October 12, 2007

What Hath Google Wrought

 

 go ogle

The quote, "what hath God wrought" comes from Numbers 23:23, about the Israelites, but it was popularized by Samuel Morse when he sent it as the first message over the telegraph.

I've been telling everyone who will listen to buy Google-- it's up 140 points since I wrote about it a month ago-- because it is more than an investment, it is a paradigm shift.


 

Others have described the typical fears of a Google world-- boiled down, essentially, to "everything gets saved, and everything can be searched."

While true, there are nuances missing that are worth describing explicitly.  Buckle up.

First, four basics: 

1. Google is more than search; Adsense is much more than ads. Google records every search you make-- time, date, which links you chose, time between clicks, etc.  It's a relatively simple matter to piece together a profile of the user, even without knowing the identity of the user, which Google knows anyway.  But Google also has a general ability to know what websites you visit, independent of search.  See those Google Adsense ads? They're javascript: every time the webpage loads, a request is sent to Google for the  immediate creation of an ad, based on the contents of that page.  If that page sends a request, then Google knows that you are there, at that moment;  when you came, how long you stay, where you went next, etc.  And yes, the information is recorded without you clicking on the ad.  It is a technically easy process to follow an IP address across the internet, as it hits Adsense pages.

2. Google is the default backup of the internet.  Read that again.

Every page Google's bots crawls is cached on their servers.   In other words, they have a copy of most pages on the internet.  You may try to delete something from the internet, but once Google saw it, it's on their servers forever.  There is also considerable redundancy: if you upload a pic to your site, it is in Google's cache, but also Google's cache of anyone else who used your pic.

Here's an example: there's a story about a woman upset because the Google van (which takes street level photos for use with their maps) caught a picture of her cat in the window.  She wanted the picture removed.  Removed?  From where?  She doesn't get it, she thinks Google has the photo paperclipped to the inside of a manila folder.  You can't remove it, it's not a possession,  you can't take it back-- it's like the spoken word and the spent arrow, it is past tense.  It's not just at Google Maps; it is at BoingBoing, and at Google's cache of BoingBoing...

You know all those closed circuit cameras?  Some of them are online.  Look, here are some, live.  Guess what? Now they're on Google, too.

3a. Google is an accidental monopoly...

People complained that Microsoft forced people to use their products by linking them with other products.  For example, Internet Explorer was the browser because it came with Windows.  Google, however, can't help being the end product of the internet.  Consider email: you can choose to use Yahoo! Mail and not GMail because you are worried that Google keeps all Gmails.  Fine; but if you email to someone with GMail, Google stores a copy and knows what you wrote, but now also knows your IP and email address; consequently, it knows other sites you've visited.  Etc.

Imagine the post office copied every letter it handled, and could cross reference the contents of those letters with other databases: calendar; credit card/online purchases, physical location,  etc.   Scary?  Now imagine that the post office housed those databases.

3b. ...that cannot die. 

Everyone worries about Google's growth, but who is worrying about its demise?  Google has so much data that it actually takes up real estate all over the world.  Let's say Google goes out of business.  Who gets all those servers?  All that data?  Who gets a copy of the world, on the cheap? Whoever it is doesn't have to give us satellite photos anymore.  What can you do with satellite photos that no one else has?  Who gets to decide how to control all that data?


4. Don't Be Evil. 

Well, okay, that's good advice, I guess, but what happens when the subpoenas come?  Or the Russians invade?   Or the Chinese commandeer/hack Google servers-- some of which are actually in China?  Discussions about the legal aspects of privacy aside, if something exists, it can be found.  Even if it's just a disgruntled organ donor at the Googleplex who decides to fork over terabytes of data to the highest bidder.  An organization-- a security organization-- is only as strong as the weakest person. Go to the Googleplex and park your car.  Do you see any potential weak links? I sure do.

As a quick example of how crippling this information can be:  Google has recorded the surfing habits of every employee of Microsoft, including Bill Gates.  And of two Presidents.  And the Pope. 

The Missing Piece

The above three are well known, if maybe a little paranoid.  But what is so important, and never discussed, is this: Google will be around for another 100 years.  At least.

So when I say that it knows everything, it knows everything across time.  It doesn't just have insights into your character; it has insights into your character as you age, and the character of your family line.

