may be removed and replaced with a message stating: "This video is no longer available because its content violated YouTube's Terms of Service".
YouTube has been criticized by national governments for failing to police content. For example, videos have been critically accused for being "left up", among other videos featuring unwarranted violence or strong ill-intention against people who probably didn't want this to be published. In 2006, Thailand blocked access to YouTube for users with Thai IP addresses. Thai authorities identified 20 offensive videos and demanded that YouTube remove them before it would unblock any YouTube content. In 2007 a Turkish judge ordered access to YouTube blocked because of content that insulted Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, which is a crime under Turkish law. On February 22, 2008, Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) attempted to block regional access to YouTube following a government order. The attempt inadvertently caused a worldwide YouTube blackout that took 2 hours to correct. Four days later, PTA lifted the ban after YouTube removed controversial religious comments made by a Dutch Member of Parliament concerning Islam.
YouTube has also been criticized by its users for attempting to censor content. In November 2007, the account of Wael Abbas, a well known Egyptian activist who posted videos of police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations, was blocked for three days.
In February 2008, a video produced by the American Life League that accused a Planned Parenthood television commercial of promoting recreational sex was removed, then reinstated two days later. In October, a video by political speaker Pat Condell criticizing the British government for officially sanctioning sharia law courts in Britain was removed, then reinstated two days later. In response, his fans uploaded copies of the video themselves, and the National Secular Society wrote to YouTube in protest.
YouTube also pulled a video of columnist Michelle Malkin showing violence by Muslim extremists. Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of Media Studies at the University of Virginia, commented that while, in his opinion, Michelle Malkin disseminates bigotry in her blog, "that does not mean that this particular video is bigoted; it's not. But because it's by Malkin, it's a target."
YouTube censors videos by country on its site. For example, videos from certain countries are blocked from being viewed in the United States and other countries on copyright grounds. But some users allege that that is blatant censorship by YouTube because it forbids users from viewing the videos that they want to see. YouTube has received numerous criticisms for blocking videos containing content from certain entertainment companies. YouTube has been criticized for heavy-handed censorship. Some allege that this censorship is xenophobic because it blocks people from enjoying foreign works because they lived in a foreign country where the content has been blocked.
YouTube has also been given feedback concerning other YouTube users embedding the headings for blocked content in view of increasing the views on their own videos which have no relevance to content uploaded into YouTube. The results appear in Google Search but not in the video content. This practice of blocking video content rather than removing content serves no purpose only to allow the propagation of blocked content throughout the Internet which may not happen if the material in question is removed.
YouTube launched a localized Pakistani version of its website for the users in Pakistan in order to censor content considered blasphemic by the Pakistani government as a part of its deal with the latter. The three-year ban on YouTube by Pakistani government was subsequently lifted.
In 2013, Google successfully prevented the Swedish Language Council from including the Swedish version of the word "ungoogleable" ("ogooglebar") in its list of new words. Google objected to its definition (which referred to web searches in general without mentioning Google specifically) and the Council was forced to remove it to avoid legal confrontation with Google. There have been accusations that Google is trying to control the Swedish language.
Google has been criticized for the high amount of energy used to maintain its servers, but was praised by Greenpeace for the use of renewable sources of energy to run them. Google has pledged to spend millions of dollars to investigate cheap, clean, renewable energy, and has installed solar panels on the roofs at its Mountain View facilities. In 2010, Google also invested $39 million in wind power.
Google has been criticized for not featuring Google Doodles for American patriotic holidays such as Memorial Day and Veterans Day prior to 2008, while featuring Doodles honoring less widely observed events such as World Water Day, Persian New Year, and China's Dragon Boat Festival. On the 68th anniversary of D-Day, a doodle commemorating the 79th anniversary of the first drive-in theater was used, and again on the 70th anniversary of D-Day, Google opted to honor a Japanese Go player, rather than the allied invasion of Normandy.
