3 ms·

But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? In utilitarian terms, the rat

But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? In utilitarian terms, the ratio of benefits and costs to society is the same whether it's Google or Bing that's showing a search widget, so we should allow both or neither. If Google and Bing had 50/50 market share, then do you think the widgets would be acceptable? Bing also shows shopping widgets, so unaffiliated sellers wouldn't be any better off in that scenario.

IanCal 9y ago
> But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? We do see things differently based on scale or level of power though, both morally and legally. We have different standards for people like doctors being in relationships with patients than two regular people, for example. Thefts will also be treated differently based on scale. Killing more people is typically seen as worse than killing fewer. I'm not really sure what you mean about considering things the same irrespective of scale. > In utilitarian terms, the ratio of benefits and costs to society is the same whether it's Google or Bing that's showing a search widget, so we should allow both or neither. I don't see how the costs and benefits are the same. The problem is that so many people use Google that having them promote their own product can be enough to completely kill off competition. If they were smaller they'd not have that power. There's no point stopping Bobs Search Engine with 20 users from not listing Google because he wants to beat them. Google aren't really harmed much by this. Maybe 20 fewer customers come through. Google not listing Bobs search engine because they don't link to him (deliberately because they want to beat him) could mean the difference between being in business and not.

IanCal 9y ago

> But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? We do see things differently based on scale or level of power though, both morally and legally. We have different standards for people like doctors being in relationships with patients than two regular people, for example. Thefts will also be treated differently based on scale. Killing more people is typically seen as worse than killing fewer. I'm not really sure what you mean about considering things the same irrespective of scale. > In utilitarian terms, the ratio of benefits and costs to society is the same whether it's Google or Bing that's showing a search widget, so we should allow both or neither. I don't see how the costs and benefits are the same. The problem is that so many people use Google that having them promote their own product can be enough to completely kill off competition. If they were smaller they'd not have that power. There's no point stopping Bobs Search Engine with 20 users from not listing Google because he wants to beat them. Google aren't really harmed much by this. Maybe 20 fewer customers come through. Google not listing Bobs search engine because they don't link to him (deliberately because they want to beat him) could mean the difference between being in business and not.