 

Social Ramifications:

Used to be, "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog."  Well, now everyone knows. But worse, there's no hierarchy of identity.  You may think you're Chariman of Oncology who occasionally played World of Warcraft 7 years ago.  But if a Google search reveals 10 hits about WoW, and only one of being a doctor, then guess what? You're a nut.

The narcissism I always refer to is characterized by a vital need to self-identify.  You want to pick an identity, and you want others to accept it even in the absence of facts or behavior.  "I read Hegel, I'm an intellectual."  No, you're a coffeehouse agitator.  I can tell by the undershirt.  What Google has done is to make this self-identification impossible.  Before, you could be exposed only if someone took the time and effort to background check you.  Soon-- hell, now-- it will require no effort.  When the brooding artist-type you met at Starbucks calls you up to deride romantic comedies, inauthentic japanese food, and Ambercrombie and Fitch, but your cell phone shows you a picture of his (read: parent's) house in Irvine, well, that pretty much ends that, doesn't it?

Apparently, incoming college freshmen already know their future classmates through Facebook.  Worse: the parents know their kids' future classmates.  Remember the clean start college gave you?  Well, forget it.


Parenting:

The focus is on who is monitoring our children.  What are they up to?

Well, think about this: your kids are investigating you.

Remember that time when your mom was 19 and she was in that wet t-shirt contest?  No?  Well, your kids will get to remember yours in AVI format.  Oh, and that DUI conviction?  Remember that vapid comment you posted on the Daily Kos? (Hint: ten years from now a high school freshman will cringe at its inanity.)   And, lo, the IP address search.  How did your IP end up on pornotron.org?  (Yes, the non-profit.)

Did you realize that your future daughter in law will be checking you out? "Billy, did you know eight years ago your Dad...?" This didn't occur to you?  Then I guess it didn't occur to you that your son's reply will be, "Sigh. Yeah. I knew."

(As an aside, the very fact that you are surprised by the possibility that your kids are googling you is evidence of the cultural narcissism I'm always referring to.  You are the parent, your child is yours, you monitor and control it-- it doesn't occur to you that they can exert the same power over you.)

Parenting has always required a degree of acting.  You can't be an effective parent if there is not at least the illusion of moral superiority; children rely on an unchanging moral stance to be able to test limits and to establish a superego.  While it isn't a disaster that your kid knows you smoked pot in high school, it doesn't help.  But it is a far worse when your kid learns it without your contextualization.  Consider: "Son, I smoked pot, but..." vs. reading an email when you were 20 where you recommend it to a girl you're trying to bed...

Google compresses time.  What you did might feel like it was a long time ago, but your kids "experience" that memory immediately.  Additionally, they are raised in a world where the past never disappears, so they do not connect with your language of "a long time ago."   For this reason, identity will be fixed at an earlier age.

Look deeply into your childrens' faces.  You will never remember them as well, as accurately, as they remember you.

Medicine:

It's beyond me that no one else has mentioned this.

Google wants to set up a system for online medical records, so that they can be "transported"-- accessed by all the various medical providers in your life.  This is not even great in theory.

First, does anyone remember the Seinfeld episode where Elaine gets labeled in the chart as a problem patient?  And every time she tries to change doctors, the chart follows her, and she can't get anyone to work with her?  Let me assure you that in psychiatry this already happens even without the chart.  If you want to ensure a two tiered system of medicine, enact medical record portability.

Next, medical records will thus be searchable, like GMail.  See all those Zoloft ads?  Guess why.  Think drug reps know too much about doctors prescribing habits?  How about how they will know the demographic characteristics-- diagnoses x epidemiology x financial status x etc--  of the patients he treats?  

But the worst is this: genomics.  It's not too far away that doctors will be running genetic tests as often as they run CBCs.  Where is that going to be recorded?  Imagine that your DNA can be cross referenced with your surfing habits.  And your kids' DNA with your surfing habits.  Imagine the preposterous world where Google "Adsense" predicts what products your kids might be interested in based on your life cycle...  (Update:  23andMe.)

Here's a scary, sad, non-porn example: "Mom, why am I getting so many ads for breast cancer prevention?"

Think how good a Google search is using only a few keywords.  There is no reason why Google can't suggest to you state of the art, or at least evidence based, treatments, tailored as well as possible to the information in your medical records.   So much for doctors.  At best they retain their importance as diagnosticians.  (Oh, and how much more accurate if the Google medical records happen to link up to your numerous emails that begin, "oh my God, I was so wasted last night...")