On March 31, 2013, controversy arose in the United States when Google opted to honor social activist Cesar Chavez with a Google Doodle, instead of marking Easter. On May 19, 2016, Google again faced criticism after featuring a doodle of Japanese-American Marxist civil rights activist Yuri Kochiyama, who openly supported repressive communist dictators such as Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh, convicted cop-killers such as Assata Shakur and Angela Davis, and Puerto Rican nationalists who opened fire inside the U.S. house of representatives. Detractors of Google's decision to feature Kochiyama specifically highlighted Kochiyama's explicit support of Osama Bin Laden, whom she called a "freedom fighter" and "one of the people that [she] admire[s]."
Google bus protests
In late 2013, activists in the San Francisco Bay Area began protesting the use of shuttle buses by Google and other tech companies, viewing them as symbols of gentrification and displacement in a city where the rapid growth of the tech sector has driven up housing prices.
On August 15, 2007 Google discontinued its Download-to-own/Download-to-rent (DTO/DTR) program. Some videos previously purchased for ownership under that program were no longer viewable when the embedded Digital Rights Management (DRM) licenses were revoked. Google gave refunds for the full amount spent on videos using "gift certificates" (or "bonuses") to their customers' "Google Checkout Account". After a public uproar, Google issued full refunds to the credit cards of the Google Video users without revoking the gift certificates.
Search within search
For some search results, Google provides a secondary search box that can be used to search within a website identified from the first search. It sparked controversy among some online publishers and retailers. When performing a second search within a specific website, advertisements from competing and rival companies often showed up together with the results from the website being searched. This has the potential to draw users away from the website they were originally searching. "While the service could help increase traffic, some users could be siphoned away as Google uses the prominence of the brands to sell ads, typically to competing companies." In order to combat this controversy, Google has offered to turn off this feature for companies who request to have it removed.
According to software engineer Ben Lee and Product Manager Jack Menzel, the idea for search within search originated from the way users were searching. It appeared that users were often not finding exactly what they needed while trying to explore within a company site. "Teleporting" on the web, where users need only type part of the name of a website into Google (no need to remember the entire URL) in order to find the correct site, is what helps Google users complete their search. Google took this concept a step further and instead of just "teleporting", users could type in keywords to search within the website of their choice.
Naming of Go programming language
Potential security threats
Google has been criticised for providing information that could potentially be useful to terrorists. In the UK during March 2010, Liberal Democrats MP Paul Keetch and unnamed military officers criticised Google for including pictures of the outside of the headquarters of the SAS at RAF Base Hereford, stating that terrorists might use this information to plan attacks, rather than having to drive past it themselves. Google responded that there was no appreciable security risk and that it had no intention of removing the pictures.
On Google Maps, street view and 360 degree images of military bases were removed at the Pentagon's request.
Despite being one of the world's largest and most influential companies, unlike many other technology companies, Google does not disclose its political spending. In August 2010, New York City Public Advocate, Bill de Blasio launched a national campaign urging the corporation to disclose all of its political spending.
Google sponsors several non-profit lobbying groups, such as the Coalition for a Digital Economy (Coadec) in the UK. Google has sponsored meetings of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute who have had speakers including libertarian Republican and Tea Party member, and Senator for Kentucky, Rand Paul.
In 2013, Google joined the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). In September 2014, Google chairman Eric Schmidt announced the company would leave ALEC for "lying" about climate change and "hurting our children."
There are many revolving door examples between Google and the U.S. government. This includes: 53 revolving door moves between Google and the White House; 22 former White House officials who left the administration to work for Google and 31 Google executives who joined the White House; 45 Obama for America campaign staffers leaving for Google or Google controlled companies; 38 revolving door moves between Google and government positions involving national security, intelligence or the Department of Defense; 23 revolving door moves between Google and the State Department; and 18 Pentagon officials moving to Google.
Where's the Fair Use?
