Comments on: Want a line? Here’s a line.

By: Maria

Maria — Wed, 04 May 2005 19:17:35 +0000

I mean, obviously the software was released by Google, but web browsers are centrally released, too.

By: Scav.

Scav. — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 04:54:44 +0000

Lovely way to make your points. Is this what an autowinerbot looks like? See, now, THAT is altering and hijacking a blog in such a way that the user has no choice in the matter. THAT’S forcing advertising. If I had been able to choose for myself whether to automate a linking service to your real estate, hair removal and/or casino empire, that would be something else altogether.
However, in trying to prove your point, you’ve removed all your credibility and handed over the argument to Yoz. You’ve chosen to spam and remove user choice by altering a competitor’s website and content. Yes, comments are open, but somehow, you don’t pass the smell test. It’s obviously a juvenile attempt at making a point about what you imagine Autolink does – but you only succeed in becoming your own worst, baseless depiction.
Far as I can tell, Autolink is like me choosing to hire a personal information booth consultant to follow me on my travels. Having hired them myself, I’m aware of what they are wont to recommend, and for, not despite that, I have retained them. I CHOSE IT MYSELF. It affects only MY web browsing experience. If I was disturbed to have only the limited expansion of links due to the choices Google makes, I’d not use it.
BTW, I also retain the choice to refuse the link provided by autolink as well.
According to the detractors, I’m a mindless, led-by-the-nose user who will haplessly click on Amazon in a fugue state and order any ISBN listing offered just because it appeared before my eyes. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I am not Google’s unwashed prole mass, and what’s more important, I’m not YOUR unwashed prole mass either. You don’t have a right to make me your captive audience…and I’m not so stupid that I imagine that the links Google provides are in any way part of your content.
I’m SEEKING to generate alternatives and supplementary links. If you have a beef with someone even gaining a view to opinions contrary to your political views, then your content must be so weak that it actually relies on controlled ignorance. You actually fear any dissent and seek to squelch it.
It’s in Beta, too – so much of the effort on the part of the detractors could be funneled into improving the Autolinker by offering constructive, not inflammatory, fearmongering feedback.
Don’t like that it’s only Amazon being shown? Request that the autolink be able to determine what page it’s on and to provide competitor links commensurate to that vendor. Whatever, but don’t think you have the right to dictate what helpers I take shopping with me. I hired them, and I know what they offer. Disable my freedom, and I disable your bookmark.

By: God

God — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:09:09 +0000

Children! I did not create the universe, this planet and yourselves just so you could have pointless arguements about something so utterly trivial and inconsequential as the internet.
Please, open your eyes. There are fellow human beings being killed, being raped, starivng to death, and you are arguing with each other over some kind of internet knick knack? Honestly now….
Please, come along now. Buy yourselves a Bible, a Torah, a Qu’ran, the Tao Te Ching, the Zend Avesta or even just something by that Carlos Casteneda guy (doesn’t realy matter which. They all say pretty much the same thing from my point of view).
Just be nice to each other, ok? That’s all I really want. Stop creating yet more ill feeling on your planet over the internet. Please.
Don’t make me come down there.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 01:36:18 +0000

> If by doing so this act deprives the copyright holder of income, then I doubt the courts will have much problem cutting through the “ok if it benefits the user” argument.
It’s got nothing to do with income. Copyright doesn’t guarantee income. It restricts copying and some forms of distribution.
No content is being copied or distributed. It is being altered.
It’s a bit difficult to infringe on copyrights when you aren’t copying or distributing anything, wouldn’t you say?

By: Gavin Child

Gavin Child — Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:22:43 +0000

" As far as I know, AutoLink does not contact the Google servers when running." You might want to read the fine print: http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/static.py?page=features.html "Google may collect information about web pages that you view when you use advanced features such as PageRank, SpellCheck, AutoLink, and WordTranslator." BTW - some users assume they can freely alter content to create derivative works. That isn't correct. If by doing so this act deprives the copyright holder of income, then I doubt the courts will have much problem cutting through the "ok if it benefits the user" argument.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 08:30:54 +0000

I mean, obviously the software was released by Google, but web browsers are centrally released, too. As far as I know, AutoLink does not contact the Google servers when running.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 08:29:51 +0000

“No other tech on the net has the ability to modify so many pages from one centrally controlled place.”
How do you know that AutoLink is centrally controlled?

By: nick

nick — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 02:22:06 +0000

‘Can you name another tech on the net that has the chance to influence the opinions of as many people?’
So, it’s about Google. But it’s not about Google. Which is it, mate? If it’s about Google, be honest and admit it.
‘Maybe the first time you find—‘
‘Maybe the day when—‘
And as Yoz and Cory both said, they’ll raise their objections then, when it’s appropriate, rather than crying wolf over features that have not even come *close* to being implemented. As will I. Or when the Googlebots invade Belgium. Whichever comes soonest.
If Firefox included GreaseMonkey by default, with a set of user scripts that exactly emulated the Google Toolbar’s AutoLink, would you be complaining?

By: greggman

greggman — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 01:38:07 +0000

It’s not that it’s “google”. It’s that it’s any one entity. Can you name another tech on the net that has the chance to influence the opinions of as many people? Can you name another tech on the net that has the same potential for abuse? No other tech on the net has the ability to modify so many pages from one centrally controlled place. I’m not sure which scares me more, that fact that one company will have this influence or that fact that you can’t see that it’s a bad thing for one company to have that influence.
Maybe the first time you find that some link that you think should show up all over the net but it doesn’t show up when autolink is clicked because it somehow threatens google, maybe you’ll get it then. Maybe the day when google allowes you to not click the button but have it be the default behavior and you find that 80%+ of the net has it set to their default therefore never following any links except google’s.

By: nick

nick — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 00:11:38 +0000

“It still scares the crap out of me that one company will have the power to effect the links of every person that clicks that button.”
So it’s not about the general principle; it’s about the fact that Google doing it? In which case, as Mr Kottke says:
‘if you’re against AutoLink because you think Google is becoming too big, they’re evil, they’re abusing their power, or they bought another blog company instead of yours, then that’s fine. Just be up front about why you’re upset.’