Monthly Archives: December 2024

Thoughts on DOJ Breaking up Google

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, the news reported that the DOJ proposed to break up Google by “selling” off Chrome and Android in order to “fix” Google’s monopoly on search.

My initial thoughts were the proposed “fix” would have unintended consequences to the consumer and would not truly “fix” the real issue and reason why DOJ brought its case. To my understanding reading through various news sources, the DOJ is rightly concerned about Google’s practices in maintaining “search dominance.”

But let’s take a step back and look at what makes Google good. Back during the beginnings of the internet, I remember using various search engines like Yahoo, Lycos, Altavista, and even AskJeeves with varied success. In testing against Google, these other search engines never offered the link I wanted or satisfied my curiosity as quickly as Google did. That shows how powerful Google’s search algorithm is. Being able to monetize the best algorithm allowed Google to pretty much dominate search competition. Even now in 2024, if I use competing search engines like Bing or Duck Duck Go, Google’s algorithm still satisfy my curiosity by providing the most relevant link within the first five or so non-paid entries. I honestly believe that people will still end up choosing Google because it is a more superior search engine.

Now, back to the case, selling off Chrome would not fix Google’s dominance in search. I imagine Chrome to be more as a vehicle allows access to Google’s search. What the DOJ should instead be asking Google to do is…
1) remove default access to google search.
2) provide users with a choice of different search tools for use.
3) if the user ends up settling on Google Search, then after every Chrome update, the user should be presented with a choice again for different search tool or continuously confirm Google as the search provider.
This sort of solution makes it so that using Google’s search is conscious decision by the user and not some sort of paid default search. Let’s give the users a say in what they really want. With the government not knowing how Technology works, I am VERY pessimistic that they will make a decision that benefits the users.

With Android, to be honest, search is embedded into the OS. As an Android user, it is very convenient to search for things. I think DOJ is on the right track to prevent the auto loading of apps to the OS. Similar to the Chrome solution, Android (if the phone is not a Pixel or Google made/designed phone) should be promoting or letting users choose the various apps for use. They company that is making the phone most likely has their own suite of products that can be promoted. And since Android allows the use of different apps, the user should be given the option on what apps they want to use. Android might need to be fixed such that search is a modular part of the OS and can be interchangeable with different apps.

And finally, to prevent Google from abusing it’s monopoly on search, why can’t a simple rule be implemented that prevents Google from participating or buying its position as the default. Simultaneously there should also be a ban on Google from acquiring any search related technologies or companies. These two restrictions should help small search companies grow and/or at least find some niche market to compete against Google.

Thoughts on a recent podcast

Posted on by
Reply

I listen to quite a few podcasts during the week. Many of these podcasts are less than 30min. But I also listen to a handful of long-form podcast. One of those is “The Diary of a CEO.” The host (Steven Bartlett) does a magnificent job interviewing the different guests. Guests range from scientists to CEOs to even ex CIA operatives who offer a wide range of opinions and knowledge. Furthermore, the conversations are fascinating and thought provoking. The podcast also has a Youtube channel if one prefers to “watch” the interview.

Recently, Bartlett had Reid Hoffman (wiki) as a guest (watch here on youtube). Who is Hoffman? He is one of the members of the “PayPal Mafia” but might be more commonly recognized as the founder of LinkedIn.

Now why would I be so interested in even writing about this interview? One of the discussed topics centered around “censorship” and Hoffman’s thoughts about Twitter’s banning Trump (NPR).

But before I get to his thoughts, here are my thoughts about deplatforming in general.
1) One of the reasons America is “great” is the fact that everyone has a platform to speak about any issue and there would be very little retribution (i.e. being cancelled, getting doxxed) for speaking one’s mind. As much as I don’t like hate speech or speech that denigrates one tribe over another tribe, the opinions of the speaker are just opinions. I believe that the speakers SHOULD BE ABLE to speak their peace regardless of whether the speech is truthful, full of lies, full of hate, or flat out disrespectful and disparaging. I still believe that deplatforming Trump was the wrong move.
2) I also believe that ALL SPEECH needs to be monitored to be factual or at very minimum if there are opposing sides/stories that both sides are presented. What you say is what you believe but it might not be correct or factual. And this is where I think speech needs to be monitored. The choice should be up to the reader to confirm if what is stated is factual or not. America needs to raise a new generation of thinkers who should be able to decide on their own what is true and what is false.
3) I also beleive that speech with ANY THREAT of violence should NEVER BE TOLERATED. Regardless of if the THREAT of violence is hinted at, considered subversive or just overt declaration, this type of speech should be taken seriously and action to minimize the threat should be swift.
4) There still is a chance for all traditional and social media companies to “MAKE SPEECH GREAT AGAIN.” First to clearly implement speech policies that strictly forbids threats of violence while also implementing fact checking process on controverisal topics. Second to implement ways where fact checking policies allow readers to decide themself.

Back to the podcast, here’s a shortcut (click here) to Hoffman’s opinion about how speech should be handled. His idea represents a solid middle ground. I am happy that there are others who also believe that it is possible to have a society where speech can be balanced, safe, civil, and truthful. Hoffman goes further with the idea of freedom of speech vs freedom of reach and how differentiating between the two benefits society. Even contrarian and/or unpopular opinions should be heard by society, explored and thoroughly investigated by society, and then confirmed or debunked by society.

After thinking about this for the last few days, I pose this question to readers: Would a society that participates in the type of civil discourse (as imagined by Hoffman) become a better society overall?

Atlas Coffee Club – Mexico

Posted on by
Reply

December’s Atlas Coffee Club comes from Mexico. Although still part of the coffee belt, it’s a little rare to see coffee from Mexico. I think most of the coffee from Central American originates more further south like Nicaragua, Guatemala and Costa Rica.
Making my latte, I find the taste to be very balanced. Upon first sip, I dont’ taste anything that skews floral, fruity or earthy. It just has a very balanced profile that doesn’t make it stand out… and maybe that’s what makes these beans special. Compared to the fruit forward flavors of Ethiopian coffee beans, these Mexican beans are much subtle. I think I’m going to enjoy the subtle balance of flavors.

Kuma Coffee

Posted on by
Reply

November’s Trade Coffee comes from Kuma Coffee. The bag is a single origin from Ethiopia’s Guji region. Coming from one of the popular coffee regions, these beans did not disappoint.
Making my latte, I initially get a big burst of floral aromas followed by a subtle sweet fruity flavors that linger on the tongue. Somedays, I made a second cup immediately after finishing the first because I really enjoyed the subtle fruit flavors that ended with a hint of milk chocolate aftertaste.