On February 16, 2016, internet reviewer Doug Walker (The Nostalgia Critic) posted a video about his concerns related to YouTube's current copyright claiming system apparently being tipped in favor of those who make the claims rather than the creators, despite many of those videos being reported as covered under Fair Use laws. The video featured stories of other YouTubers' experiences with the copyright system, including fellow Channel Awesome producer Brad Jones, who received a strike on his channel for uploading a film review that took place in a parked car and contained no footage from the film itself. In the video, Walker encouraged other YouTubers and viewers to spread the message using the hashtag #WTFU (Where's the Fair Use?) on social media. The hashtag spread among multiple YouTubers, who gave their support to Walker and Channel Awesome and relaying their own stories of issues with YouTube's copyright system, including Dan Murrell of Screen Junkies, and Let's Play producers Mark Fishbach (Markiplier) and Seán William McLoughlin (Jacksepticeye).
Ten days later, on February 26, 2016, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki tweeted a link to a post from the YouTube Help Forum and thanked the community for bringing the issue to their attention. The post, written by a member of the YouTube Policy Team named Spencer (no last name was given), stated that they will be working to strengthen communication between creators and YouTube Support and "improvements to increase transparency into the status of monetization claims."
YouTube user comments
Most YouTube videos allow users to leave comments, and these have attracted attention for the negative aspects of both their form and content. In 2006, Time praised Web 2.0 for enabling "community and collaboration on a scale never seen before", and added that YouTube "harnesses the stupidity of crowds as well as its wisdom. Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred". The Guardian in 2009 described users' comments on YouTube as:
Juvenile, aggressive, misspelled, sexist, homophobic, swinging from raging at the contents of a video to providing a pointlessly detailed description followed by a LOL, YouTube comments are a hotbed of infantile debate and unashamed ignorance – with the occasional burst of wit shining through.
In September 2008, The Daily Telegraph commented that YouTube was "notorious" for "some of the most confrontational and ill-formed comment exchanges on the internet", and reported on YouTube Comment Snob, "a new piece of software that blocks rude and illiterate posts". The Huffington Post noted in April 2012 that finding comments on YouTube that appear "offensive, stupid and crass" to the "vast majority" of the people is hardly difficult.
On November 6, 2013, Google implemented a new comment system that requires all YouTube users to use a Google+ account to comment on videos, thereby making the comment system Google+-orientated. The corporation stated that the change is necessary to personalize comment sections for viewers, in response to an overwhelmingly negative public response—even YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim expressed disdain by writing on his channel: "why the fuck do I need a Google+ account to comment on a video?". The official YouTube announcement received over 59,000 "thumbs down" votes and only just over 3,300 "thumbs up" votes, while an online petition demanding Google+'s removal gained more than 230,000 signatures in just over two months. Writing in the Newsday blog Silicon Island, Chase Melvin noted: "Google+ is nowhere near as popular a social media network as Facebook, but it's essentially being forced upon millions of YouTube users who don't want to lose their ability to comment on videos." In the same article Melvin adds:
Perhaps user complaints are justified, but the idea of revamping the old system isn't so bad. Think of the crude, misogynistic and racially-charged mudslinging that has transpired over the last eight years on YouTube without any discernible moderation. Isn't any attempt to curb unidentified libelers worth a shot? The system is far from perfect, but Google should be lauded for trying to alleviate some of the damage caused by irate YouTubers hiding behind animosity and anonymity.
Mic Drop April fools joke
On April first, 2016, the Mic Drop April fools joke in Gmail caused real damages for users who accidentally clicked the button Google installed on that occasion.
- Don't be evil
- Google litigation
- High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation
- Filter bubble
- History of Google
- Criticisms of software and websites
- See: List of Google products.
- "Financial Tables". Google, Inc. Retrieved July 5, 2010.
- Vise, David A. (October 21, 2005). "Online Ads Give Google Huge Gain in Profit". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 14, 2010.
- Google Corporate Page, accessed October 17, 2011
- "Tax Research UK » The biggest threat to democracy comes from companies like Google". Tax Research UK.