Look, people, I'm not saying Google will do it; I'm saying that it is no additional effort at all to do it.

Memory

You know the hippocampus?  You won't need it where we're going.

Memory takes practice.  I can remember the phone number of almost everyone I meet, because I practiced that skill.  Most people are the opposite, however, because they directly dial much less often.  Same with my calendar (in my head vs. PDA.) And if you don't remember someone's phone or address, you can always google him.

I don't know anyone who quotes whole passages from books anymore.  Very few even know any poems.  Pretty soon, we won't be so great at memorizing 10 digits at a time; or directions; or names.  This isn't a bad or good thing, but it will be different.  Factual memory will be less important than "feeling," "experience."   "That was an awesome party."  Yeah, who was at it? "Hold on a second, I'll tell you exactly..."

Soon, you won't need to remember anything about "him." You want to call him?  Say, "call that guy, red hair, worked at the gas station..." and he'll answer.

Here's a crazy idea: that guy walking towards you that you don't remember?  His "device"-- cell phone/PDA/GPS/brain implant signals your device, and instantly not only do you now remember who he is, but you know a lot of other stuff about him you didn't know before.  Solid.

General facts will no longer be rehearsed, learned, because they can be immediately accessed.  I don't mean go-to-your-laptop-and-search immediately, I mean wristwatch, or earpiece, or contact lens immediately.

(A propos of testing: multiple choice has to vanish. All education now has to be essay.)

Not just that, but access will be faster.  Question: how important is it to prevent memory loss in dementia, when they can access the memory instantly?  So recall (e.g. Ach?) won't be important: processing skills (DA and Glut?) will be important.  Maybe that's a good thing.

Mobile Search

I know, it's about target ads.  Ok.  What do you have when you have infinite storage capabilities, and voice recognition search software (e.g., Google 411)?  You have a permanent database of everyone's voice. Across time, under different circumstances.  Across generations.  And always tagged with all your other information.  So when Google hears your voice through someone else's phone while on vacation in France, or on a CCTV, or whatever-- it can helpfully say, "oh, that's Bill, he likes cooking and Asian porn, let me send him some targeted ads!"

It's Taking Over The World, You May As Well Profit From It

A lot of people think Google, at 620, is overvalued.  They're not just wrong, they are casualties.  It has a $200b market cap; it has $13b in cash, and no debt.  It grosses $6b in profits a year, margins of 30%, and it's growing at 30% a year.  It has time on its side.

I've long argued we are moving towards feudalism, away from national governments.  Google is already gunning for the top spot. 

Oh, I know, Google is just a big advertising company.  That has satellite photos of the entire world that they artificially worsen because the U.S. Government doesn't think you should be allowed to have it.

What saves us, today, is that Google is a relatively small company run, really, by three people.  But if it grows too big- if it becomes like an oil company, with tentacles into politics and world affairs and everything else-- in other words, if it becomes a lord-- you can just change the motto from "Don't Be Evil" to "Don't Be a Sucker." And then look out.


(long GOOG, obviously.) 






Comments

It is on my reading list-- ... (Below threshold)

October 12, 2007 6:55 PM | Posted by Lexi: | Reply

It is on my reading list-- Transparent Society by David Brin talks about just that- what happens when everything is knowable?

My boyfriend and I are both *always* right, so when we disagree, especially about factual stuff, Google really helps settle our arguments. We typically bet a kiss as to who will win.

Heh... imagine if/when we have those contact lenses and ear pieces etc . . . how the technology will change the way couples argue. It will be interesting.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
A fabulous article... (Below threshold)

October 12, 2007 6:58 PM | Posted by Liam: | Reply

A fabulous article

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Um, did you like say, Ir... (Below threshold)

October 12, 2007 8:16 PM | Posted by Stephany: | Reply

Um, did you like say, Irvine?.
Trackable and lovable Google.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
But can google trace your I... (Below threshold)

October 12, 2007 10:04 PM | Posted by Steve: | Reply

But can google trace your Ip to your actual identity?

And what about VPN's and proxy servers?

