Talk:Googled: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:Will summarize it in this thread when I finish but refrain from editing the front matter of this article, since as my participation in the talk shows, I am biased. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.177.92|72.228.177.92]] ([[User talk:72.228.177.92|talk]]) 10:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC) | :Will summarize it in this thread when I finish but refrain from editing the front matter of this article, since as my participation in the talk shows, I am biased. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.177.92|72.228.177.92]] ([[User talk:72.228.177.92|talk]]) 10:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
::There is the [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/review/Baker-t.html NYT Sunday books] § review from 2009-11-29. It would essentially seem to indicate that the thing is like the derivatives scam but in this case based on the selling of impressions that actually are ignored, which trump the earlier marketing pure fiction of impressions with an essentially similar one albeit presented in a completely different modality. The ignored text ads delivered to users verifiably doing something (i.e. looking for a certain content) replacing the more boldface fiction of early mass media. From the capital accumulated thusly, they seek to branch out in classical octopus fashion, sending tentacles everywhere looking for similar opportunities to "monetize" such situations without actually being a source of anything new, just as the litany of top accumulators of the same stripe before them, IBM, MS, and now them. But with an even greater [[financialization]] character covered over by a lot of bs. Of the prior "market leaders" only MS still derives its income primarily from product | ::There is the [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/review/Baker-t.html NYT Sunday books] § review from 2009-11-29. It would essentially seem to indicate that the thing is like the derivatives scam but in this case based on the selling of impressions that actually are ignored, which trump the earlier marketing pure fiction of impressions with an essentially similar one albeit presented in a completely different modality. The ignored text ads delivered to users verifiably doing something (i.e. looking for a certain content) replacing the more boldface fiction of early mass media. From the capital accumulated thusly, they seek to branch out in classical octopus fashion, sending tentacles everywhere looking for similar opportunities to "monetize" such situations without actually being a source of anything new, just as the litany of top accumulators of the same stripe before them, IBM, MS, and now them. But with an even greater [[:en:financialization|financialization]] character covered over by a lot of bs. Of the prior "market leaders" only MS still derives its income primarily from product development, IBM having to some extent joined the club deriving the bulk of its income in 2009 from services. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.177.92|72.228.177.92]] ([[User talk:72.228.177.92|talk]]) 09:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Forming a list of notable page references: [http://meansofproduction.biz/eg/index.php/Talk:Googled in my draft space] where I'll put anything further on this. Needless to say this reportage completely confirms what I've said in this thread and the other above, giving the specific details over the period from 1998 - 2009. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 09:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | :::Forming a list of notable page references: [http://meansofproduction.biz/eg/index.php/Talk:Googled in my draft space] where I'll put anything further on this. Needless to say this reportage completely confirms what I've said in this thread and the other above, giving the specific details over the period from 1998 - 2009. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 09:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::: pp 216 and ff really make the matter clear in recounting the March 2008 codification of a "corporate vision". Here the [[Big Lie]] is plain to see for all but the deluded, the real vision and purpose of Google is to make as much money as possible for the [[Talk:Entrepreneur#Back_matter|three principals]] and the interests of this section of capital based production which they represent as over an against those of the horde of supposed knowledge workers whose wage labor they command. All the rest is tedious mendacious bs. I didn't go any further than this and took the book back to the library. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.177.92|72.228.177.92]] ([[User talk:72.228.177.92|talk]]) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC) | :::: pp 216 and ff really make the matter clear in recounting the March 2008 codification of a "corporate vision". Here the [[:en:Big Lie|Big Lie]] is plain to see for all but the deluded, the real vision and purpose of Google is to make as much money as possible for the [[Talk:Entrepreneur#Back_matter|three principals]] and the interests of this section of capital based production which they represent as over an against those of the horde of supposed knowledge workers whose wage labor they command. All the rest is tedious mendacious bs. I didn't go any further than this and took the book back to the library. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.177.92|72.228.177.92]] ([[User talk:72.228.177.92|talk]]) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Fucking with the Magic == | == Fucking with the Magic == | ||
Becomes a catch phrase for Googles disruption of traditional media advertising. Essentially it's all the same. Google leverages data collected from thier search engine operation to replace the traditional marketing effort of merely declining capitialism. [[User:Root|Root]] 13:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) | Becomes a catch phrase for Googles disruption of traditional media advertising. Essentially it's all the same. Google leverages data collected from thier search engine operation to replace the traditional marketing effort of merely declining capitialism with something appropriate to advanced decay/putrefaction. [[User:Root|Root]] 13:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 09:40, 25 April 2010
en:Ken Auletta's Book
Googled is a good source of info for this subject, especially wrt to how the current capital formation assumed its present state. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Will summarize it in this thread when I finish but refrain from editing the front matter of this article, since as my participation in the talk shows, I am biased. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is the NYT Sunday books § review from 2009-11-29. It would essentially seem to indicate that the thing is like the derivatives scam but in this case based on the selling of impressions that actually are ignored, which trump the earlier marketing pure fiction of impressions with an essentially similar one albeit presented in a completely different modality. The ignored text ads delivered to users verifiably doing something (i.e. looking for a certain content) replacing the more boldface fiction of early mass media. From the capital accumulated thusly, they seek to branch out in classical octopus fashion, sending tentacles everywhere looking for similar opportunities to "monetize" such situations without actually being a source of anything new, just as the litany of top accumulators of the same stripe before them, IBM, MS, and now them. But with an even greater financialization character covered over by a lot of bs. Of the prior "market leaders" only MS still derives its income primarily from product development, IBM having to some extent joined the club deriving the bulk of its income in 2009 from services. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Forming a list of notable page references: in my draft space where I'll put anything further on this. Needless to say this reportage completely confirms what I've said in this thread and the other above, giving the specific details over the period from 1998 - 2009. Lycurgus (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- pp 216 and ff really make the matter clear in recounting the March 2008 codification of a "corporate vision". Here the Big Lie is plain to see for all but the deluded, the real vision and purpose of Google is to make as much money as possible for the three principals and the interests of this section of capital based production which they represent as over an against those of the horde of supposed knowledge workers whose wage labor they command. All the rest is tedious mendacious bs. I didn't go any further than this and took the book back to the library. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Fucking with the Magic
Becomes a catch phrase for Googles disruption of traditional media advertising. Essentially it's all the same. Google leverages data collected from thier search engine operation to replace the traditional marketing effort of merely declining capitialism with something appropriate to advanced decay/putrefaction. Root 13:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