- Simon Bowers. "MP on Google tax avoidance scheme: 'I think that you do evil'". the Guardian.
- "Budget 2015: 'Google Tax' introduction confirmed". BBC News.
- "Google's tax avoidance is called 'capitalism', says chairman Eric Schmidt". Telegraph.co.uk. December 12, 2012.
- Nikhil Kumar, Oliver Wright (December 13, 2012). "Google boss: I'm very proud of our tax avoidance scheme". The Independent.
- Simon Hoggart. "A highly taxing session with the public accounts committee – Simon Hoggart's sketch". the Guardian.
- Jesse Drucker (October 21, 2010). "Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes". Bloomberg.
Google is 'flying a banner of doing no evil, and then they're perpetrating evil under our noses,' said Abraham J. Briloff, a professor emeritus of accounting at Baruch College in New York who has examined Google's tax disclosures. 'Who is it that paid for the underlying concept on which they built these billions of dollars of revenues?' Briloff said. 'It was paid for by the United States citizenry.'
- Cade Metz (October 22, 2010). "Google slips $3.1bn through 'Double Irish' tax loophole". The Register.
Basically, Google licenses foreign rights to its intellectual property to an Irish subsidiary known as Google Ireland Holdings, and this outfit owns a separate subsidiary known as Google Ireland Limited. It's Google Ireland Limited – the second subsidiar – that actually sells advertising across the globe. Last year, it accounted for 88 per cent of Google's $12.5 billion in non-U.S. sales.
- "The Google Monopoly Begins". eWeek Microsoft Watch. December 20, 2007.
- "Europe Wants More Concessions From Google", James Kanter, New York Times, July 17, 2013
- Fabio, Michelle (September 13, 2011). "Is Google a Monopoly?". LegalZoom.
- "Google's Competitors Square Off Against Its Leader", Steve Lohr, New York Times, September 21, 2011
- "Is Google A Monopoly? 'We're In That Area,' Admits Schmidt", Matt Rosoff, Business Insider, September 21, 2011
- "Drafting Antitrust Case, F.T.C. Raises Pressure on Google", Steve Lohr, New York Times, October 12, 2012. Retrieved October 3, 2013.
- Mullins, Brody (24 March 2015). "Google Makes Most of Close Ties to White House". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 24 March 2015.
- Report on dangers and opportunities posed by large search engines, particularly Google, H. Maurer (Ed), Graz University of Technology, Austria, September 30, 2007, 187 pp. Retrieved October 3, 2013.
- Google's goal: to organize your daily life Financial Times
- Google and the Search for the Future Wall Street Journal
- Dan Levine (September 1, 2011). "Google wins antitrust victory in Ohio case". Reuters UK. Retrieved September 14, 2011.
- "Disappearing tycoon Souter blames Google". BBC News. September 12, 2011.
- J. Angelo Racoma, Alibaba: Aliyun OS is 'not a fork' of Android, Android authority September 17, 2012.
- Bogdan Petrovan, Google speaks up on the Acer/Alibaba affair, Android authority September 20, 2012.
- Hansell, Saul; John Markoff (June 22, 2004). "Google Edits Its Prospectus to Highlight Risk of Loss". The New York Times.
- "Corrections". The New York Times. June 25, 2004. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
- Farhad Manjoo (August 30, 2002). "Conspiracy Researcher Says Google's No Good". AlterNet. Retrieved December 12, 2009.
- "Why Daniel Brandt doesn't like Google PageRank", Chris Beasley, Google Watch Watch, accessed October 18, 2011
- "Google Commerce: Building a better shopping experience". Googlecommerce.blogspot.com. Retrieved October 30, 2012.
- "Have you been Scroogled Try Bing—we don't limit your shopping choices". scroogled.com.
- "Microsoft's Mark Penn Mistake – The tech giant is treating Google like a political rival".
- "Google Shopping Listings Will No Longer be Free to Advertisers | RKG Blog". Rimmkaufman.com. Retrieved October 30, 2012.
