So far as I can tell, Google is becoming more and more corrupt.
I have them notify me when there’s a web page update that contains a key phrase that’s of interest to me. I seems to me that the pages they identify have become more and more pages they own, such as you tube. I have noticed that places where those key phrases are newly mentioned, but on sites that are not a Google profit centre, are no longer mentioned. This is corruption.
Now, I must be honest, I have long since avoided Google products, so much as I can. They profit from information people create, but do not pay royalties on that information. Were I to create information in the form of a manuscript, were a publisher to publish it as a book, & were the book to earn money, that publisher would pay me royalties. I create information online, Google publishes it in their search engine, earns money from the information, but pays no royalties. This non–payment is theft.
They’re not the only ones, of course, such information theft is common across all search engines, so far as I can tell. But just because the theft is committed by all the information gangsters doesn’t mean the theft is ok, thank you, it actually means the law needs to address the situation. Google and their ilk make billions by not paying for the information they steal.
This is why I refuse point blank to own anything running Android. It does what it does, and steals all kinds of information to be sent to Google. Because of this, and despite what Google clain, Android phones are deeply insecure. They may be very secure stopping other people hacking them, but mysteriously deeply insecure when it comes to Google’s own information theft. In other words, Google produce secure products in terms of third–party hackery, that are deeply insecure in terms of Google’s thirst for other people’s information.
This, of course, is why Android’s only real competitor, Apple, claim their products respect privacy: they’re implying they don’t steal your information. Whether they actually do or not, I have no clue, but at least they claim it. Of course, they’re corrupt in other ways, such as planned obsolescence.
Now, in Google’s defence, they operate in a country that is in itself deeply corrupt. The USA’s supposéd system of democracy depends on big companies buying election candidates, so those candidates can put tons of adverts out to convince voters that they’re the bees knees. If candidates don’t accept bribes, they can’t pay for adverts, so they don’t get elected (there are rare exceptions). So, given the country, given the endemic political corruption, it’s hardly surprising a culture of corruption appears to be deeply embedded in the company.