OK, I’m starting to feel naive about trusting the new age corporations to actually give a sh** about users. AOL and Yahoo are now going to charge companies to bypass their filter in order to solicit users with mail they are unlikely to want. AOL and YAHOO that would be the USERS that have made you successful rich companies!

There appears to be a lot of rationalization going on, and I certainly agree you need to make compromises in business, but I’m no longer convinced that the dialog about “corporate responsibility” is trumping the marketing and revenue and SNEAKY BASTARD considerations, even at places like Google which claim to make that a key operating principle and I think really DID make it a key principle….in the past.

As many have pointed out there’s nothing *necessarily* wrong with the ruthless biz first, biz last approach – some would say it’s the approach that has made America number ONE. I’d agree that a combination of ruthess capitalism and caring at the corporate level have created our thriving entrepreneur-friendly fast and frenzied business climate, and that on balance this is good for most people in the USA and even most people OUTSIDE of the USA by powering up a thriving global economy which feeds more people than a crappy (or socialistic) global economy ever could.

But why be so hypocritical about this and pretend you care about the users more than the cash? I actually would be a lot more respectful of these money plays if you said “screw the users, we want the money!”. But I’m asked too often to give you the benefit of the doubt when you sacrifice my needs for yours. That’s over now.

First Google buys a stake in AOL and gives them and other big advertisers preferential treatment in a variety of venues, then it’s Yahoo, MSN, and Google helping China censor politics, and now Yahoo and AOL are going to charge businesses to spam people with offers. For a penny you can dodge the filters and get to the users.

The problem is not so much the charging or even the increase in the amount of marginally relevant crap mail we’ll see from this. Rather it’s that as USUAL the big guys are sacrificing user satisfaction for money WITHOUT enough respect or recognition of the rold of the user in the big picture.

I can only hope this is at the great peril of the big companies.

I’m looking forward to a sort of user/publisher revolution where people start to recognize that commercial considerations are driving the web in irrelevant ways and we need to take back the web which should remain by the people and for the people, with the people reaping the benefits of the new medium more than the company best poised to exploit us.

Yesterday I saw “End of the Spear” which is a simply brilliant film about the complexity of life, the clash of cultures, the heroic passion of missionaries, and more. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a film that dealt as honestly with the portrayal of a very violent native culture, the Waodani of Ecuador.

This is no “Dances with Wolves” and is inappropriate for a sensitive child – there are several disturbing (though not all that graphically violent) scenes of brutal spearings and machete killings as the Waodani and another tribe engage in the cycle of violence that brings them to the brink of extinction.

Like “Black Robe”, another brilliant culture conflict masterpiece, this film chooses to honestly portray the disturbing brutal violence that characterized some aspects of native American life rather than censoring those things offensive to our modern sets of sensibilities.

I’m not a religious person but I find the courage of missionaries inspiring as they brave many hardships and dangers to bring their vision to others. In one of this film’s many great moments the son and narrator of the film asks his father if he’ll defend himself if attacked after first contact with the tribe. “We can’t shoot the Waodani” says the father, because they are not yet ready for heaven and we are. Later this choice must be made and the missionaries stay true to their faith.

The film is based on a true story about the Waodani people of Ecuador and their intersection with two generations of missionaries.

There’s also documentary about the real people in the film called “Beyond the Gates” I have yet to see.

Ultimately the internet is about people or it’s about nothing at all.

At first glance I think many offline folks would think it odd to see a post of the passing of Jeremy Z’s Grandmother on his blog – one of the web’s most prominent. But as the posting itself and the heartfelt comments indicate this is a fine statement of respect and affection for a dear member of the family.

Our ability to blend and connect people, emotion, respect and affection with the online tools will define not only our business success, it has begun to define us as successful human beings.

THIS is pretty neat.

It’s a chart that shows the number of times “Google” is mentioned in blogs at Technorati and you can use any word to see how the blogging world is addressing the issue.

Try Miers, then Alito.

Battelle talks about Google’s database of intentions that is big, growing, and could have monstrous implications for humanity. It’s not just Google – it’s … everywhere!

Search engine optimization, almost by definition, implies that there is a difference between what is good for PEOPLE to see and what is good for ranking in SEARCH ENGINES.

It’s certainly true that there is a difference. As anybody who has searched and surfed knows all too well – you often don’t find what you need and often find things you’ll NEVER need.
It’s not clear to me that things are improving as huge amounts of irrelevant and junky content continues to find it’s way despite valiant efforts by very sharp teams of spam fighters at places like Google.

However, Search Engine Optimization as “gaming” the engines to give your own results rather than more appropriate ones is dying fast and may soon be dead. Good SEOs emphasize the importance of quality content, natural linkings, good site navigation and tags, and other basics, and many no longer even try to “spoof” results with manipulative schemes which can lead to penalties by the search engines.

Less spoofing and more quality is a good thing as it will allow all of us in publishing to work on better content and user experience. At the point where good SEO is simply creating a great website the entire concept of SEO starts to lose it’s value as a marketing framework.

I read and know a lot of REALLY good SEO people – some of the best in the world are regulars at the WebmasterWorld and SES conference series, but it’s hard to separate some of the fact from fiction since they feed their kids by promoting the idea that SEO is still a critical piece of advanced internet strategy rather than a dying art.

What is very clear and rarely disputed by anybody is that, aside from the basics (which you’ll find HERE with some great technical clarifications HERE and HERE, masterful SEO is art not science and may be a dying art.

That’s a good thing as it will allow us to work on better content and user experience.

At the point where good SEO is simply creating a great website I’m not sure the concept of SEO has much value at all.

Amr at Yahoo analyzed the 4th quarter situation at GOOG and appears to have called the shot brilliantly. I think it was an intriguing example of how an insider at the *competition* can see things that even savvy investors might miss. That said I need to check to make sure Amr was right for the right reasons – ie revenue issues vs earnings.

If he IS right for right reasons I think I’ll act on his advice NEXT time, knowing the market is slow on the uptake when it comes to processing dot com stock pricing information (example is virtually every dot com stock of 1999).

Meanwhile, Om Malik writing for CNN seems to miss the point, suggesting this is just a little dip in Google’s rise to global dominance.

Anybody, especially siliconized, who suggests that there is no doubt in the future of a company evolving as fast as Google is simply not paying attention. With a capitalization still exceeding that of some nations, Google is hardly comparable to a startup. Sure Google might take over the world – they are a fantastic company. But they also may, heaven forbid and cross yourself, make some big mistakes. Many think they have already made some. AOL deal, China deal, DOJ non-deal.

If the price drop immediately following the “less than spectacular” earnings report yesterday was a “knee jerk” as Om suggests, it was more consistent with reality than the rising price last year which I rarely heard described as anything but consistent with the company’s performance.

I’m simply floored by those who should know better to imply that *this time* the huge stock price and expectations are “realistic”.

OH REALLY?

DISCLOSURE I – I’ve got some GOOG puts, which means I’m potentially biased here. But only potentially, I’m going to call it like I see it and my blog is hardly market-moving commentary.
DISCLOSURE II – Google pays me to run adsense ads at several of my websites and I appreciate the cash and T shirts.
DISCLOSURE III – I know several people who work at Google. They are nice and super smart and I wish them the best.
DISCLOSURE PS – I hope this doesn’t mean I can’t go to the Google Dance 2006. I still think Google is great, just very strangely priced.