Alone's response: not directly, but sort of. If you used your IP coupled with your identity (an email, etc) then yes. And proxies are only as good as their lawyers (see anon.penet.fi) and how they record the transaction.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Hi, Doctor -- I've enjoyed ... (Below threshold)

October 13, 2007 2:51 AM | Posted by Shaan: | Reply

Hi, Doctor -- I've enjoyed your posts ever since I discovered your blog, several months ago, and I appreciate the time you take out of your schedule to write up your thoughts.

I'd like to make a request for a future entry -- and this question may be simplistic or stupid -- but why is narcissism bad, specifically? What can be expected from the narcissistic personality? I have the uneasy feeling that I've missed something important.

Alone's respone: leaving aside why it's bad to the person who has it, it's bad to everyone close to them because it is a disorder of excessive control. More later...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Yeah, proxies are vulnerabl... (Below threshold)

October 13, 2007 4:06 AM | Posted by Fargo: | Reply

Yeah, proxies are vulnerable, and slow, and I don't know of anything like an anonymous VPN service, so it's going to be something related to you. Don't forget irritating and non-constant. You'll lapse on using it, which will actually improve the cross referencing algorithms over time.

Besides, it's dubious how proxy-enabled ipV6 is going to really be, and eventually we'll all have to wrestle onto that.

As for memory, that's something I've been pondering for a long time. The biggest problem with straight up fact recall, regardless of source, is that it promotes nothing in the way of procedure. I can troubleshoot a computer every which way, because I understand it, and deductive reasoning has always been important to me. I've constantly worked with and met people in the same role as me that can merely recite a list of fixes, and if those don't work they're totally at a loss. Don't get me wrong, this has nothing, at the root, to do with the information age, but easy access to more specific information can't help but amplify that sort of learning in those prone to it. Solutions stripped of context.

Still, I for one welcome our new insect overlords.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
and each and every one of u... (Below threshold)

October 13, 2007 7:52 AM | Posted by ned ludd III: | Reply

and each and every one of us has to assess each day whether it is "worth it" to willingly submit ourselves to this surveillance. but that's not even the main issue--it is my hope that the surveillance issue raises deeper questions about the ways technology(/ies) affect our lives, our thinking, our memory, the 'conditions of meaning'... etc.
I think you are wrong to say that all of this information will reveal some lie that we tell others about ourselves... the coffeehouse agitator may truly be an intellectual, a self-taught Hegel expert, or the romantic comedy hater may truly be a romantic comedy hater whose internet history incldes purchases of romantic comedies-- because that's teh thing about the internet or, rather, about information as it is stored in literate societies: it is not joined by a context that gives it meaning. Thus, its not that, as you say, there is no "hierarchy of identity" but the opposite- the internet privileges identity only as it is manifested in the terms, conditions, and logic of the internet. so not only does it not report to you the solid 4 hours a day the coffeehouse duded spends reading Hegel on his back porch, but it doesnt tell you that the romantic comedy dude bought those dvds for his mother who is lying ill in a house in Irvine.... AND, to top it all off, it acknowledges that such information exists but only to place it in that hierarchy of identity that deprioritizes it. schwing!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"I don't know of anything l... (Below threshold)

October 13, 2007 11:51 AM | Posted by Steve: | Reply

"I don't know of anything like an anonymous VPN"

How about www.secureix.com?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
If you were a patient, ever... (Below threshold)

October 13, 2007 4:00 PM | Posted by Jayme: | Reply

If you were a patient, everything you wrote would be considered yet another symptom of your paranoid schizophrenia. Sorry, just had to throw in my infamous anti-psychiatry slant. Great article, btw :o)


Alone's response: a psychiatric nurse once told me, "you're a paranoid fucker living in a world of madness." Well, gee, 'no, thanks' would have sufficed!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Wow, this is what I have be... (Below threshold)

October 14, 2007 11:17 PM | Posted by Swivelchair: | Reply

Wow, this is what I have been too afraid to say out loud -- Google is taking over. Yes, long GOOG.

Not to overstate things, but Google looks like it is aiming to own all communication infrastructure as well as the data.

Google is
-- buying up "dark fiber", like under the Pacific;
-- having a go at Wifi (spotty);
-- making noise about the FCC spectrum auction -- if you buy it you have to be open source (which knocks out the telecoms);
-- going mobile, cellular, satellite, u-name it.

There is speculation that Google is making a "parallel" internet with its own end-to-end infrastructure.

