posted
Whoa. Interesting. Can't say how much of it is true, given that it predicts things nearly a decade into the future, but interesting nonetheless.
I'll be getting the New York Times newsletter, as a man who pronounces years "hyahs" and is therefore part of the elite.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
I cracked up right there. I'm sorry. If I was creating a new company "Googlezon" would not be my name of choice.
Also, I liked the way that the worst loss of journalism was the New York Times and it was the United States Supreme Court that apparantly acted as a total decision maker for the entire world. It's probably that I'm not an American that I found that a rather self-centred view of the world.
As to this doom of worldly news services, I think that even if the theoretical "Googlezon's EPIC" does create an editable news service, within that will grow cores of writers who are known for their articles. These cores will give themselves names, advertise their skills, and kaboom, new news services will be born.
But I must say I liked EPIC's Logo. The pi was a nice touch.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the New York Times and most other major news organizations are American, as is Google itself, it would not be unreasonable or self-centered to believe that the United States Supreme Court would make the decisive ruling. On the other hand, I believe it unreasonable to assume that the USSC would rule in favor of commercialism over "democracy and journalistic ehtics."
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's unreasonable or self-centred that the Supreme Court would do the ruling in that particular case, but in the movie-thing it seems to imply that the fall of a single newspaper is the end of all traditional journalism and that an American super-mono-mega corporation will reduce the world to a media hegemony.
EDIT:
quote: New York Times and most other major news organizations are American
There are plenty of major news organisations, from all countries, in all languages, that are very good.
posted
What I meant to say was that the NY Times and most other major news organizations that Google uses.
I think that it implied that the end of the NY Times, being the single most reputable and recognizable news source, would result in an avalanche that consumed the rest of the world's traditional news organizations.
However, I was confused how Google would continue to operate news-wise without any online news organizations left. I don't believe a news source based entirely on rumor and conjecture would sustain itself any better than a tabloid could. It might receive some following, but I don't think it could knock out every other news organization.
Personally, I would still continue to read printed newspapers.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, actually, in the context of the story, the case of New York Times v. Googlezon would be a landmark case for the beginning of the end of all print newspapers, assuming the service was as popular as the creators predict. You see, if the Supreme Court ruled that Googlezon can rearrange the content from within various copyrighted sources to generate new personalized content (a ruling I find unlikely, since that would be not simply delivering content provided by the Times, but changing it, a far cry legally from today's standard, delivering a headline which links to the original source, for which payment may be required) that basically means Google can provide content acquired from the Times and any other paper for free. It sets a precedent that Googlezon would exploit in regards to other newspapers and not just the Times, in much the same way that the civil rights cases that outlawed segregation in one backwoods barbecue joint (Katzenbach v. United States) also outlawed it in all the rest of them. However, what doesn't make sense in this story is that Googlezon's news service could survive the death of journalism. The content that Googlezon chops up and rearranges still has to come from somewhere. If nobody is still providing their content online for Google to chop up, then there won't be anything to chop up. I suppose the idea is that Googlezon will just cull its "news" from blogs and sub-contractors (like a 2014 CNN subsidiary of Googlezon, assumably.) That, however, seems a bit more far-fetched.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It even addressed that, saying that people all over the wold became famous for their ability to aquire and edit content, adn by sayignt hat all soryts of media contributations were now (2014) being consolidated into Googlezon's news services.
Pretty good concept, and I liked the actual demonstration they gave.
Now that I have watched it I need to scan for Googlezon spyware... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's amusing that the name on the ID card they showed was Winston Smith.
I really don't think this is realistic, though. Blogs and amateur content will never replace the professional journalists. And I think that a lot of people I know would read the print version of the NYT in a scenario like this, assuming it was reasonably priced. If anything, it's a useful check on the accuracy of epic.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was interesting. They kept talking about having people's info, their demographic and whatnot. But what about all the anonymity of the internet? How do they *really* know what my name, age, address is without crossing privacy boundaries? How do they know that anything on my ID is real unless they are checking with my credit card info? And isn't that wrong?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last time this was posted on hatrack ( ) I observed that it's typical of the NY Times to equate itself with the personification of the free press. But doesn't this bit merely portray Googlezon doing what NYT has already done in attempting to establish an information hegemony?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
