6 ms·

I think I'm personally glad about this verdict, but it worries me nonetheless, because it justifies thinking like this: "For the Raffs, this remains the bu

I think I'm personally glad about this verdict, but it worries me nonetheless, because it justifies thinking like this: "For the Raffs, this remains the burning issue, which the technicalities of auctions and algorithms all too often obscure. They see it simply: Google, or any other search engine, should present only impartial results that do not benefit it financially. It sounds idealistic, but why should it? “After all,” says Shivaun, “this is what people want, and what they believe Google still delivers.” Maybe Google should act that way, and certainly the Raffs are right that people want that --- but is it something that should be enforced legally? I could see saying that Google has too many opportunities to benefit anti-competitively from its search dominance, and that it should be split up to prevent that, but not that it should be forced to supply results in the way "people want", counter to its financial interests.

posterboy 9y ago
Ever heard the term "public interest" and "tragedy of the commons". You are implying it would be best if everyone built their own search engine because one can't and shouldn't trust anyone except to backstab when one isn't looking. Well, that is how society works indeed, but there are enough eyeballs and by your logic it is completely acceptable to stab google in the back.
- posterboy 9y ago
  PS: of course it's doubtful if there are enough eyeballs because most people are technically incompetent, me included.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    i mean, taken ad absurdum, they don't want to kill their customer base.
    - posterboy 9y ago
      oops, wrong thread but too late to delete.
outsideoflife 9y ago
> forced to supply results in the way "people want", counter to its financial interests. I get my water from a private company. Should they be forced to supply me with clean drinking water, counter to it's financial interests? Presumably it would be cheaper to just pump it out of the river into our homes? And that is the problem, Google has risen to utility level dominance, and utility level importance. Millions of peoples jobs rely on search and search results, time for regulation.
- posterboy 9y ago
  It wouldn't even be in the utility suppliers long term interest.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    What are you going to do, switch to another water utility? They could just wait to clean up their act once they see competition on the horizon (or just go through the motions), which would more than likely scare that competition off. Building a water utility isn't cheap and I doubt there would be enough profit in a competitive environment to justify the cost.
    - posterboy 9y ago
      I mean, taken ad absurdum, they don't want to kill their customer base.
- tantalor 9y ago
  Is it fair to call a utility what you pay nothing for?
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    Yes. Google, as literally the main portal to all online information for nearly everyone who isn't in China, has a moral obligation to do a good, impartial job. If it wants to fail at that in order to serve its financial interests, then it ought to be quickly broken up into a million pieces.
wsy 9y ago
That is easy to answer: when and if Google puts a big ADVERTISMENT label on top of all of their search results, then they can do whatever they like. Otherwise, consumers should be protected against fraud. And pretending that you show what is most relevant while you indeed show what pays best, is IMHO fraud.
stevenicr 9y ago
"and what they believe Google still delivers." - I think this is huge issue, and one that is going to take a lot of re-educating people. I constantly tell people DO NOT TRUST THE FIRST RESULTS IN GOOGLE - it's often a paid ad for malware for example with some searches. But people use google to get to facebook, and walmart, and so many other frequent places that it's in their mind that is how the computer / internet works. Open browser, google place, click first result. Even after explaining to doctors how adwords works and showing them ad placement, it still did not sink in that if they, their staff, or friends and family clicked on their shiny new #1 result for blah blah, it was going to cost them $10 each time. The way google works is hidden, it's deceptive on purpose in many ways (ads are not clearly marked as such with their slightly different white background) - especially on smaller devices like 14" laptops. People assume and trust with google, and it's misplaced - but educating them, and getting a different default on their devices is not easy, and they buy out defaults from places when it's not set that way. Having no way to contact people via phone with this google and facebook is a real issue. The stores down the street could not get away with some of the stuff these companies do, and there is no way to hold anyone accountable or talk to someone about it. By the time facebook changes this I don't think they will matter anymore. Eventually people will realize that google is useful like the yellow pages, and only to be trusted as such. Pay to play gets the big placement, and don't expect to find everything you may want there.
benmmurphy 9y ago
that quote is insane. i guess its probably a little out of context and is meant only to be referring to 'product links'. but i'm not sure how any sane legal rule is going to differentiate between different types of ad links on the search page. ultimately google has to make money. if they purely only showed search results and no placed links then their only way of making money would be from the flow of data. i'm not sure if you could run a search engine off of that. it is also basically saying you can only run a search engine if you either are running an ad platform for third party sites that exploits the data you collect from your search engine or you are selling data to a third party ad platform.
RangerScience 9y ago
All systems have failure modes; so, use multiple systems to do things that are important.

