4 ms·

First off, the WiFi thing. Ffs. The difference there is literally typing "-s 0" or omitting that parameter vs "-s 64". Hardly anything evil or firable or crimin

First off, the WiFi thing. Ffs. The difference there is literally typing "-s 0" or omitting that parameter vs "-s 64". Hardly anything evil or firable or criminal. Making them seem bad because they didn't fire someone for a trivial mistake is silly (and anyways it was public broadcasts, not that it totally excuses it but come on). Second, Google's entire point of existence is to give an opinion on search results. Full stop. If Google decides that people searching for Clinton want to see positive articles, that's their call. Again, that's their entire product. People are trusting Google's opinion on search results. And calling Google's response meaningless? Google's saying they're screwed if they deliberately betrayed users. And what they aren't saying is that if they ever were caught really manipulating results, they would be hit with so much regulation that Bing would have a chance.

josu 11y ago
>Second, Google's entire point of existence is to give an opinion on search results. Nope, their point of existence is to sell ads. Showing good results is how they create value, and you are just stretching the meaning of "opinion". >they would be hit with so much regulation that Bing would have a chance. This is just naïve. Google is one of the biggest companies in the world and consequently their lobbying power is huge. Besides, I don't even know how they could regulate it. Their algorithm will always be a trade secret and there is no regulation that could ever force them to publish it.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  You're right about the ads. I should say the entire functionality of the search product itself. As far as "opinion", while you might call it a stretch, it's still quite valid and true. There isn't any standard definition of "relevant". As far as regulation, eh, I'd love (in a perverse way) to see what the EU comes up with. They could assign officers that get secret reports on algorithm changes. They could mandate that Google justify, in secret, every change, with scrutiny on anything that doesn't serve a clear purpose. They could make it a criminal offense to intentionally change results to skew elections. A government isn't just gonna shrug and go "oh well, trade secrets". There's no way that Google wants more people thinking "monopoly" and "fair search results".
  - josu 11y ago
    Yeah, it will be interesting to see what comes out of Europe. Personally I think that regulators don't stand a chance. For example, they passed a Google (News) tax in Spain, and Google closed the Spanish Google News page. Now Spanish newspapers are begging Google to bring back Google News.
  - mcv 11y ago
    While there are many situations where regulation is important, I'm not so sure about governments secretly interfering with how media report on electoral candidates. The agency responsible for this would have to be absolutely guaranteed completely independent from political branches of government and established parties. We don't accept this kind of interference with newspapers and TV news. Why would it be acceptable for search engines?

josu 11y ago

>Second, Google's entire point of existence is to give an opinion on search results. Nope, their point of existence is to sell ads. Showing good results is how they create value, and you are just stretching the meaning of "opinion". >they would be hit with so much regulation that Bing would have a chance. This is just naïve. Google is one of the biggest companies in the world and consequently their lobbying power is huge. Besides, I don't even know how they could regulate it. Their algorithm will always be a trade secret and there is no regulation that could ever force them to publish it.

MichaelGG 11y ago
You're right about the ads. I should say the entire functionality of the search product itself. As far as "opinion", while you might call it a stretch, it's still quite valid and true. There isn't any standard definition of "relevant". As far as regulation, eh, I'd love (in a perverse way) to see what the EU comes up with. They could assign officers that get secret reports on algorithm changes. They could mandate that Google justify, in secret, every change, with scrutiny on anything that doesn't serve a clear purpose. They could make it a criminal offense to intentionally change results to skew elections. A government isn't just gonna shrug and go "oh well, trade secrets". There's no way that Google wants more people thinking "monopoly" and "fair search results".
- josu 11y ago
  Yeah, it will be interesting to see what comes out of Europe. Personally I think that regulators don't stand a chance. For example, they passed a Google (News) tax in Spain, and Google closed the Spanish Google News page. Now Spanish newspapers are begging Google to bring back Google News.
- mcv 11y ago
  While there are many situations where regulation is important, I'm not so sure about governments secretly interfering with how media report on electoral candidates. The agency responsible for this would have to be absolutely guaranteed completely independent from political branches of government and established parties. We don't accept this kind of interference with newspapers and TV news. Why would it be acceptable for search engines?