3 ms·

I disagree. I followed the shopping case closely. At no point was it obvious what Google did wrong, or why providing shopping results is a problem but not maps

I disagree. I followed the shopping case closely. At no point was it obvious what Google did wrong, or why providing shopping results is a problem but not maps or videos, or how you would predict and avoid such problems in a new company and product line. Nor are any of the other cases clear cut. Apple's case isn't even about Apple, it's more like a power struggle between the Commission and the Irish government. We saw how Germans reacted to the rise of Facebook years ago. It wasn't through some 'grassroots' social network or open source. It was simply a local clone of Facebook, China style, right down to cloning the UI: https://techcrunch.com/2008/07/18/facebook-sues-german-social-network-studivz/ https://techcrunch.com/2008/07/18/facebook-sues-german-socia... If the EU succeeds in convincing the rest of the world that it sees their firms as cash cows, all that'll happen is that people who live in member states will have to live with crappy local ripoffs - no different to China.

SCHiM 9y ago
I must admit that I've not followed the case all that closely. But, assuming that the document does not lie, this part looks like a huge problem: > "Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down" I think this is a death sentence for any website whose that previously depended on unbiased search results. I remember reading sometime in the past that virtually all clicks go to the first two results, third and fourth barely receiving any, and other pages not even visited. Combined with the fact that google supplied 90% of all search traffic it looks clear that they were starving their competitors. To be honest I'm also skeptical of any open source, (hopefully distributed) social network from ever coming into existence. But I'm equally sure that what FB, and google, are doing with information about me is not the way to go. They are earning money with the information they are endlessly slurping up about me in any way they can. Rarely with my _informed_ consent. And if this is how the EU fights back, I'm all for it. Off topic/related: Like the bait and switch they do with youtube. I've had an account there for ages, long before social networks were a thing. I've got content up there, 2k video's that I've liked and would like to be able to keep visiting. But it has happened a number of times where I was forced to 'accept' the changes to the TOS. Youtube does not allow me to download my liked video's easily. Apparently what they are doing is not illegal, or maybe the courts have not caught up to the things like this yet. But it does create an adversarial relationship, therefore I dislike youtube, and loathe facebook and google these days. They are constantly taking steps to my disadvantage.
- blaedd 9y ago
  You're missing the bit where the sites in question are basically zero value link farms, who got downranked for low quality content. Don't get me started about the maps thing. They're very keen on defining Google search as Web search, and neatly divided search engines. Don't know about you, but if I put an address into Google search I expect a map back, and it's daft to expect Google to guess how to find it on a competitors sites when they have (likely better) data at their disposal. And yes, they got ruled against for this.(giving a helpful Google map result if I input an address)

SCHiM 9y ago

I must admit that I've not followed the case all that closely. But, assuming that the document does not lie, this part looks like a huge problem: > "Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down" I think this is a death sentence for any website whose that previously depended on unbiased search results. I remember reading sometime in the past that virtually all clicks go to the first two results, third and fourth barely receiving any, and other pages not even visited. Combined with the fact that google supplied 90% of all search traffic it looks clear that they were starving their competitors. To be honest I'm also skeptical of any open source, (hopefully distributed) social network from ever coming into existence. But I'm equally sure that what FB, and google, are doing with information about me is not the way to go. They are earning money with the information they are endlessly slurping up about me in any way they can. Rarely with my _informed_ consent. And if this is how the EU fights back, I'm all for it. Off topic/related: Like the bait and switch they do with youtube. I've had an account there for ages, long before social networks were a thing. I've got content up there, 2k video's that I've liked and would like to be able to keep visiting. But it has happened a number of times where I was forced to 'accept' the changes to the TOS. Youtube does not allow me to download my liked video's easily. Apparently what they are doing is not illegal, or maybe the courts have not caught up to the things like this yet. But it does create an adversarial relationship, therefore I dislike youtube, and loathe facebook and google these days. They are constantly taking steps to my disadvantage.

blaedd 9y ago
You're missing the bit where the sites in question are basically zero value link farms, who got downranked for low quality content. Don't get me started about the maps thing. They're very keen on defining Google search as Web search, and neatly divided search engines. Don't know about you, but if I put an address into Google search I expect a map back, and it's daft to expect Google to guess how to find it on a competitors sites when they have (likely better) data at their disposal. And yes, they got ruled against for this.(giving a helpful Google map result if I input an address)