Agree -- the thing that bugs me (apart from privacy, but you can opt-out or anonymize) is that a small group of men in a closed room are making the decisions (the class"B" shareholders, founders and early investors who get 10 votes per share where class A gets 1 vote per share). IMO, organizations run by a small group of men in secret in a closed room always amount to no good. (A totally unscientific bias of mine).

Your blog is great and thanks for this post on Google

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
re: Medical Portability... (Below threshold)

October 18, 2007 2:33 PM | Posted by Nate: | Reply

re: Medical Portability

Why are you writing on charts that so-and-so is a difficult patient? There's no reason to do so. There are good reasons not to do so.

Not that you can't tell from reading between the lines, but it's a lot more work. Multiplied by all your patients?

At the very least, instant access to medical history is good in theory. How many DNRs have been tubed? How many patients have suffered through days of narcotics withdrawal? How many contraindicated therapies have occurred? For something timely, how many ER patients have been exposed to MRSA?

If technology (genomics) increases the risk of such portability, then it increases the benefit as well. If you're at risk for alcoholism, then there's no problem with drawing some enzymes on an unrelated admission, just to make sure you're doing okay. If you're at risk for diabetes, then let's do a fingerstick after you've been NPO for a bit, and maybe we'll discover something interesting. And those are the easy ones, that we could almost already be doing. (And, conversely, what sort of invasive procedures could we be _avoiding_ with more information about risk?)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wow, Googles' stock is up u... (Below threshold)

October 19, 2007 10:06 AM | Posted by Sally: | Reply

Wow, Googles' stock is up up up. You are indeed correct. My concern about transparent medical records is the potential for misdiagnosis to be perpetuated if no doctor ever looks at your ailment with a fresh perspective, and of course errors in the charts and of course the risk that once a patient's history is in the big database, it will never be taken or updated again so folks at 50 will be treated for their self reports at 25. On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin so I suppose it would be good to have a record of that if I were every unconscious and in need of emergency antibiotics - of course there's a pretty small chance of my being unconscious and in need of emergency antibiotics.

The no secrets thing will be interesting. Imagine having the complete medical file of anyone accused of a crime. Imagine how accurate self reports of symptoms will be in psychiatric evaluations when "patients" know everything they tell their doctor will become a matter of public record.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
What about Microsoft?... (Below threshold)

October 19, 2007 11:51 AM | Posted by Japherwocky: | Reply

What about Microsoft?

As I understand it, Google's move to store medical records was a response to Microsoft's initiative to do the same.

To get to Google, most people go through Microsoft (a la Windows, Internet Explorer) first.

Are we going to get massive, competing, databases of everything?

MSFT's initiative collapsed as far as I know, but your point is well taken. The difference, however, is that Goog controls other key databases. You have a choice whether to install a windows product on your computer; but in essence you have no ability to avoid Google websites becaue an interaction with someone else who is on Google means that you are, also.

A while ago Choicepoint, a data mining company, disclosed that their databases had been opened (stolen/leaked, I can't remember.) But Choicepoint, etc, are only as good as the information they go out and ask for. Not Goog.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
For the 2nd time I "dugg" t... (Below threshold)

October 26, 2007 6:08 PM | Posted by Steve: | Reply

For the 2nd time I "dugg" this story and... nothing.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Out of curiosity, wouldn't ... (Below threshold)

November 4, 2007 11:35 PM | Posted by Erik Watson: | Reply

Out of curiosity, wouldn't programs like the FireFox add-on, AdBlockPlus, which just doesn't accept data from certain domain ranges (effectively blocking out adverts online), stop Google from being able to track you with the methods mentioned?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You are literally deluding ... (Below threshold)

February 11, 2008 5:21 AM | Posted by Paranoid Privateer ;): | Reply

You are literally deluding yourself with the technical abilities of G. I considered /.-ing your story only as "what drives G stock up", but it will get easily dismissed there.

Many people have net access from home via dynamic IP. Will Verizon sell their IP to physical logs to G? Will they lose customers if they do so? Will my department's IT staff sell the proxy logs? On a regular basis, and not get caught/fired/prosecuted? It's probably far easier to get my cell phone logs.

And don't mention cookies. They get reset. Every few days. Trivial browser setting. Don't use Gmail for anything "real world". I have a colleague that uses two different browsers: one for work and one for everything else. I use VMs. One case where convenience and privacy go hand in hand.