- Holbrook, Ben. "Paid Google Shopping – Another Step Towards Google's Master Plan". State of Search. Retrieved October 30, 2012.
- "France to oppose Google book scheme", Stanley Pignal, Financial Times, September 8, 2009
- "Google Print Faces More Opposition", Keith Regan, E-Commerce Times, August 30, 2005
- "A Copyright Complaint From China", Forbes, October 21, 2009. Retrieved November 17, 2013.
- "Progress in copyright talks with Google", Zhang Lei, Global Times (English edition), December 28, 2009. Retrieved November 17, 2013.
- "Google apologises to Chinese writers over book flap", Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 10, 2010. Retrieved November 17, 2013.
- "Google Pulls P2P Links Over Kazaa Copyright Claims", Jay Lyman, TechNewsWorld, September 2, 2003
- Gallagher, David F. (April 22, 2002). "New Economy; A copyright dispute with the Church of Scientology is forcing Google to do some creative linking". The New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
- Chris Tew (September 12, 2006). "Linking to infringing content is probably illegal in the US". WebTVWire. Retrieved October 12, 2006.
- See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google Inc. (2007) for a ruling that links do not constitute infringement. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes (2001), Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry (1999), and Comcast of Illinois X, LLC. v. Hightech Electronics, Inc. (2004) for three rulings that links are infringing.
- "Google cache raises copyright concerns", Stefanie Olsen, CNET News, July 9, 2003
- "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Blake A. Field vs. Google, Inc., No. CV-S-04-0413-RCJ-LRL", Judge Robert C. Jones, United States District Court (District of Nevada), January 12, 2006
- Memorandum & Order, Gordon Roy Parker v. Google, Inc., No. 04-CV-3918, Judge R. Barclay Surrick, United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania), March 10, 2006
- "Google Map Maker". Retrieved February 12, 2015.
- "We Need to Stop Google's Exploitation of Open Communities", Mikel Maron, April 11, 2011.
- "Google Map Maker". Retrieved February 12, 2015.
- "Why Google MapMaker is not Open", Mikel Maron, March 16, 2010.
- "Will We Ever Get Strong Internet Privacy Rules?". Time. March 5, 2012.
- Cade, Metz (December 7, 2009). "Google chief: Only miscreants worry about net privacy". The Register.
- "Google ranked 'worst' on privacy". BBC News. June 11, 2007.
- "Consultation Report: Race to the Bottom? 2007", Privacy International, June 9, 2007
- Delichatsios, Stefanie Alki; Sonuyi, Temitope, "Get to Know Google...Because They Know You", MIT, Ethics and Law on the Electronic Frontier, 6.805, December 14, 2005
- "No anonymity on future web says Google CEO". THINQ.co.uk. August 5, 2010. Retrieved August 7, 2010.
- Whittaker, Zack (December 12, 2012). "Google.com now 'censors' explicit content from image searches". ZDNet. Retrieved June 14, 2013.
- "Google Removes 'Bisexual' From Its List of Dirty Words", Michelle Garcia, Advocate.com, September 11, 2012. Retrieved March 14, 2014.
- "Google censors itself for China". BBC. January 25, 2006. Retrieved January 31, 2008.
- The Great Wall: China Against the World, 1000 BC–AD 2000, Julia Lovell, Grove/Atlantic, March 2007, ISBN 978-0-8021-4297-9
- "Google move 'black day' for China." BBC News. January 25, 2006.
- "Google quietly removed search warning message in China in early December 2012." Engadget. January 4, 2013
- "Google: Stop participating in China's Propaganda", Students for a Free Tibet, Yahoo! Groups, February 1, 2006
- AFX News (January 25, 2006). "Google bows to Chinese censorship with new search site". Forbes. Archived from the original on November 21, 2008.
