4 ms·

When they, by virtue of their overwhelming market share, nuke a competitor's product off the face of the internet, whether algorithmically or intentionally, it

by cjcole 9y ago

When they, by virtue of their overwhelming market share, nuke a competitor's product off the face of the internet, whether algorithmically or intentionally, it feels reasonable to me to compel them to provide more detail than "we fixed the glitch". Google does not have the right to avoid being regulated in the public interest.

rusk 9y ago
Not only that, but there is an implicit contract with the public, that they provide a fair and balanced search of the web. If that's not the case then you're in anti-trust land.
- at-fates-hands 9y ago
  Which is where they've been for years. It's one thing to talk about anti-trust. It's a completely different thing when you're on the same team as the government that would be bringing the case against you.
fastball 9y ago
Yes, but you should address the root of the problem, not all the little symptoms. The issue isn't "Google has the power and occasional reason to remove search results"... the issue is "Google is so big/dominant that when they remove a single result it can have a huge impact". If anti-trust is your concern, make Google smaller. Regulate what % of marketshare they are allowed to control. Don't allow them to purchase any more competitors. Do things that are actual anti-trust prevention. Saying that the solution is to regulate all these little edge cases is ineffective and inefficient, because you need a different regulation for each concern that are all rooted in the same sentiment: Google is too big.
- wfo 9y ago
  >If anti-trust is your concern, make Google smaller. Regulate what % of marketshare they are allowed to control. Don't allow them to purchase any more competitors. This is one method, but the massive natural monopoly over search and 'gateway to the Internet' isn't something that is particularly well served by market competition, as we can see here. If we break up google, another monopoly will develop. If we prevent monopolies from developing through strict marketshare percentages, companies will hover at the brink of these %s and lobby and bribe politicians to remove the rules. Which is what they have just done in other media markets, recently. So long as you allow the organizations to be driven by private profit, you will have to struggle against the natural market impulse for every company to exert absolute dictatorial control over as much as possible and expand its power, every moment, every year, every election, at all costs. You should address the root of the problem (capitalism) not all the little symptoms. Require that companies that provide these public goods be run democratically, transparently by their workers as a public co-op. Nationalize them and make them all open source. There are other solutions.
  - msla 9y ago
    > Require that companies that provide these public goods be run democratically, transparently by their workers as a public co-op. In addition to everything else wrong with this, what do you do when the workers decide that your niche interest is terrible, horrible, and shouldn't ought to be available to anyone at all? Using a competing product isn't an option because, in your world, there would be no competition, just the state-owned product and nothing.
    - wfo 9y ago
      You use a different co-op, naturally. You are conflating two solutions I offered, they are distinct and incompatible. A market but with worker controlled firms OR nationalized search. In one case you pick a different firm exactly like today, in the other you vote or petition the government.
      - msla 9y ago
        But then you're back to square one as far as de facto monopolies go: Everyone cares about that specific co-op, because everyone uses it, so you get the same feedback loop which created Google's dominance. Only this time, companies will be lobbying the employees to vote certain ways on issues which could affect search ranking and so on.
- msla 9y ago
  > If anti-trust is your concern, make Google smaller. Regulate what % of marketshare they are allowed to control. How? Because this... > Don't allow them to purchase any more competitors. ...doesn't achieve that end. Google could have a thousand competitors and 99% of the marketshare, because just because a competitor exists doesn't compel, or even slightly persuade, anyone to use it. I'm all for antitrust laws. I just don't see how the usual remedies would work here.
  - tedunangst 9y ago
    Obvious solution: quotas. If there are 10 billion searches per month, we limit each company to 25% of that. After Google performs 2.5 billion searches in one month, they have to shut down until the end of the month. Easy peasy. What could go wrong?
0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago
Regulation helps the monopolies like Ma Bell. I heard that argument this morning from the FCC chair. I'm guessing that argument is not valid around here?
- fastball 9y ago
  It's definitely a very case-by-case argument, but I definitely think there are times when regulation has hindered progress thru capitalism without improving any lives. There are also plenty of cases where regulations have greatly improved outcomes by curbing capitalistic eventualities. I'm personally conflicted about this particular case, and have no idea which will result in a "better" outcome when choosing between non-regulastion and regulation. However, I strongly believe that limiting Google's overall power is a better solution than regulating particular ways that Google could abuse their power, as I think the former is a better route if regulation is the route you choose.

by cjcole 9y ago

rusk 9y ago

Not only that, but there is an implicit contract with the public, that they provide a fair and balanced search of the web. If that's not the case then you're in anti-trust land.

at-fates-hands 9y ago
Which is where they've been for years. It's one thing to talk about anti-trust. It's a completely different thing when you're on the same team as the government that would be bringing the case against you.

fastball 9y ago

Yes, but you should address the root of the problem, not all the little symptoms. The issue isn't "Google has the power and occasional reason to remove search results"... the issue is "Google is so big/dominant that when they remove a single result it can have a huge impact". If anti-trust is your concern, make Google smaller. Regulate what % of marketshare they are allowed to control. Don't allow them to purchase any more competitors. Do things that are actual anti-trust prevention. Saying that the solution is to regulate all these little edge cases is ineffective and inefficient, because you need a different regulation for each concern that are all rooted in the same sentiment: Google is too big.

wfo 9y ago
>If anti-trust is your concern, make Google smaller. Regulate what % of marketshare they are allowed to control. Don't allow them to purchase any more competitors. This is one method, but the massive natural monopoly over search and 'gateway to the Internet' isn't something that is particularly well served by market competition, as we can see here. If we break up google, another monopoly will develop. If we prevent monopolies from developing through strict marketshare percentages, companies will hover at the brink of these %s and lobby and bribe politicians to remove the rules. Which is what they have just done in other media markets, recently. So long as you allow the organizations to be driven by private profit, you will have to struggle against the natural market impulse for every company to exert absolute dictatorial control over as much as possible and expand its power, every moment, every year, every election, at all costs. You should address the root of the problem (capitalism) not all the little symptoms. Require that companies that provide these public goods be run democratically, transparently by their workers as a public co-op. Nationalize them and make them all open source. There are other solutions.
- msla 9y ago
  > Require that companies that provide these public goods be run democratically, transparently by their workers as a public co-op. In addition to everything else wrong with this, what do you do when the workers decide that your niche interest is terrible, horrible, and shouldn't ought to be available to anyone at all? Using a competing product isn't an option because, in your world, there would be no competition, just the state-owned product and nothing.
  - wfo 9y ago
    You use a different co-op, naturally. You are conflating two solutions I offered, they are distinct and incompatible. A market but with worker controlled firms OR nationalized search. In one case you pick a different firm exactly like today, in the other you vote or petition the government.
    - msla 9y ago
      But then you're back to square one as far as de facto monopolies go: Everyone cares about that specific co-op, because everyone uses it, so you get the same feedback loop which created Google's dominance. Only this time, companies will be lobbying the employees to vote certain ways on issues which could affect search ranking and so on.
msla 9y ago
> If anti-trust is your concern, make Google smaller. Regulate what % of marketshare they are allowed to control. How? Because this... > Don't allow them to purchase any more competitors. ...doesn't achieve that end. Google could have a thousand competitors and 99% of the marketshare, because just because a competitor exists doesn't compel, or even slightly persuade, anyone to use it. I'm all for antitrust laws. I just don't see how the usual remedies would work here.
- tedunangst 9y ago
  Obvious solution: quotas. If there are 10 billion searches per month, we limit each company to 25% of that. After Google performs 2.5 billion searches in one month, they have to shut down until the end of the month. Easy peasy. What could go wrong?

0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago

Regulation helps the monopolies like Ma Bell. I heard that argument this morning from the FCC chair. I'm guessing that argument is not valid around here?

fastball 9y ago
It's definitely a very case-by-case argument, but I definitely think there are times when regulation has hindered progress thru capitalism without improving any lives. There are also plenty of cases where regulations have greatly improved outcomes by curbing capitalistic eventualities. I'm personally conflicted about this particular case, and have no idea which will result in a "better" outcome when choosing between non-regulastion and regulation. However, I strongly believe that limiting Google's overall power is a better solution than regulating particular ways that Google could abuse their power, as I think the former is a better route if regulation is the route you choose.