The Google Acquisition; Microsoft; China

I find it quite telling that the EU regulators have decided to confront Google's influence over modern technology prior to their acquisition of Fitbit, to be perfectly honest. In my opinion, this legal opposition should have appeared at a sooner time.

Especially when Google centralises information with its various technologies, such as: Google Search, the central product; AMP, a framework for web pages (which are then served from Google servers); Google Drive, which is used for centralising information, meanwhile censoring 'inappropriate' items. There are many more examples, but that's something to ponder on.

Personally, I believe this acquisition will go through.

A good example of a similar occurence would have to be when Microsoft acquired the 'social coding' platform, GitHub. Developers, and other like-minded users, started asking questions about how Microsoft would influence this technology.

And they were right.

Microsoft are building more and more tooling which attempts to centralise development. Some examples of this are: NPM, a package manager for JavaScript; GitHub, a development platform; Azure, a cloud hosting platform.

As with any aquisition, e.g. Google's acquisition of YouTube, the parent company normally begins to force users of the platform to use their products. Especially since FitBit is a paid product, users might be more hesitant to switch to a better platform.

Is money the root of all evil?

What worries me most is the extent of companies' centralisation on our technology. The fact that more and more gadgets and devices are becoming internet-enabled is a pressing issue, especially with companies' attack on free speech and other alternatives.

I'm terrified.

Google are a part of PRISM, a surveillance project ran by the NSA.

What this means is that the NSA places devices in the data centers of Google, which actively monitor user activity and personal data.

Is the US government rooting for Google?

Data is a strong force. It can be used for scientific research, or even obscene harvesting by a greedy American company, as is the case with NSA's PRISM program.

This makes me question the purpose of Google. The majority of online information is found via Google. If one result challenging the government is excluded from a list of search results, who, aside from Google, would be aware of that?

That's what so dangerous about companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google. They have the power to oppress, without anyone really knowing about it. Paired with the government, that's a strong force.

In some ways, this could be likened to China's 'Great Firewall', a program set out to censor information available to ordinary people. As an example: anything that challenges the views of China's leadership is commonly obscured by China.

Google censors information, too.

What's the difference?