- "3. Google, Inc." in Race to the Bottom': Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship, Part IV. How Multinational Internet Companies assist Government Censorship in China, Human Rights Watch, Vol. 18 No. 8(C), August 2006
Google does not censor:take action to defend freedom of information", Amnesty International, May 10, 2006
- "Google's "don't be evil" motto becomes a fig leaf (谷歌"不作恶"口号沦为遮羞布)". People's Daily. June 19, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2009. (English translation)
- "Investigating on Google China's obscene information, the public says "good"! (查处谷歌中国淫秽信息，公众都叫"好"！)". People's Daily. June 26, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2009. (English translation)
- 卫敏丽 (June 19, 2009). "Relevant departments punished "Google China"'s dissemination of obscene information by law (有关部门对"谷歌中国"传播淫秽色情信息行为依法处罚)". xinhuanet. Retrieved June 26, 2009. (English translation)
- Scott Shane and Andrew W. Lehren (November 28, 2010). "Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy". The New York Times. Retrieved December 26, 2010.
- "A new approach to China", David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Official Google Blog, January 12, 2010
- "A new approach to China". Google Inc. January 12, 2010. Retrieved January 17, 2010.
- "Google's strategy in China deserves praise". Kansas City Star. March 28, 2010. Archived from the original on April 1, 2010. Retrieved September 29, 2012.
- A new approach to China: an update", David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Official Google Blog, March 22, 2010
- Nicholas Carlson (March 22, 2010). "BREAKING: Google Pulls Search Engine Out Of China". Business Insider.
- Brian Womack (March 23, 2010). "Google Ends Self-Censorship, Defies China Government (Update4)". Bloomberg News.
- "Google Somewhat Lifts Oceana Ad Ban". WebProNews. May 17, 2004.
- "Google AdSense Program Policies". Google. May 27, 2011.
- Simon, Caldwell (April 9, 2008). "Christian group sues Google after search engine refuses to take its anti-abortion adverts". Daily Mail (London).
[Google's] Dublin-based advertising team replied: At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content.'
- "Google OKs Religious Groups' Abortion Ads – ABC News". Abcnews.go.com. September 18, 2008. Retrieved October 30, 2012.
- "Google murders second Anonymous AdSense account", Cade Metz, The Register, August 15, 2008
- "Google AdSense Program Policies", AdSense Help, Google Inc.
- Turn Off the Blue Light Archived June 2, 2013, at the Wayback Machine., website
- Paterson, Jody (June 24, 2011). "Google tramples sex workers' rights". Victoria Times-Colonist.
- Cusack, Jim (August 7, 2011). "Google u-turn on sex worker group's advert". Sunday Independent.
- No Sex Party please, we're Google Sydney Morning Herald September 13, 2012
- "YouTube Community Guidelines". YouTube. Retrieved May 9, 2007.
- "like this one".
- Rosen, Jeffrey (November 30, 2008). "Google's Gatekeepers". New York Times.
- Ribeiro, John (February 25, 2008). "Pakistan causes worldwide YouTube blackout". Macworld UK. Retrieved December 23, 2010.
- "Pakistan Drops YouTube Ban", CBS News/AP, February 11, 2009
- "Pakistan welcomes back YouTube", Greg Sandoval, CNET News Blogs, February 26, 2008
- "YouTube shuts down Egyptian anti-torture activist's account". Cable News Network. November 29, 2007.
- "YouTube reinstates account of Egyptian human rights activist". The CNN Wire: Friday, Nov. 30 (Cable News Network). November 30, 2007.
- "YouTube stops account of Egypt anti-torture activist", Cynthia Johnston, Reuters, November 27, 2007
- "American Life League video yanked by YouTube". Catholic News Agency. February 12, 2008.
- "YouTube Concedes Error in Banning American Life League's Pro-Life Video". PR Newswire. United Business Media. February 14, 2008.
- Beckford, Martin (October 3, 2008). "YouTube censors comedian's anti-Sharia video called 'Welcome to Saudi Britain'". The Daily Telegraph (London).
