It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Your company will never be as big as Facebook or Google

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I just got done reading this article from MarketWatch:

www.marketwatch.com...

WHY are people listening to Mark Zuckerberg as though he is some sort of preeminent genius? Facebook is nothing more than a bloated mixture between an RSS feed and a "guestbook", with some AIM and Photobucket thrown in. So WHY is the inventor of what should be a minor achievement in internet history touting the next era of technological telepathy and laser-guided WiFi at every corner of the globe?

Another company along the same lines is Google. Google started as a search engine with a fairly innovative algorithm (good for them), and added maps and some other nice features along the way. I didn't believe that their stated goal, "to organize the world's information and make it univerally accessible and useful," would ever be realized. Now, I'm not so sure. And to top it off they are partnering with NASA to help innovate quantum computing...

Both companies are heavily involved with "deep learning" and neural nets, have massive, highly secure data centers with custom hardware, and seem to be pushing technology that will have a serious impact on not just the internet, but humanity itself.

Why these two companies? Why not MySpace and Yahoo? Could it be that both of these companies, though they may have started organically, are public fronts for an information division of the military-industrial complex? In other words, were these companies purchased to push forward public-targeting technologies of the military because people would trust companies that appear to be symbols of entrepreneurship? People might think twice about posting their every thought, their whereabouts and their relationships to DARPABook.

But, seriously, Zuckerberg is NOT a genius. Facebook and Google are only moderately innovative in the grand scheme of things. And yet, look at where they are now, designing artificial intelligence and quantum computing. I don't know which is sadder, that the general public thinks these are real companies and not fronts, or that every entrepreneur out there thinks they can do the same.




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Instead of laser-guided internet, the people in poorer nations might find this more helpful:

vimeo.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: hololeap

I've always thought of GooGle as the

G lobal O bservable O verseeing G overnment L ooking E verywhere.

No?
edit on 18-8-2015 by NewzNose because: correction.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Sometime, things only needs luck and a little push. The hard things is usually to understand that you are lucky. May be they aren't great brains, but, at least, they accomplish something. Some people got famous and listened just because they are rich (kardashian).

I understand your rant, and, in a ideal world you could be right, but right now, people haver difficulty to understand what is hard work or who is really talented.

Good luck in your quest.

edit on 18-8-2015 by PersonneX because: correct typo


edit on 18-8-2015 by PersonneX because: listen -­> listened



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Not buying it sorry



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The most intense mapping software ever, with satellite overlay, probably costing millions, pinpointing your exact location and leaving breadcrumbs wherever you go, tying it all together in a neat little package, yeah it's probably harmless.

Or a social networking trap branching out like a virus in all directions, utilitizing facial recognition, tracking your website visits, even outing people in large crowds and volunteering the info to law enforcement, yeah it's probably harmless.




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
If you are willing to put aside your bias point of view, I can answer your questions OP.

First of all, you ask why people listen to/follow Zuckerberg. The answer is more simple than you realize. Zuckerberg founded and oversaw one of the fastest growing tools and business platforms in not only the tech industry, but the world. What Zuckerberg created, is now considered a basic necessity/tool by a large portion of the human population.


Now, of COURSE the success of facebook isn't SOLELY due to him. He just happens to be the guy in the right place at he right time. Nonetheless, he still created what he created....and just being in that arena, you gain experience and knowledge that is EXTREMELY valuable. In other words, what makes Zuckerberg the man he is today, isnt that he CREATED facebook.....but its the experience that comes with the territory of creating something as revolutionary and successful as facebook.



Now, on to google. You ask what is special about google. Well, sure, it started as a search engine. However, it is more about what google has BECOME. It is now the DEFAULT search engine everyone uses. More than HALF of the people who use cell phones use ANDROID, which was developed by google. Google is beyond some REALLY innovative things, and it isn't just their products...but also they corporate policy that has changed our world drastically. Hopefully other companies will start to learn from them, because on the corporate policy they have outdone most companies.


You ask why these companies, and not Myspace, or yahoo.com? Why? I'm not sure what you mean. If it was Myspace and yahoo , instead of google and facebook, wouldn't you be asking the SAME question? The fact is, HUMANS determine what memes we create, or what becomes popular. We will never know what SPECIFICALLY made facebook win over myspace, or google win over yahoo. This happens in the business world all the time. A new technology is developed, multiple companies race to take control, and one or two or three emerge victorious.


