Challenge to Google's Eric and Shuman: Be real men, don't selectively hide the 'world's information'

Challenge to Google's Eric and Shuman: Be real men, don't selectively hide the 'world's information'

Summary: Eric and Shuman at Google: If you are committed to organizing the world’s information, and making it universally accessible, then why do you covertly allude to me as “a blogger

TOPICS: Google

Eric and Shuman at Google: If you are committed to organizing the world’s information, and making it universally accessible, then why do you covertly allude to me as “a blogger” and why do you not provide the world with a link to my “blog post?,” which you do not identify, although it is the subject of your latest post at Google Blog?

To the World:

“a blogger” that Shuman Ghosemajumder, Business Product Manager for Trust & Safety, alludes to in his 7/14/2006 07:58:00 AM post at the Google Blog, “Let click fraud happen”? Uh, no”, apparently on behalf of Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, is me, Donna Bogatin.

Donna Bogatin
ZDNet Digital Micro-Markets Blog

To the World:

The “blog post” that Google discusses, attempts to rebut, but doesn’t identify, is my July 9, 2006, post:
“Google CEO on click fraud: “let it happen” is perfect economic solution”

To the World:

Google’s indignant tone is not backed up by anything, except the $122 billion market cap over valuation the company enjoys, for now.

Google, in fact, reiterates my verbatim, in context, direct quotes of the Google CEO.

Google does not at any time taint the validity of a single word of my direct quotes of the Google CEO’s public comments.

The strongest critique the great Google team is able to muster against my simple recitation of the Google CEO’s public remarks is “misleading.”

If Google labels a straight forward, truthful recounting of publicly made remarks by its CEO as “misleading,” how can we trust its search results to be truthful?


If a writer is covertly attacked by Google for directly quoting the Google CEO, how can we trust Google in any endeavor?

Google "rebuts" any and all discussion of its "Google Speak" that any non-Google person may dare to address in non Google-speak fashion, with the “misleading” defense.

Does anyone care to address Google’s prior “misleading” defense approach regarding Sergey’s remarks on Google’s operations in China, made while in Washington DC recently?

PS: This is not the first time that Google has attacked a CNET writer for simply quoting Google created information.

According to the August 5, 2005, article, "CNET: We've been blackballed by Google, Tech news site says Google froze out its reporters for publishing Eric Schmidt's personal info":

The CNET story, dated July 14, focused on privacy concerns since Google is amassing such enormous amounts of data about people. It reported that some analysts fear it is becoming a great risk to privacy, because it would be a tempting target for hackers, "zealous government investigators, or even a Google insider who falls short of the company's ethics," the article said.

To underscore its point about how much personal information is available, the CNET report published some personal information about Google's CEO Eric Schmidt -- his salary; his neighborhood, some of his hobbies and political donations -- all obtained through Google searches.


UPDATE: Thank you Google!

UPDATE II: "Court expert on CPC model: 'inherently vulnerable to click fraud'

Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • and then they wonder...

    why they catch so much slack from everybody.

    To be arrogant enough to have a "Do no Evil' company motto, and then do things against it all the time, makes you wonder whether or not everybody there is really as smart as they are purported to be.

    But then again, nothing new here, money always wins, as in - it's too late now IMO.
  • Google's Likely Rationale

    Consider this. If Google had placed a link back to your post, it would have been the same as saying, "If you quote Google executives out of context and produce enough negative PR, you'll get a valuable link from the Google blog and a lot of extra traffic for your website." I'd say that's an incredibly bad idea on their part, seeing as they would rather not promote their own misrepresentation in the media.
    • "Follow the geese"....

      Yeah, it would seem logical at first; but maybe they're experimenting with what they see others do. I mean, maybe they value the traffic it would bring, over the miniscule possibility that it may actually make any difference to their bottom line.

      It's a habit some groups seem to get desperate at sometimes, and botch up. We won't say any names, will we ZDnet?
  • hey...get real yourself

    Why would they want to link to something that mis-represents them. Thats not the same as giving correct search results. Are u out of your mind?

    Btw, this blog appears in one of the top entries in the "related news" section of Google Fianance if you search for GOOG.
    Talk abt selective hiding "worlds information" huh?? Get a life..!!!
    • oh wow..

      You started an article just because Google did not choose to identify your original, out-of-context, report?

      What about tell the world that you did take Schmidt's comment out of context, in a silly attempt, stir up something. I guess it worked, but as a professional writer/reporter, is this really something you wanted?
  • You sound like an idiot.

    At least give your readers context of the problem before you launch into some retarded tirade. I couldnt even get behind you if I wanted to provided your annoying tone. Next time think before you publish. Yet another reason I don't read ZDNet as much anymore. Only sophomoric subjects to get people to read. And yes, you do need to get over yourself.

  • Donna's rants and raves

    Your article has no objectivity, and made me lose even the little respect that I had for zdnet. Obviously, everyone understands that your insinuations are calculated to damage google's image and credibility, as a revenge for what they've supposedly done to C'mon, stop behaving like losers, grow up a bit, and don't bother us with such ugly reporting and waste our time.

    Coming to what you say, your article's not "a straight forward, truthful recounting of publicly made remarks" of Eric Schmidt, as you claim, but a biased selection of remarks deliberately intended to mislead your readers, and paint google as evil. But don't expect them to rant and rave just like what you're doing on your webpage. When they say "misleading", obviously it carries a lot of impact, much more than all your indignant outpourings that you've neatly documented here.
  • Completely non-sensical post by Donna Bogatin

    Title only.