- "Update: Welcome to Saudi Britain...". ReligiousWatch.com. October 5, 2008.
- Rosen, Jeffrey (November 30, 2008). "Google's Gatekeepers". The New York Times.
- The Googlization of Everything (and Why We Should Worry), Siva Vaidhyanatan, University of California Press, 2011, page 39, ISBN 978-0-520-25882-2
- Network, The Dawn/Asia News. "YouTube back in Pakistan with vague transparency". technology.inquirer.net. Retrieved 2016-03-01.
- "What will Pakistanis see on YouTube?". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 2016-03-01.
- Fanning, Sean (March 26, 2013). "Google gets ungoogleable off Sweden's new word list". BBC News (BBC). Retrieved April 5, 2013.
- Williams, Rob (March 26, 2013). "'Ungoogleable' removed from list of Swedish words after row over definition with Google: California based search engine giant asked Swedish to amend definition". The Independent. Retrieved April 5, 2013.
- Irvine, Chris (March 25, 2013). "Sweden rows with Google over term 'ungoogleable'". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved April 5, 2013.
- "Keyword: Evil", Ginger Strand, Harpers Magazine, March 2008
- Online Cloud Services Rely on Coal or Nuclear Power, Report Says, New York Times
- Google to enter clean-energy business CNET News, November 2007
- Google's Next Frontier: Renewable Energy New York Times, November 2007
- Neate, Rupert (May 5, 2010). "Google blows $39m into wind power". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved May 25, 2010.
- Puzzanghera, Jim (October 9, 2007). "Tweaks send Google critics into orbit". Los Angeles Times.
- Schwartz, Barry (June 6, 2012). "D-Day vs The First Drive-In Theater? Google Picks Theater". Search Engine Round Table.
- Mulshine, Molly (June 6, 2014). "D'oh: Google Deletes Non-D-Day Doodle – They accidentally honored a Japanese Go player instead". The New York Observer. Retrieved June 17, 2015.
- Cavna, Michael (March 31, 2013). "Google criticized for not marking Easter; company says 'it's difficult for us to choose'". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 17, 2015.
- Matthews, Dylan (May 19, 2016). "Yuri Kochiyama, today’s Google Doodle, fought for civil rights — and praised Osama bin Laden". Vox. Retrieved May 19, 2016.
- Neff, Blake (May 19, 2016). "Google Honors Bin Laden Supporter With Google Doodle". The Daily Caller. Retrieved May 19, 2016.
- Ross, Janell (May 19, 2016). "Google commemorates a very controversial civil-rights figure, Yuri Kochiyama". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 19, 2016.
- "Activists Accuse Tech Community of Throwing San Francisco Under the Bus", David Streitfeld, New York Times, January 21, 2014. Retrieved March 22, 2014.
- Gumbel, Andrew (January 25, 2014). "San Francisco's guerrilla protest at Google buses swells into revolt". The Guardian. Retrieved August 31, 2014.
- "Is Google DRM crippling culture as great as it seems?", Ashlee Vance, The Register, January 8, 2006
- "Google Video robs customers of the videos they "own"", Cory Doctorow, boingboing, August 10, 2007
- "Google Pulls Plug, Everyone Misses Point", John C. Dvorak, PC Magazine (online), August 14, 2007
- Nick Stamoulis (March 24, 2008). "Why Companies Are Upset With Google's Search-Within-Search". SEO Blog (Search Engine Optimization Journal).
- Tedeschi, Bob (March 24, 2008). "A New Tool From Google Alarms Sites". New York Times.
- Regan, Keith (March 24, 2008). "Google's Search-Within-Search Draws Scutiny". E-Commerce Times.
- Francis McCabe (fmccabe) (November 10, 2009). "Issue 9 – go -I have already used the name for *MY* programming language".
- Thomas Claburn (November 11, 2009). "Google 'Go' Name Brings Accusations Of 'Evil'". InformationWeek.
- John Brownlee (November 13, 2009). "Google didn't google "Go" before naming their programming language". geek.com.
