Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

There are other search engines.

Google are by far the most well used, and therefore successful.

They are free for us to use because they make a profit from those willing to advertise, or have greater prominence on their sites.

This is understood.

We aren't fools.

They are a business, not a charity.

Unless governments plan to interfere, and limit the free use Google allows us, unlike in China, and parts of the Middle East, there's really not a great deal that can be done to limit how a successful company operates.

Supply and demand.

Free market economy.

Until such time as something better comes along, people will happily carry on using it.

I really can't understand this issue being of great concern to the people of Hyndburn/Haslingden.

yes there are, but if you go to them and enter 'search engine', guess who comes tops?
It must be a fiddle.

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

Google suits me , always has done . It's the peoples' choice .

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

There's a recently resurrected thread, when I couldn't get Google to work on my pc.

I had to rely on the kindness of strangers (read Accy Web members), to supply me with names of other search engines. Being unable to Google the search myself.

:D

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

When I bought my new computer, the default search engine was BING....and I hated it with a passion......banished it as soon as I could find out just how to do it.

I like google...it is easy to use and usually comes up with the goods

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

i prefer google to owt else ive tried, summat seems very odd to me if some are objecting to it.:confused:

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

No one else wants to disagree with you; so, I might as well.:D

People who have responded to this thread have, in the main, stated that Google is a good product. There is no doubt about that. However, I don't think that this is the issue. It is more of a question of trans global, or multi-national corporations (call 'em what you like; we all know what they are) cornering a market to the detriment of smaller, national companies, and those national economies. And it is these mega corporations, not national governments, who are limiting free enterprise. Other companies, Walmart is a prime example, also do this. Limiting free enterprise in certain sections of the economy quite reasonbaly falls within the role of national governments. And they can play this role without having to resort to the kind of state capitalism that was the downfall of the Soviet Union. In Canada, fairly recently (I could google it to find out exactly when, but I'm feeling lazy:D) an Australian mining company made a $40 billion bid for Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which out numbers the govt., supported by tories in Saskatchewan and Alberta called upon the government to block the sale. In effect, to put the value of a Canadian resource before free enterprise. Under pressure, the government did block the sale, putting purely national interests first. By the way, if anyone doesn't know what potash is, ask a farmer.

Another point is that relating to the erosion of national economies by eliminating jobs. Many on here complain about how well-paid jobs are disappearing from the UK. Surprise, surprise. Of course they are. Industrial giants are moving their operations overseas to take advantage of low wages, horrendous working conditions, and no-questions-asked governments. You might like to wear Nike, but you don't want to hear about the conditions the workers have to put up with. It is the loss of these jobs that was the root cause of the collapse of the US economy, and quite possibly your own. The banks fueled the economy with NINJA loans which gave the impression of a strong consumer economy without the substance.

I think Mr. Jones has it right ... but I believe that his focus on google is a little too narrow.

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

(Won't quote you Eric, to save space, but...)

In a free market economy, the companies that people choose to use, will be the most successful, and therefore they will have influence, and power, if you want to call it that.

I referred earlier to The Sun, Britain's biggest selling Daily, because people want to buy it.

It's owners, and editor, does therefore wield some clout. Which is presumably why Blair brown-nosed them back in 1997, and the paper subsequently publicly proclaimed that their mammary loving readers should vote New Labour. Landslide. Result.

If legislation is passed, limiting access to goods/services that are offered by companies, you end up with the kind of state run/enforced bodies that they had under the old soviet system. The outcome being that there is a poor choice, and the inferior and shoddy become the most widely available.

Politicans have moaned about the 'unfair' power the press barons have had for well over a century.

Google is successful.

That will cease when people don't want to use it.

Politicans trying to limit it's success, by imposing artifical sanctions against it, is wrong. Wrong, if we are to carry on having free choice about what we buy/use.

I think politicans are just jealous.

Wishing only that they had as much power as companies such as Google.

China allows Google, but with the proviso that many political sites aren't listed. Just as in the Middle East Google is permitted, as long as certain civil/sexual right sites are not available to searchers in those locations.

We know Google's a company, out to make profit.

We understand that, and carry on using it, because it's the best at what it does.

This will carry on until we choose to use something better.

Not because some politican fears it's influence.

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

By the way, we already know about globalisation.

We accept that progress can't be halted.

No matter how many artifical dams are created, futilely attempting to stem the flow of change.

No longer being an industrial manufacturing nation, we work in our service centres, and spend our wages on clothes costing a fiver.

We might shed a tear or two, when watching a programme about some dark skinned kiddies sewing our clothes, but forget by the next time we need a new shirt.

Might not make everyone happy, but this is the reality we've chosen.

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

At least Graham's got some global support...in Canada.

The people he's paid to represent seemingly couldn't give a 'Google - Process of flight' 'Google Anglo-Saxon profanity relating to intercourse'.

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

Just to add my two ha'pporthworth. I don't use google, I never have and never will. There are lots of search engines out there, and most of them don't collect and keep your search data. But, you have to want to keep your data private,you have to want to keep your searches private. You have to WANT to keep yourself private, or you can give everything about yourself to a corporation. There are very good search engines out there. You just have to look for yourself rather than just GOOGLE.

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

Choice.

At the moment we have it.

You choose an alternative.

The majority decide Google's their tool of preference.

Fully aware that nothing in this world is free.

Happy searching Google, unafraid that what they're searching for will bite 'em on the ass.

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

yer entitled to use what yeh prefer simples, you just have to look fer yourself, at previous posts, i have used others n my preference is google:tongueout

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

Unless she takes me off ignore and reads this, mags will be along with one of her conspiracy links proving big business and politicians have already removed our free choice.
:rolleyes:

Re: Throwing a Googly.
 

Na Less they gave up on school reports, the woodwork teacher was the only one I like, because he could actually teach me something I wanted to learn, the others didn't interest me:p