Buzz
Google stands as one of the most dominant forces on the internet. When we need information, we turn to Google. For a reliable browser, we install Chrome. We use Gmail for our emails, enjoy videos on YouTube, write content on Blogger, and interact with Android devices. It's remarkable that a company with the motto 'Don’t be evil' has become so overwhelmingly powerful and unyielding.
The truth is simple. Google gave up on their 'don’t be evil' stance quite a while ago. Looking at the company in 2017, it's evident that they've traded the role of the 'good guys' for that of domineering, unpleasant entities.
10. Monopolistic Practices
In 2017, the European Union imposed a record $2.7 billion fine on Google. The reason? Google had abused its powerful position in the EU market to eliminate competitors from search results. Google’s dominance is unquestionable. In countries like Germany, it's estimated that 97 percent of internet searches are conducted through Google. In essence, they’ve monopolized Europe's online space.
The details of the fine are complex, particularly when it comes to how Google arranges its search results. Google gives preference to itself. When users search to buy something, they’re directed to Google’s own shopping service. For reviews, they see links to Google’s review platform. Competitors like Yelp, who lack a search engine, end up buried deep on search pages, often on page four or beyond. And how many people will bother going that far?
The European Union contended that Google was suppressing competition and staying on top, not because its products were superior, but because it deceptively prevented consumers from discovering better options. In a twist of irony, Wired suggests it was only after the US broke up Microsoft’s monopoly in 2000 that Google was able to build its own.
9. Suppressing Unfavorable Coverage About Google
Google has a tendency to suppress negative stories about itself. In practice, this means that its search results have been known to downrank critical articles. (If you stumbled upon this article on page 37 of a search, now you know why.) This became apparent when Gizmodo reporter Kashmir Hill, while at Forbes, saw firsthand how Google attempted to hide a critical piece of journalism.
The incident occurred in 2011 when Google was pushing its Plus social network on sites like Forbes. Hill attended a meeting where Google representatives revealed that if the “+1” button for Plus wasn’t featured on a site, Google would punish that site in search rankings. Since many sites depend on search rankings to survive, Hill saw this as extortion. She turned it into a story, and the repercussions were intense.
Hill discovered that Google had informed Forbes that their search rankings would be negatively affected if the article remained published. Forbes ultimately took the story down. Hill then observed that the cached versions of the article were removed from Google Search at an unusually rapid pace, almost as if someone was deliberately erasing traces of her anti-Google story. Guess who Hill suspected was behind it?
8. Dismissing Scholars Whose Views Conflict With Its Own
Google is known for making generous contributions in key locations. Washington, Brussels, and London are all awash in Google’s financial support. A significant portion of these funds is directed toward think tanks that align with Google's viewpoints, such as the progressive New America Foundation (NAF).
One of NAF's major initiatives is Open Markets, an organization created to address issues related to concentrated wealth and power, as well as the negative effects associated with monopolies. A few years ago, Open Markets began raising alarms about Google itself. In 2017, Barry Lynn, the leader of the Open Markets team, wrote a blog post praising the European Union for imposing an antitrust fine on Google. Google responded by terminating his employment and shutting down the entire Open Markets program.
It’s important to remember that Google doesn’t actually own NAF, although they are one of many contributors, and a notably substantial one. According to The Guardian, Eric Schmidt, however, behaves as if he has ownership. When Lynn’s blog post was published, Schmidt reportedly called NAF and pressured them to remove it. Less than two months later, Lynn was let go, and Open Markets was shut down.
7. Suppressing Free Expression
98 percent of mobile traffic in the U.S. is routed through either Google or Apple. If one of these giants bans your app, it becomes a major issue. This problem becomes even more significant if your app is banned because Google and Apple disagree with your message.
6. Evading Payment of Billions in Taxes
If there’s one major goal Google seems to have, it’s not to be a company that avoids evil, but rather a company that avoids paying taxes. Over recent years, several European nations have had to forcefully drag Google into their tax offices, shake the company upside down, and extract the millions it had hidden away.
Earlier this year, Google was forced to settle unpaid taxes amounting to €303 million with Italy, after the company routed the majority of its Italian profits through Ireland, where the corporate tax rate is lower. In May 2016, French offices were raided in a tax investigation, and a month later, Spanish offices were also raided. Both investigations are still in progress. As for the UK, in 2006, the country began investigating Google’s outstanding taxes, which didn’t conclude until 2016 when Google finally agreed to pay £130 million.
A significant portion of Google’s tax avoidance is facilitated by Ireland, where about a third of its global earnings are routed. Yet even in Dublin, Google continues to skirt tax obligations. In 2016, it came to light that Google paid just €42 million in taxes on €22 billion in revenue.
5. Taking Down Innocent Channels
Google owns YouTube, which generates revenue by placing ads on videos and sharing the proceeds with content creators. This is a crucial source of income for many smaller channels and video-based websites. Unfortunately, Google has a troubling tendency to remove ads and demonetize channels without clear reason or warning, often causing hardship for these creators.