Are facebook and google fronts for the government? No. There is no reason to think they are. It wouldn't benefit the government in any way. All the government has to do is subpeona facebook or google to get whatever they want.

Why would our government, who can't manage ANYTHING, want to take on, and manage these multi-million/billion dollr companies. Instead, our government just has ACCESS to whatever they want from them. It isn't like google or facebook ever had a choice in the matter. One way or the other, the government would find its way.

By the way, the government isn't your enemy. It is a tool used by specific wealthy circles who dominate the industries. The government is just a tool.


Also, people should ALREADY think twice about posting pictures/things online. When you join facebook, you agree that everything you post becomes THEIR property. When you download the facebook app, you agree to give them access to your microphone and camera 24/7. Common sense......




Sorry, but I disagree with your entire thread. You make two assertions in this thread. 1. Google and facebook are front corporations for the government. and 2. No one else can become an entrepreneur and obtain the level of success similar to google or facebook. Both assertions are WRONG. You don't provide any real evidence to support EITHER assertions, nor do you really even focus on them in this thread.

Instead, this thread basically gives 2 straightforward assertions, but then you leave it at that, without supporting them with any substance. Then you just rant about how you feel about a few things.



I think you should sit down and think specifically about what thought you are trying to convey, and then find some supporting facts to anchor that thought in. Otherwise a thread like this can only go so far :/



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: PersonneX

I don't really believe in luck. Sure, Zuckerberg might feel lucky since his company is doing so well, but to those who financed Facebook in the beginning probably chose his company for specific reasons. It's debatable if those early funders were directly linked to In-Q-Tel and the CIA, but there are some loose ties.

The thing that sets these companies apart from others and links them (at least in my mind) to the military are their massive budgets and their investment in technologies that would seem to serve a surveillance state better than the sites themselves. For instance:

Why would a social networking site need facial recognition software? (It states that it's to make tagging friends easier, but that seems unlikely.)

Why would a social networking site need an advanced system to determine emotions or events of posts even when they aren't specifically stated? (Stated reason is for better ad targeting, which it probably would be good for. It would also be good for determining emotions in large swaths of the population for social engineering.)

Why would a search engine need to keep all of your search results forever? (Stated reason is for better prediction of searches, but again the uses of this for a surveillance state are obvious.)

All of these taken individually can be dismissed with their pretence, but the companies' innovations seem to all fall along the same lines of creating advanced computer systems for mapping all human knowledge and patterns detailing their whereabouts, thoughts, and emotions. Compare this to the current military doctrine of "mapping/mastering the human domain". With this in mind, these companies seem to have serious potential to be tied in to the military-industrial complex and intelligence community.
edit on 18-8-2015 by hololeap because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: supermarket2012

The question of "why not MySpace and Yahoo" is meant to be rhetorical. I was implying that the reason they aren't in the same league is because they were not chosen. Obviously, if they were, the question would be reversed. My point is that these companies seem to have a golden key to be involved in all kinds of new research projects previously in the realm of sci-fi while their competitors are not.

My assertions could be summarised as 1. Facebook and Google can attribute a large amount of their success to funding and support from the intelligence community and/or military-industrial complex and 2. those who do not have this funding and support will never be able to grow as quickly.

I don't have much to back this up, which obviously makes my case rather weak. This is why I posted this in the "Rants" section. I want to see what other people have to say, because I know I'm not alone in this belief.
edit on 18-8-2015 by hololeap because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: hololeap
I just got done reading this article from MarketWatch:

www.marketwatch.com...

WHY are people listening to Mark Zuckerberg as though he is some sort of preeminent genius? Facebook is nothing more than a bloated mixture between an RSS feed and a "guestbook", with some AIM and Photobucket thrown in. So WHY is the inventor of what should be a minor achievement in internet history touting the next era of technological telepathy and laser-guided WiFi at every corner of the globe?

Another company along the same lines is Google. Google started as a search engine with a fairly innovative algorithm (good for them), and added maps and some other nice features along the way. I didn't believe that their stated goal, "to organize the world's information and make it univerally accessible and useful," would ever be realized. Now, I'm not so sure. And to top it off they are partnering with NASA to help innovate quantum computing...

