Talk:Criticism of Google

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of Google article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mass surveillance Mid‑importance Criticism of Google is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Google High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...) create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Internet Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Censorship by Google was copied or moved into Criticism of Google with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Material from Criticism of Google was split to Privacy concerns regarding Google on December 5, 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

Scroogle was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 March 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Criticism of Google. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Do I? It appears that I do. Are editors no longer assuming good faith about my edits?
What about utilizing a CNN source to write about conservatives criticism of about the firing of James Damore.
What about criticism published in Newsweek and the Independent about calling Repubicans Nazis?
What about Trump and conservatives criticsm of Google and alleged result rigging published in The Hill?
What about criticism published in National Review about Google being a monopoly?
What about a claim of political censorship published in the Washington Post, this other claim published in BuzzFeed News, and this criticism published in U.S. News & World Report written by Robert Epstein?
What about this criticism published in ArsTechnica, of both left leaning and right leaning growth of distrust of Google?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RCLC! You are asking many questions, but I suggest you make a few additions to the article & see if they survive WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can we add a section to the article addressing the fact that searching the web via google just plain sucks now? i mean, it’s complete garbage as a search engine, the one thing that it was made for and once did so well back in the good-old days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.167.134 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube has seen heavy criticism from YouTubers for not intervening in false copyright claims. For example, TheFatRat has tweeted that a company unaffiliated with him has copyrighted his own original song. Others like SiivaGunner have seen their channel terminated due to companies ignoring Fair Use. Some YouTubers have seen companies hold their channel for ransom. As I use Wikipedia on a school computer, can someone find sources for this? ruuuka (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Search any thing and go deep for the last pages, you'll see that Google is showing for example only 300 results for what it claimed to be about 5 million results at the first page. More on this here https://searchengineland.com/why-google-cant-count-results-properly-53559 This has been a strategy to deceive users about it having a huge database and overtake other rivals from the early days.

A very large proportion of this article concerns issues and events prior to 2014, many of which have been completely resolved (some of which say so) but some of which are ongoing with much more recent sources available (e.g. YouTube fair use issues.) I am inclined to create Hisory of Google criticism and move all the obsolete portions without contemporary updates there. Also the intro and WP:SUMMARY in the main Google#Criticism and controversy article are just as bad. EllenCT (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains the passage "to authoritarian regimes like Venezuela, Ethiopia, and Pakistan." I won't vouch for Ethiopia or Pakistan, but Venezuela is not "an authoritarian regime" just because it suits U. S. Foreign Policy objectives to claim so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:200:2C80:B46A:8AB5:C8DD:8B2 (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit, was WP:OR not supported by the source. removed --PaulT2022 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://mlexmarketinsight.com/news-hub/editors-picks/area-of-expertise/antitrust/google-acknowledges-it-foresaw-possibility-of-probe-of-jedi-blue-advertising-deal-with-facebook 107.242.121.47 (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==Wiki Education assignment: Writing 2 - Digital Futures== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iky234, Z1016 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zmuhl (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I am puzzled at the paucity of criticism of the Google Local Guides program. There are bits here and there that surface when one searches using Google… and then suddenly disappear… odd. Almost as if they had been suppressed... The Local Guides program is exploitative and often bogus. 121.44.29.224 (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PRISM Collection Details.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More recently, many bots have been roaming the comment sections of Youtube. They either contain Explicit Content or Scams. If they can't be mentioned here, they should at least be mentioned in the Wikipedia page for Youtube. Wikibrowser30 (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that discusses that? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The criminal Google Admins massively censor Reviews of Locations, like shops, doctors, bars etc. As soon as you dont obey the mainstream opinion (i.e. review negatively), that is mostly faked by the location owner, you get deleted and silenced. Corruption makes this feature the opposite of what people think it is. It just a promotion tool for restaurants, clubs, doctors, supermarkets but doesnt allow your honest opinion and spookily read every text before it will mostly not published and allows flagging for a billion reasons (most ridiculous: bad words like a*hole, c*nt), but not, the really only important, for posting a blatant lie. The owner has always right, the reviewer will be deleted for no reason. I dont like to be censored by an a*hole for telling the truth to people in calling him that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:CF08:4E00:5695:A02F:1234:258B (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- . -