Microsoft Bing in the Business of Deceit, Censorship, and Brainwash

Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2010-03-16 13:28:58 UTC
Modified: 2010-03-16 20:10:36 UTC

Summary: Microsoft's idea of "search" continues to incorporate business bias, unnecessary censorship, bribes, and advertisements that disparage Google

THE simple reality hurts Microsoft's Bong [sic] because having about 3% in global market share is laughable, especially when one loses over $2 billion per year in this area. Microsoft is trying to compete with Google, but perhaps it just can't understand that by fooling users with fake rankings it simply sends out the message that it's not interested in search, it just wants to decide for users what (mis)information that should get.

Last week we wrote about Microsoft's Middle East censorship ((this is now confirmed by more sources [1, 2]) and recalled that in China, for instance, Microsoft does even worse things which had the New York Times (NYT) call for a boycott (at least one writer of NYT called for a Bing boycott). Homophobia at Microsoft was also brought up because of this news (Microsoft still censors the subject in some places). So what is Microsoft to search really? It's just a business looking to maximise profit. The integrity of the search and the honesty is placed very low because Microsoft believes that it can lie to customers as long as some accomplices like the Chinese government are happy. Not a smart strategy, Microsoft, not so smart. This only reinforces the perception that Microsoft is an innately "bad" company.

“This only reinforces the perception that Microsoft is an innately "bad" company.”"Microsoft Bing bribes Farmville enthusiasts on Facebook with farm," says this report. It would not be the first time that Microsoft is accused of "bribing" to compete with Google [1, 2] and there is also the Verizon deal [1, 2] (Microsoft reportedly paid Verizon half a billion dollars to drop Google).

Microsoft now resorts to brainwash on British TV [1, 2, 3, 4] (Google never did this), it uses US-only numbers from a partner (comScore) to make claims that are difficult to trust because of many conflicts of interests [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], and in MSN we find new changes [1, 2] which Microsoft boosters like Microsoft Nick are advertising in the form of articles and galleries [1, 2]. This is not reporting, but then again, it's Microsoft friends from Ziff Davis [1, 2, 3]. Here is another article about the "new" MSN:

--Remember when Microsoft was, well, Microsoft? The House That Gates Built is trying to stand tall against Google with a newly redesigned page for its portal, MSN.com. The new-and-improved site is a little cleaner and a little fresher, but not significantly different. The main purpose of the page seems to be to steer people to Microsoft's Bing search engine, which is a good deal better than previous Microsoft search offerings but, it must be said, isn't a Google beater.

Rupert Murdoch, a friend of Microsoft and an ally against Google [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13], seems to be collaborating a little more with Microsoft, the abusive monopolist. Microsoft's CNET booster writes about it gleefully and more details can be found here:

Now under new management, MySpace is looking to reinvent itself and rise like a Phoenix from the ashes. The once dominant social networking site fell from nearly 70 percent of the social networking market, to only 30 percent in less than a year, and was plummeting on the verge of extinction.

One of the ways that MySpace is looking to build some relevance again is through the Microsoft Outlook social connector feature--giving it some new business credibility it has always lacked. MySpace beat its social networking rival Facebook to the punch to integrate its member information and updates into Microsoft Outlook. Facebook and Windows Live integration is still listed as "coming soon".

For those who do not know, MySpace is owned by Murdoch and it shows. ⬆

Comments

your_friend

2010-03-16 14:13:02

Outlook a feature of Myspace to give business credibility? Clue to Murdoch, Gmail use is orders of magnitude larger than outlook use and Google's reputation is better than Microsoft's, so Myspace would do better to sync with standard contact formats like ical, vcf, ics etc. This has the added benefit of making Myspace work with almost every other PIM suite too. It's also cheaper and more reliable, like every other PIM suite, because Microsoft has a nasty habit of breaking things that talk to Outlook. Outlook is also about the worst of the PIMs in terms of performance and features and people only use it when they are forced to. It is also a notorious security hole that gives access to crackers of all stripes and locations. Murdoch is making changes that might have been useful 10 years ago, Outlook is a hated part of a fast fading Microsoft.

The trust issue is a big deal. Businesses know that they don't have email privacy with Microsoft, so they might as well hand it over to Google. Outlook gains its business trust by promissing to be able to wipe email from a reading device if it's stolen or the user is fired. Android will almost certainly be able to offer a similar service and lock down to those who want it. This is not at odds with computer freedom if the owner of the device is the company not the employee, though there are very real drawbacks to this for the employee.

Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2010-03-16 16:56:46

Businesses should host their own mail with Free software.

Needs Sunlight

2010-03-17 13:53:35

They should host their own mail with Free software, unless they wish to hurt themselves in order to wear their ideology visible on the Internet. If they want to go with Microsoft instead of standard mail software, that's not really fine either, because of the lost mail and the chernobyl like virus and malware factories that are Windows servers.

Build a solution or hire it. For groupware, look at Citadel or Kolab. For simpler arrangements, contact your hosting service about IMAPS service or look at the components in the groupware.

Needs Sunlight

2010-03-17 13:48:04

Outlook / Exchange lose lots of mail regardless of whether the physical devices are lost or stolen. I guess the real question is is the amount of mail lost or destroyed after the device changes hands greater or less than the amount of mail lost or destroyed by Outlook/Exchange while in the hands of the device's rightful operator?

Don't get bingwashed data, go straight to bong's database, Wolfram Alpha. Or use Google or Cuil.

Microsoft Bing in the Business of Deceit, Censorship, and Brainwash

Comments

Recent Techrights' Posts