I can’t think of any. Youtube, facebook, wikipedia, ebay, etc. All American.
The BBC website is British…
Check for yourself here. Two of the top 10 are Chinese.
A few less obvious ones:
Flickr - Canada.
IMDB - UK.
Rapidshare - Switzerland.
Not quite a website, but Skype is Swedish/Estonian/Luxembourgian.
News Corp. - Fox News and other subsidiaries around the world. Rupert Murdoch - Austrailian owned.
That’s quite an American perspective. It turns out that alot of this stuff falls into national categories like search engines: Baidu is big in China. Naver in Korea. The Russians have Yandex.
On top of that, each country has its own popular free blog/mail provider and social network. So if you’re Chinese you could ask “Why aren’t there any American companies here? We use QQ for IM, Baidu for search, and renren for social networking.”
Murdoch is an American. He was naturalized in 1985. News Corp. is headquartered in New York.
I might have said CricInfo, but since they have some sort of ESPN thing going on, it might make them American.
The OP said “global websites.” Websites that are big only in one country or region are not “global websites.”
That’s the point. Not everyone uses Google. Different countries have different favorite search engines.
The link provided for the “top ten” above (Alexa) allows you to see a ranked breakdown by country if you click on the particular site. The top ten shown seem to have ranks in many countries consistent with their overall rank shown there, except for Baidu and QQ which have minimal traffic outside China, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. In particular, google is in the top 5 in over 30 countries, and comes in at #7 in China, in spite of the ongoing squabbles. “Global” hasn’t been precisely defined here, but it’s probably fair to to call Google and Facebook global, while Baidu is not.
ETA:
Also note that some of the big sites like Google and Yahoo have separate entries for localized services like “Google India”. Presumably, that traffic should be added to the main Google statistics to evaluate the global reach of Google as a company.
I thought this question sounded familiar. Here’s a very similar thread from last year.
Probably because of the increasing hostility shown toward non-Mainland internet companies.
My point is that the question is at best faulty and at worst loaded. What is global? Is facebook global even though its users are primarily in the US and English speaking countries? because it has a .com at its end instead of a .ca or .uk? What makes Facebook “global?” or Ebay? Why aren’t we questioning this assumption.
The point is that you’re cherry picking examples and claiming arbitrarily “THIS IS GLOBAL - EVERYONE USES FACEBOOK BECAUSE I USE IT, SEE!” Err no, Facebook is an English-centric site. Ebay, google, etc all have strong competitors that typically break down on a national level. It turns out that the guy bidding against you for a broken laser pointer isn’t a Thai teenager, most likely Thai teens are using a local service.
The question very much is American-centric and really shows a lot of ignorance on what sites are popular outside the USA and why. I’d even go as far as saying that most “global” sites are far from global and the idea of a master global site is something of an internet fiction. Even google, which is probably the best argument for a global site, breaks its service down by country and applies different techniques and different filters for different regions.
I’m highly skeptical that ebay, facebook, et al can remotely be considered global sites. Heck, when we look at facebook penetraton we see high penetration in the US and then other English speaking nations and then a huge dropoff in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Err, so this is global to you? Sorry, but I disagree.
Of course there aren’t any foreign global sites because your definition of global is whatever the heck you want it to be, which so far seems to me to be popular US sites with token presence in other countries, even if in those countries it is a barely used service.
Dude, I think you are going to have to hang up the anti-American hat on this one. Looking at the Alexia link I looked at top websites for several countries. Performing a non-exhaustive random search (Armenia, Israel, Poland, Thailand, Venezuela, and Nigeria, only Nigeria is “English-speaking”), Google and Facebook were in all of their top 5 sites. Youtube was always in the top 10. I think you are going to have to present some hard evidence that Google, Facebook, and Youtube are NOT global Internet companies.
Not all criticism of blind Americentrism is anti-American, although thanks for the namecalling derail.
Secondly, even Alexa admits that its methodoloy is shit:
http://www.alexa.com/help/traffic-learn-more
Thirdly, Facebook penetration by continent:
Asian 2.4%
Africa 1.7%
Middle East 5.5%
Carribean 9%
N America 43%
Oceania 33%
Not exactly the “world” here.
Lastly, unless someone wants to properly define “global” then this is meaningless noise. The definition should include significant penetration in foreign markets, not a token presence.
If you pretend the OP actually said “Are there any major English language websites that weren’t created or owned by people in the US?” I think you’ll get what the OP was actually asking, without all the needless accusations of bias.
You can look at those facebook stats and conclude that it doesn’t have “significant penetration in foreign markets” with a straight face?
20% of non-North American internet users have a facebook account. If true, that’s utterly astounding. No doubt if it wasn’t banned in China that number would be even higher.
Who’s cherry picking now?
You leave out significant presence in Europe and Latin America while using a loaded stat that doesn’t take into account the lower internet presence in some of those regions.