Ken Auletta Googled 2009 publication. Rerevisionist Review: 1 April 2018
Jew-Naive View of a Powerful Force in Information Processing by Computer
The subtitle is 'The End of the World As We Know It'; Blurbs include 'The New York Times Bestseller' and 'Walter Isaacson, Former Managing Editor of Time' saying it's 'A triumph of reporting and analysis, ... revealing scenes, fascinating tales, ... candid interviews' which help suggest part of the reason for on-line reading and viewing success. Auella's books heavily lean to Jewish censorship and money—but of course only the outcomes: Nothing, for example, on the 'Fed'; nothing on loans leading to wars—'the Business of News' (9/11, anyone?), Microsoft, TV Networks (in the US, the Lehman ('official') story, Schlumberger. Probably Penguin thought he was just right to do Google!
Auletta's working technique seems to be to read the official newspress (New York Times, Financial Times, trade news, maybe press lunches at business meetings...) but also interview people. He 'conducted a total of about 150 interviews' and made 'many weeklong visits to the Google campus in Mountain View...' though he was shepherded round by David Krane, an 'early hire'. I imagine filed-away mini-tape-cassettes, but who knows. The notes at the end list his 'author interviews', but the more-or-less legendary Larry Page and Sergey Brin only seem to have granted three interviews, a (presumably) preliminary one on Oct 10th, and/or 11th, 2007, from Brin, then Larry Page (March 25th, 2008) and Sergey Brin (Sept 18th, 2008).
At the time of writing, this book is ten years old, at which time I had no active website, had just posted a few videos to Youtube (bought by Google, in November 2006), and knew about NASA's frauds, and the Holohoax, though not about nuclear frauds. Skype existed, but was not used by me, nor mentioned by Auletta. He doesn't mention hardware generally: thin screens, laser mice, solid state storage, improvements in hard disks. Auletta seems uninterested in the problems faced by all-encompassing digital storage. If, each year, there are [insert number] websites of average size [insert megabytes], what's an approx graph of storage requirements? Can newspapers be scanned and stored? How many disks (or whatever), how much cable (or whatever), how much electricity, how much downloading, is needed? It's all very well to talk in terms of revenues of billions, but a chunk of expenses must be owning large secure sites and maybe power stations round the world. Auletta is a bit like someone who wants a laptop, but can't be bothered to work out its specification. But on a huge scale.
My best guess is that Google was spotted and in effect funded by Jewish paper money, no doubt hidden behind assorted 'independent' companies and investors. And thus became part of the 'secret state'. Hence, I think, buying out Youtube at an absurd price, getting control over online movies, and ten years after Auletta pruning out some Jew-aware stuff. If you have paper money, who cares if you lose it? Intelligence persons faced the intoxicating prospect of endless information on everyone—or at least normal people who weren't fake 'refugees' etc. Google maps and pageview are terrific, but perhaps worrying. I've never found the stories of Page and Brin very convincing. The Jews-in-Moscow thing will leave nobody with any grasp of Jews and the USSR with any sympathy. Moreover, the search engine seems to have only used internal links between sites as an assessment factor. And yet, given vast numbers of downloaded HTML files, what else was there to use?
The insultingly small number of interviews suggest the intrepid author wasn't looked on too favourably by Brin and Page. I'd guess there was a contract covering what was not to be printed, just as Richard Branson's wife was/is contractually obliged not to discuss anything. Auletta's background detail is a bit samey—scenery, cafeteria, some clothes details, but nothing on voice, presentation—do they shout? Have nervous tics? Fear dogs? Say "Oy vey"? Feel older than they were?—and nothing is permitted describing sexuality. Maybe the retired masseuse with her shares is 'smoking hot', for example. Maybe we'll never know.
There's an online page (in 2018) called something like searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf, a document file giving guidelines probably for English speakers in India, to keep the costs down. The range of websites is rather staggering—from lightweight trivia and junk sites, cunning phishing and fake sites, to serious hard-to-assess intellectual sites. A search finds a few 'hate' sites—with a totally unbiased note that the Holohoax is very well documented. I'd be very surprised if this public document is the last word in Googleography; Jews have committed world crimes to such an extent that there must be serious documents, with sayanim in background positions poised to strike. I wonder if they're paid a lot? After all, it's their fraud too.
Watching a few elderly broadcasts of Who Wants to be a Millionaire suggests that the 'phone a friend' 'lifeline' was killed off by Google. Clinton Dawkins says something similar in one of his books—it's now easier than it ever has been to get official answers to the sort of questions asked in quizzes.
There's quite a bit of material (in effect) on copyright, and the disruption of US media, though Auletta does not approach the devastating fake-news crits of Trump on such things as the 'failing New York Times'. Maybe this is a common thing; there are countless Jewish 'workers' in US junk media, which is easier to produce, with computer typesetting, green screens, super sound editing, terrific still graphics, and probably many are so accustomed to lies that they can't imagine things may change.
An online source (a Youtube video) states that about 2000 Excite was offered Google for a low price with some strings, e.g. using Google's search methods. Excite turned it down. It's probable that the Jewish policy of not promoting whites might apply to corporations, too. Youtube banned a recorded talk by 'historian' E Hobsbawm on the USSR, absurdly describing it as infringing so in-house hate nonsense; it's easy to see how this works.