I rather expected this. I'm generally a skeptical reporter, and was dismayed myself that I couldn't be more critical. But being critical for it's own sake is bad journalism, and I couldn't find another reason to justify it.
I've researched all criticism of Google I could find, and cannot find any persuasive arguments. They're all based on the fact that Google is now Big Business and cannot be trusted. Google is now suspect because it has been too successful.
Google collects an enormous amount of information on us, and that scares people. But nobody can point to a single instance where Google has abused that information. Google is a monopoly, and people are afraid it will abuse that monopoly. Again, point me to an example. Google Books is bad because it adds to the monopoly, even though Google is spending up to $125 million to get rights to books that we would never see otherwise, and making them available.
The most evil thing Google did was enter China, counter to its own stance against censorship. But I can't see that that has made censorship worse in China.
Google is acting as a catalyst to try to change industries that are inefficient and greedy. Wireless carriers, software companies, email producers, Internet portals. In every case it has helped open up these industries.
Larry and Sergey are the most ethical corporate executives I have met in 25 years of business reporting. They are a breath of clean air in a business climate polluted by too much greed.
I'm happy to reconsider my opinion. Just point me in the right direction.
For more of my views on Google, please visit my web site at http://richardlbrandt.com/