6 ms·

> A lot of that is not a service provided by Google. They simply scrap data others have created and insert their ads. Its a sophisticated form of rent seeking.

> A lot of that is not a service provided by Google. They simply scrap data others have created and insert their ads. Its a sophisticated form of rent seeking. If you tried to do that with THEIR services they'd shut you down ASAP - e.g. If you ran a meta search engine which collected search results from all other search engines, google will immediately block your access once you got popular. You are aware that the opposite applies too, right? That whoever doesn't want Google scrapping results can block their crawlers? No, you don't, you have mistaken Google for something other than a private company. Only you've made that mistake arbitrarily, as evidenced... > I'm totally for this fine, and hope that Google mends their ways. They do have a good search product that I enjoy using but promoting their unsuccessful services by integrating it with a successful search product is wrong and harms competition. I want the web to stay open, and Google's promotion of their closed platforms is troublesome. Unfortunately, Google spends a lot on lobbying and cozying up with the government, so I doubt we will see such enforcement in the US. ... Here. You are aware that Google search itself is closed, right? You either aren't or your grandstanding regarding the "open web" is completely empty words. Of all the arguments in favor of this ruling I've read, this one is by far the weirdest.

ksk 9y ago
>You are aware that the opposite applies too, right? That whoever doesn't want Google scrapping results can block their crawlers? The point was, 'whoever has the power, makes the rules'. Google skews search results whenever it wants to promote its services. Given Google's dominant position, this harms competition. The EU is addressing this. >... Here. You are aware that Google search itself is closed, right? You either aren't or your grandstanding regarding the "open web" is completely empty words. An open platform has absolutely nothing to do with the source code. For e.g. Linux would be an open platform even if you had no access to the source code. This is because you can run any software you want, poke at any and all bits in memory, call any API you want, extend the OS using documented APIs in any way you want, etc. OSX and Windows are open too, with some caveats relating to their app stores. iOS and Android are not open platforms. Google is creating tightly integrated closed platforms where they control absolutely everything, and doing anything that is not "blessed" by them is automatically illegal and violates their TOS For e.g. If you came up with a better commenting system, you can't create an app that lets you watch youtube videos and comment using your own system. If you came up with a better stock ticker, you can't compete with google because typing 'apple stock quote' popups up their own service and there is no way to get that top spot. Such integrations combined with their dominant market position harms competition. Anyway, i've spent way too much time on this story so this will be my last comment. Need to get back to work ! :)
- julianmarq 9y ago
  Heh, now you're complaining about a site having its own commenting system. And that Android isn't an open platform. Your definition of open and closed is hilariously misguided, I see absolutely no reason or point in accepting it. And, as your entire argument hangs on that faulty definition...

ksk 9y ago

>You are aware that the opposite applies too, right? That whoever doesn't want Google scrapping results can block their crawlers? The point was, 'whoever has the power, makes the rules'. Google skews search results whenever it wants to promote its services. Given Google's dominant position, this harms competition. The EU is addressing this. >... Here. You are aware that Google search itself is closed, right? You either aren't or your grandstanding regarding the "open web" is completely empty words. An open platform has absolutely nothing to do with the source code. For e.g. Linux would be an open platform even if you had no access to the source code. This is because you can run any software you want, poke at any and all bits in memory, call any API you want, extend the OS using documented APIs in any way you want, etc. OSX and Windows are open too, with some caveats relating to their app stores. iOS and Android are not open platforms. Google is creating tightly integrated closed platforms where they control absolutely everything, and doing anything that is not "blessed" by them is automatically illegal and violates their TOS For e.g. If you came up with a better commenting system, you can't create an app that lets you watch youtube videos and comment using your own system. If you came up with a better stock ticker, you can't compete with google because typing 'apple stock quote' popups up their own service and there is no way to get that top spot. Such integrations combined with their dominant market position harms competition. Anyway, i've spent way too much time on this story so this will be my last comment. Need to get back to work ! :)

julianmarq 9y ago
Heh, now you're complaining about a site having its own commenting system. And that Android isn't an open platform. Your definition of open and closed is hilariously misguided, I see absolutely no reason or point in accepting it. And, as your entire argument hangs on that faulty definition...