Both companies are heavily involved with "deep learning" and neural nets, have massive, highly secure data centers with custom hardware, and seem to be pushing technology that will have a serious impact on not just the internet, but humanity itself.

Why these two companies? Why not MySpace and Yahoo? Could it be that both of these companies, though they may have started organically, are public fronts for an information division of the military-industrial complex? In other words, were these companies purchased to push forward public-targeting technologies of the military because people would trust companies that appear to be symbols of entrepreneurship? People might think twice about posting their every thought, their whereabouts and their relationships to DARPABook.

But, seriously, Zuckerberg is NOT a genius. Facebook and Google are only moderately innovative in the grand scheme of things. And yet, look at where they are now, designing artificial intelligence and quantum computing. I don't know which is sadder, that the general public thinks these are real companies and not fronts, or that every entrepreneur out there thinks they can do the same.


Don't forget they they attended Builderberg. Right after, Zuckerberg came home and started up a think tank and is trying to sway immigration.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Lets let the Deputy Director Christopher Sartinsky tell us his thoughts about Facebook.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: hololeap
I just got done reading this article from MarketWatch:

www.marketwatch.com...


Why these two companies? Why not MySpace and Yahoo? Could it be that both of these companies, though they may have started organically, are public fronts for an information division of the military-industrial complex?


Honest answer... Because google and Facebook were created by jews. Yahoo and MySpace were not. Look at just about any big successful company and they were created by Jewish folks. I'm not claiming a conspiracy theory there, it could just be that Jews are good business people. After all, they do have the highest IQ on average. It could also have to do with the fact that the media is also owned by Jews, and Jews help Jews (I.e. Free publicity and advertising). Christians don't seem to have as much of a desire to help their fellow Christians and tend to compete against each other rather than help their fellow Christians become massively rich.

Craigslist is another example. Craig was Jewish. He also has made 450 million off of it. Angie at angieslist is not Jewish and she hasn't been nearly as successful despite her site being first.

Probably only non Jewish successful person I can think of is Steve jobs of Apple.. But even then, Apple wasn't as big as Microsoft.. Microsoft co founder Steve Ballmer was Jewish (though bill gates was not)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: hololeap

Zuk kinda is a genius, regarding online business models.

Look at what FB is now. How many users it has. And it's not just that. Facebook is now a nexus, and nothing else is as big a nexus as it is. Myspace was a platform, a platform that essentially died. FB has its tentacles EVERYWHERE, in practically every major website, from news to entertainment, connecting (or trying to connect) the web surfing population to it. And it's succeeding. It's more influential than twitter reddit, etc, even thought they try to be as relevant. Everywhere you go it's "like us on FB" intruding everywhere because it is now a cultural icon, and historically important because nothing online has ever done what it has done. Hell, just look at the algorithms it uses to accomplish the crap it does, and those algorithms have been in place since day one...and only get better at helping it expand itself.

So, it is unlikely another company will be as big, or do what it does, until the next innovative business model comes along...which might as well be AI.

Facebook and Google are becoming entities unto themselves. That is their significance, actually and historically. And no one has ever done that before.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Well Google, or now it's parent company Alphabet, have demonstrated time and time again that they are for the protection of web citizens.
www.abc.xyz...

Facebook is another beast, and one that has shown time and time again that they could care less for the privacy of it's users.

And isn't Craigslist now owned by Pierre, the founder of eBay now?
edit on 19-8-2015 by smirkley because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: WP4YT

Are there no Jewish owned businesses now in, or have gone through bankruptcy?

I have been adopted by a loving Jewish family. Adopted in the sense that I am considered inner family and
introduced to their close friends and those who patron their business as a family member. We have zero common religious beliefs or religious practices.

Love is love.

Did Zuckerberg turn to only Jews to assist him at the start of his venture? Or Google, Craigslist, etc? Doubtful.

People in successful businesses steer conversations away from religion and politics.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose




People in successful businesses steer conversations away from religion and politics.


That is a worthy quote. Spot on.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: hololeap

Facebook just capitalized on something that was missing in the market. They created social media really, at least pervasive social media.

Google on the other hand?

I could list the innovations that have come out of google, which have revolutionized the way we consume, view and find media on the internet, but it would be too long.

Google is a huge company and a successful one because of how they've innovated over the years.

~tenth




top topics



 
9

log in

join