Which channels lose their ability to monetize often depends on the latest headlines. For instance, right now, it’s impossible to generate revenue from content that references North Korea. However, things are usually murkier. A media frenzy about right-wing extremism might result in legitimate right-wing channels being demonetized. Similarly, a backlash against homophobia can lead to LGBT channels discussing the issue being stripped of their income. This broad-brush approach unfairly harms hardworking creators, most of whom are innocent in the first place.
The worst part of it all is the sheer hypocrisy: Large channels rarely face any consequences. Moreover, this form of censorship is Google effectively dictating what we are allowed to express online, disregarding free speech in the process.
4. The Pharmacy Shipping Controversy
When it comes to Google and censorship, there’s at least one instance where the company should have blocked certain content but failed to do so. Between 2003 and 2011, Google allowed Canadian pharmaceutical companies to advertise on their platform, specifically targeting American consumers. They continued to do so despite being aware that facilitating the illegal sale of drugs across borders was against the law.
Drugs purchased from outside the US aren’t regulated by the FDA, which is obvious. Similarly, Canada doesn’t oversee drugs shipped abroad. This means the drugs Google permitted to be advertised were unregulated and potentially harmful. The Naked Security blog asserts that Google was aware of the illegal nature of this practice, and had known since 2003.
It took a sting by the US Attorney’s Office of Rhode Island to force the corporation into compliance. They set up a bogus Canadian pharmacy, requested to run ads targeting Americans on Google’s AdWords network, and observed as Google failed to take any action to prevent it. Eventually, Google reached a settlement with the Justice Department, agreeing to pay $500 million.
3. Almost Causing a Real War
In November 2010, Costa Rica and Nicaragua came dangerously close to war after Nicaragua crossed into Costa Rican land. The catalyst for this potential conflict was Google Maps. Google had mistakenly mapped the disputed border several miles into Costa Rican territory. A Nicaraguan officer consulted Maps and unknowingly led his forces into Costa Rica, igniting a serious international dispute.
The story may sound comical, mainly because it didn’t result in violence or a full-scale border war. However, as The New York Times noted in 2013, the real concern lay in Google’s arbitrary involvement in a live border dispute through its Maps service. This kind of oversight can escalate tensions in volatile areas, and under different circumstances—like along the contentious China-India border—it could have even sparked war.
Google is often characterized as a company that, while not inherently malicious, tends to overstep boundaries in ways that can cause harm, only to later deny any wrongdoing. The concern isn't that Google is bent on world domination; it's that the company, as a powerful force on the internet, lacks self-awareness and refuses to acknowledge its mistakes. When this arrogance leads them into controversial areas like privacy, patient information, pharmaceuticals, censorship, or geopolitical matters, their failure to reflect on their actions can result in as much damage as if they were acting with intent.
2. The Wi-Fi Data Collection Controversy
In Google’s recurring narrative, they repeatedly commit errors, deny any knowledge, and then react defensively when confronted. The Wi-Fi data collection issue is no exception. In 2010, Google was focused on developing Street View, which involved integrating Wi-Fi access points into the service. Consequently, Google’s Street View vehicles were automatically programmed to collect information about nearby Wi-Fi access points.
This may have seemed harmless at first, but things took a troubling turn when it was revealed that Google was not only gathering data about Wi-Fi access points but also intercepting private Wi-Fi data packets ('sniffing'). This uncovered a world where Google was secretly compiling massive amounts of data on virtually everyone.
The fallout was significant, primarily because Google attempted to cover up the incident and resisted cooperation with investigations. France fined the company €100,000 for its lack of cooperation, while the FTC levied a $25,000 fine. Australia labeled it the largest privacy violation in history, demanding that Google delete the data it had gathered. Google claimed it had done so, but later revelations exposed the lies. Similar situations unfolded in the UK. Ultimately, Google’s deceptive actions led to a $7 million settlement with the United States.
1. The Unauthorized Acquisition and Retention of British Medical Records
One of Google’s key projects is DeepMind, an AI that learns by itself, with the potential to either change the world or perhaps bring about its downfall. To function, DeepMind requires vast amounts of data. In 2015, Google obtained a significant portion of this data in a questionable manner. Partnering with the Royal Free trust hospital in London, Google was granted access to the health records of 1.6 million identifiable British patients, without obtaining consent from the patients themselves. When the matter was uncovered in 2017, the UK’s information commissioner declared that the handling of the data violated British law.
While Google and DeepMind were primarily guilty of ignorance, the real responsibility lies with the Royal Free staff, who handed over vast amounts of sensitive NHS data to an unvetted company. Google eventually apologized (through its DeepMind subsidiary), but only after months of asserting it understood UK laws better than the lawmakers themselves. In August 2017, TechCrunch published a scathing critique of Google’s actions, accusing the company of intentionally misleading the public about its intentions while stealing personal information.