Btw, how much faith do YOU have in Domains by Proxy? Once that kind of information gets leaked, it stays that way. Assume your blog pissed of a Pharma company. Do you really think they could not have your identity at the drop of a hat?
http://www.news.com/Private-domains-not-so-private/2100-1038_3-5833663.html
"But the company said that despite its marketing efforts, DBP is under no legal obligation to maintain its customers' privacy."

Many people trade convenience for privacy easily these days. Frankly, long NWS (MySpace) if want to bet that won't change.

I saw a (private) psychiatrist a couple of years back. He had a nice Tablet PC on which he took notes constantly. At some point he asked me a question which I had answer with "How do I know RBN doesn't own your tablet? How do I know they won't in a couple of years?"

--
I occurred to me that my l33t might not come accross, so here is the translation:

VMs = Virtual Machines
RBN = Russian Business Network
/. = slashdot.org


Alone's response: You're right, but you're wrong. E.g. Google knows you were at my site, and when. It knows where you went next, assuming it had Adsense. Etc. Granted, it does not care-- but that's not the point, the point is when some government decides to care, where will it go for info? The issue is not what Google may do in the future, but what it inadvertently sets up for the future. Here's another example, one that no one seems to care about: Brin's wife started a company collecting people's DNA. Why? Other companies already do this. The margins are horrible. The business is interesting but not compelling from a growth standpoint-- if anything, the business is set to implode as genomics becomes cheaper. So why bother? Ask it another way: Google could easily have hired Brin's wife to do the same job at Google-- so why didn't they? Because then it would be obvious what's happening?

BTW: Goog is probably at a local top (520), so sell.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
This is an excellent post, ... (Below threshold)

June 5, 2008 11:47 AM | Posted by Andrew Yates: | Reply

This is an excellent post, and yes, genomics are like the computers of the 1980's.

Very interesting about 23andMe. I have a few friends-of-friends working there, and what you say is true. What's amusing is that other companies don't understand that 23andMe is a bookmark for a market and a product that doesn't yet exist, not a viable company. I visited deCODE in March to talk about their web media strategy, and they seem to expect deCODEme to be generating revenue to support their scientific operations. I don't know what their CEO is thinking...

Where industry is going: if you want to work at a savvy tech startup (and you're being hired by a 28-year-old), you will be asked about your blog, social network user names, and web communities. If you don't exist online, you're assumed not to be curious and creative enough to produce non-commodity intellectual work or, much more damning, have an identity worth sharing.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Buy from ebay, the worlds l... (Below threshold)

February 24, 2013 9:12 PM | Posted by Michal: | Reply

Buy from ebay, the worlds largest and most trusted auction site. Pay with paypal and eliminate any security issues with your credit card.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
<a href="http://www.bizjour... (Below threshold) TLP you disappoint me. Gene... (Below threshold)

December 20, 2013 8:10 PM | Posted by Black swan: | Reply

TLP you disappoint me. Generally, I feel that your observations are apt, but in this case I am disappointed in your decision to recommend a stock. I feel this is inappropriate for two distinct reasons.

First, to be ignorant of the fact that you have a large readership, likely of varying socioeconomic status, would be inane. It is inappropriate for you to recommend broadly to your readership a single stock without any prior knowledge of the suitability of that recommendation, in this way (and I assure you in this way only), you are no better than Jim Cramer. It is irresponsible and I hope you don't do it again.

The second reason is more fundamental. Your argument for the stock is in of itself internally inconsistent. If what your alleging is true, which it very we'll may be, then google would become a powerful weapon. Such a weapon enables a shift in the collective unconscious that might enable a shock to the status quo. There is no entity more entrenched and protective of the status quo as Wall Street. This is why you have a vacuous argument. You depend on the price of google stock going higher, when the group responsible for the stock going higher stands to lose everything by it going higher. More specifically, among the handful of paid money managers whose business depends on the maintenance of the status quo and who control the majority of the shares there is detente.

Respectfully, I suggest you reconsider this course of action in the future.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
1) In 2007 Alone's readersh... (Below threshold)

December 21, 2013 2:20 AM | Posted, in reply to Black swan's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

1) In 2007 Alone's readership was much smaller.
2) Wall Street cannot collectively control the price of the stock, nor would it foresee the things Alone has spelled out (it sees money in the present and lacks foresight).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

Post a Comment


Live Comment Preview

July 23, 2014 20:15 PM | Posted by Anonymous: