Come on now people, I know you’re smarter than that. Regardless of the individual preferences of the individuals who run Google, there are large-scale forces that shape a large-scale organization. It is possible to have a company run by a very nice person, yet that company, following its own institutional logic, might still commit evil. I’d argue that any monopoly will stifle innovation, and it doesn’t matter how nice or smart the people are who run the company.

Chris,

I believe I told you in person recently that I had commented at the BlogOn conference in July 2004 that Google was essentially Microsoft from about 10-15 years ago (that would be from 1989-1994 at the time). Chris diBona was there and took great offense at my statement. But certainly from the outside perspective, there appear to be similar levels of optimism, overconfidence, everything-we-do-is-good-for-the-world, and a growing sense of elitism, cockiness, and just plain arrogance. There are also some key differences. Being in “the Valley”, I think Google folks may be exposed more often to non-Google perspectives and may be more aware of the growing outside perceptions. In addition, I personally know several Google folks who are not only very smart, but also very down to earth, pragmatic, approachable, and just plain nice. Folks like Ian Hickson, Matt Cutts, the Blogger folks (Jason Shellen, Jason Goldman, Eric Case etc.), Jen Bradburn, Aubrey Sabala, and of course Orkut himself. I’m sure there are plenty of others too that are perhaps too afraid of the “keep all secrets at all costs” attitude to interact openly with outsiders.

The term “Microsoft 2.0″ might be your summary though, as I don’t remember saying that. I have also heard folks say that Google is attempting to build “Yahoo 2.0″. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle? Here’s to hoping that the smart down to earth nice people win out over the smart arrogant elitist people.

Tantek

The problem is that when cost is measured exclusively in dollars and sense, it’s easy to think that that means “zero cost to me” when in fact that’s far from the truth.

What about this: how much do you value your privacy? How much is it worth to you? A study suggests that women will tell some random person their weight for no less than $20. Offer $15, they won’t tell you. Offer $10, nothing. But $20, that’s apparently the price of privacy for some folks.

Anyway — Google “giving you” free wifi isn’t the issue. The issue is with the commercial monopolization of infrastructure that will eventually become as necessary as our sewer system. Just as the sewer systems trasmit water and refuge from point A to point B, it will be the WiFi networks of the future that will transmit all of the data from points A to points B.

And Google should not be given a free pass to own that destiny.

The long term costs — to go back to that false notion of “free” — to us, citizens of the United States — will be huge. Let’s face it, replacing one hegemony with another doesn’t actually democratize anything. Which is why, when it comes to ubiquitous WiFi, we need choices.

And you can, if not, must do something about this. Whether it’s blogging about it (which Joshua has already done), telling your friends, demanding that your favorite internet service providers take a stand on network neutrality or whether you hook up with service like FON and build your own ad hoc network and share it with your neighbors. These are all things you can do — and no, for chrissake — it’s not too late!

Yo,
This may be a old issue for yall, but after reading FactoryCity which is Chris Messina’s blog. he mentioned it which led me to the article from the Washington Post.
I was reading where ATT was complaining about companys who free ride off ther…

I agree that Google Should not be able to control WIFI, but with what Steve said what can we do about it? Also I do think it is free…