posterboy 9y ago

Ever heard the term "public interest" and "tragedy of the commons". You are implying it would be best if everyone built their own search engine because one can't and shouldn't trust anyone except to backstab when one isn't looking. Well, that is how society works indeed, but there are enough eyeballs and by your logic it is completely acceptable to stab google in the back.

posterboy 9y ago
PS: of course it's doubtful if there are enough eyeballs because most people are technically incompetent, me included.
- posterboy 9y ago
  i mean, taken ad absurdum, they don't want to kill their customer base.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    oops, wrong thread but too late to delete.

outsideoflife 9y ago

> forced to supply results in the way "people want", counter to its financial interests. I get my water from a private company. Should they be forced to supply me with clean drinking water, counter to it's financial interests? Presumably it would be cheaper to just pump it out of the river into our homes? And that is the problem, Google has risen to utility level dominance, and utility level importance. Millions of peoples jobs rely on search and search results, time for regulation.

posterboy 9y ago
It wouldn't even be in the utility suppliers long term interest.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  What are you going to do, switch to another water utility? They could just wait to clean up their act once they see competition on the horizon (or just go through the motions), which would more than likely scare that competition off. Building a water utility isn't cheap and I doubt there would be enough profit in a competitive environment to justify the cost.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    I mean, taken ad absurdum, they don't want to kill their customer base.
tantalor 9y ago
Is it fair to call a utility what you pay nothing for?
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  Yes. Google, as literally the main portal to all online information for nearly everyone who isn't in China, has a moral obligation to do a good, impartial job. If it wants to fail at that in order to serve its financial interests, then it ought to be quickly broken up into a million pieces.

wsy 9y ago

That is easy to answer: when and if Google puts a big ADVERTISMENT label on top of all of their search results, then they can do whatever they like. Otherwise, consumers should be protected against fraud. And pretending that you show what is most relevant while you indeed show what pays best, is IMHO fraud.

stevenicr 9y ago

"and what they believe Google still delivers." - I think this is huge issue, and one that is going to take a lot of re-educating people. I constantly tell people DO NOT TRUST THE FIRST RESULTS IN GOOGLE - it's often a paid ad for malware for example with some searches. But people use google to get to facebook, and walmart, and so many other frequent places that it's in their mind that is how the computer / internet works. Open browser, google place, click first result. Even after explaining to doctors how adwords works and showing them ad placement, it still did not sink in that if they, their staff, or friends and family clicked on their shiny new #1 result for blah blah, it was going to cost them $10 each time. The way google works is hidden, it's deceptive on purpose in many ways (ads are not clearly marked as such with their slightly different white background) - especially on smaller devices like 14" laptops. People assume and trust with google, and it's misplaced - but educating them, and getting a different default on their devices is not easy, and they buy out defaults from places when it's not set that way. Having no way to contact people via phone with this google and facebook is a real issue. The stores down the street could not get away with some of the stuff these companies do, and there is no way to hold anyone accountable or talk to someone about it. By the time facebook changes this I don't think they will matter anymore. Eventually people will realize that google is useful like the yellow pages, and only to be trusted as such. Pay to play gets the big placement, and don't expect to find everything you may want there.

benmmurphy 9y ago

that quote is insane. i guess its probably a little out of context and is meant only to be referring to 'product links'. but i'm not sure how any sane legal rule is going to differentiate between different types of ad links on the search page. ultimately google has to make money. if they purely only showed search results and no placed links then their only way of making money would be from the flow of data. i'm not sure if you could run a search engine off of that. it is also basically saying you can only run a search engine if you either are running an ad platform for third party sites that exploits the data you collect from your search engine or you are selling data to a third party ad platform.

RangerScience 9y ago

All systems have failure modes; so, use multiple systems to do things that are important.