- "Fury as Google puts the SAS's secret base on Street View in 'very serious security breach'". Daily Mail (London). March 19, 2010.
- Eric Ogren (March 7, 2008). "Google Caves To Pentagon Wishes". Information Week.
- Bill de Blasio (August 5, 2010). "Make Google Disclose". Office of the New York City Public Advocate. Retrieved October 3, 2013.
- Orlowski, Andrew. "Why DOES Google lobby so much?" The Register, July 23, 2012.
- "Anatomy of a Washington dinner: Who funds the Competitive Enterprise Institute?", Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, June 20, 2013. Retrieved March 22, 2014.
- Solomon, Norman (October 10, 2013). "Google: Doing Evil with ALEC". Daily Kos. Retrieved November 8, 2013.
- Swanson, David (December 6, 2013). "Funding ALEC – I Googled "Evil" And It Took Me to Google". Counterpunch.org. Retrieved December 6, 2013.
- Surgey, Nick (December 6, 2013). "Google Moves Right By Funding ALEC & Heritage Action". The Real News Network. Retrieved December 6, 2013.
- Brad Johnson (September 23, 2014). "Google Drops American Legislative Exchange Council Over Climate Denial: 'They're Literally Lying'". Hill Heat.
- Dayen, David. "Google's unusually close relationship with the White House raises lots of questions". Mashable. Retrieved 2016-05-03.
- "Google’s Remarkably Close Relationship With the Obama White House, in Two Charts". The Intercept. Retrieved 2016-05-10.
- Tamburro, Paul (February 17, 2016). "Prominent YouTubers Ask "Where’s the Fair Use?" in Backlash Against Site". Crave Online. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
- Murrell, Dan (February 16, 2016). "Dan Murrell on Twitter". Twitter. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
- "Time's Person of the Year: You", Time, December 13, 2006
- Paul Owen. "Our top 10 funniest YouTube comments – what are yours?". the Guardian. Retrieved February 12, 2015.
- "YouTube's worst comments blocked by filter", Daily Telegraph, September 2, 2008
- Rundle, Michael (April 7, 2012). "Policing Racism Online: Liam Stacey, YouTube And The Law Of Big Numbers". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 1, 2012.
- Stuart Dredge (November 7, 2013). "YouTube aims to tame the trolls with changes to its comments section". The Guardian. Retrieved November 16, 2013.
- Alex Hern (November 8, 2013). "YouTube co-founder hurls abuse at Google over new YouTube comments". The Guardian. Retrieved November 16, 2013.
- YouTube Help (November 6, 2013). "Meet the new YouTube comments" (Video upload). YouTube. Google Inc. Retrieved November 16, 2013.
- "YouTube Founder Blasts New YouTube Comments: Jawed Karim Outraged At Google Plus Requirement", Ryan W. Neal, International Business Times, November 8, 2013. Retrieved November 9, 2013.
- Chase, Melvin (November 20, 2013). "YouTube comments require Google+ account, Google faces uproar". Newsday. (subscription required) Alternate link.
- "Google joins Facebook in trying to prevent IAMAI from taking strong anti-Zero Rating stand". MediaNama. August 20, 2015.
- "Pakistan v/s Google Products" Blogspot Down in Pakistan.
- "Google's Email Service 'Gmail' Sacrifices Privacy for Extra Storage Space", Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, April 2, 2004
- "Privacy Group Flunks Google", Lisa Vaas, eWeek.com, June 12, 2007
- "Who's afraid of Google?", The Economist, August 30, 2007
- "10 reasons to turn Google Buzz off", Mushon Zer-Aviv, Mushon.com, February 17, 2010
- "Googlist Realism: The Google-China saga and the free-information regimes as a new site of cultural imperialism and moral tensions", Tricia Wang, Cultural Bytes, June 29, 2010
- "Google faces a 3 billion euro antitrust fine", Google faces a 3 billion euro antitrust fine