3 ms·

The internet exists, is way to big to manually curate, and google is just providing a window into it with algorithmic searches. There is always talk about how

The internet exists, is way to big to manually curate, and google is just providing a window into it with algorithmic searches. There is always talk about how google promotes this or that by having this search return X and how they should adjust it. They always "adjust the algorithm" or ban sites from their search results entirely. Google's search is better (I've tired and use others..) and thus it wields enormous power. This puts them at odds with governments that always want to control information. I'm sure if they could the whitehouse could make its own "search engine" but people wouldn't trust it. edit: removed my "good luck with that". The US currently has a poor track record of controlling large corporations because of lobbies etc.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
The solution is to mandate that Google publicly disclose their algorithms and the various weightings they apply to incentivize behavior and how much of an impact they have. Then everyone can see whether or not their behavior constitutes unfair bias, can test for themselves what's going on. Google does not need or deserve the ability to keep the way all human knowledge is accessed and found today a trade secret. Additional notes on this to address the obvious criticisms: - Google would still have the benefit of it's actual data/crawled content that presumably would not be disclosed and constitutes a significant portion of their business advantages. - It's unlikely competing search engines would somehow leapfrog Google's technology by having access to their search ranking algorithms. At best copying Google would make them "as good as Google", but you need to be "better than" to get people to switch or offer features and benefits they don't. - Even if all of Google's data and algorithms were cloned by competitors, everyone would still by and large use Google because Google is the default on almost every platform and browser, and Google has a significant lock-in effect over their platforms. Which is to say, requiring one of the world's most powerful monopolies to disclose the algorithms by which knowledge is found would have minimal to non-existent impact on their business but have significant benefit to society.
- sct202 8y ago
  Good luck with that and prepare for their search results to be overrun by content farms and stores SEOing their websites to the spec.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    I think that would suggest that Google's protection against content farms and bad SEO is way more simplistic than it probably is. Sure, like security in the open source world, transparency would make it possible for bad actors to find flaws in their code, but it would similarly allow others to find and disclose to Google those flaws and offer suggestions on how to fix them.
toomuchtodo 8y ago
> Good luck with that. The US government is able to enforce sanctions on other governments, crushing their economies and major businesses. It's able to acquire private property and businesses through eminent domain. "Good luck with that" is a bit shortsighted. The tools exist for the US to exert these forces, and they have been used successfully.
- acomjean 8y ago
  That was a bit glib. I removed that line. The US tends to treat its own companies with kid gloves and tends not to put the hammer down on billion dollar companies with their all important lobbyists.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
sp332 8y ago
I can't put together your first paragraph with your second. Why do you say "good luck with that" while also acknowledging that it already happens?
- acomjean 8y ago
  "adjusting the algorithm" is something they do all the time. Then the algorithm is to blame or credit for search rank, they're not choosing winners and losers.
  - sp332 8y ago
    What would be the point of adjusting the algorithm other than picking which results should be surfaced? That's what the algorithm does, that's its whole raison d'être. And in addition to the algorithm, Google has a substantial block list which is different for different regions.
    - acomjean 8y ago
      >What would be the point of adjusting the algorithm other than picking which results should be surfaced? Well I like to think they do want to improve the results.
candiodari 8y ago
> The internet exists, is way to big to manually curate, and google is just providing a window into it with algorithmic searches. You're assuming that because they can't do it, they won't. You forget that these people are making the laws. They can just vote a law that "the internet must be curated, and uphold standards X and Y". Then they simply force providers to block anything that isn't perfectly curated at the simple request to a court. Done/done. So they can simply force others to do it. They can simply force self-censorship (see GPDR, and why that law is such a horrible thing). Congress can't check food for safety, so they make others do it (e.g. the FDA doesn't check food safety (except where it has already gone wrong), it forces vendors to check it, then does a basic sanity check on the report of said check, same is true in Europe, except for the name of the organization).

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

The solution is to mandate that Google publicly disclose their algorithms and the various weightings they apply to incentivize behavior and how much of an impact they have. Then everyone can see whether or not their behavior constitutes unfair bias, can test for themselves what's going on. Google does not need or deserve the ability to keep the way all human knowledge is accessed and found today a trade secret. Additional notes on this to address the obvious criticisms: - Google would still have the benefit of it's actual data/crawled content that presumably would not be disclosed and constitutes a significant portion of their business advantages. - It's unlikely competing search engines would somehow leapfrog Google's technology by having access to their search ranking algorithms. At best copying Google would make them "as good as Google", but you need to be "better than" to get people to switch or offer features and benefits they don't. - Even if all of Google's data and algorithms were cloned by competitors, everyone would still by and large use Google because Google is the default on almost every platform and browser, and Google has a significant lock-in effect over their platforms. Which is to say, requiring one of the world's most powerful monopolies to disclose the algorithms by which knowledge is found would have minimal to non-existent impact on their business but have significant benefit to society.

sct202 8y ago
Good luck with that and prepare for their search results to be overrun by content farms and stores SEOing their websites to the spec.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  I think that would suggest that Google's protection against content farms and bad SEO is way more simplistic than it probably is. Sure, like security in the open source world, transparency would make it possible for bad actors to find flaws in their code, but it would similarly allow others to find and disclose to Google those flaws and offer suggestions on how to fix them.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

> Good luck with that. The US government is able to enforce sanctions on other governments, crushing their economies and major businesses. It's able to acquire private property and businesses through eminent domain. "Good luck with that" is a bit shortsighted. The tools exist for the US to exert these forces, and they have been used successfully.

acomjean 8y ago
That was a bit glib. I removed that line. The US tends to treat its own companies with kid gloves and tends not to put the hammer down on billion dollar companies with their all important lobbyists.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

sp332 8y ago

I can't put together your first paragraph with your second. Why do you say "good luck with that" while also acknowledging that it already happens?

acomjean 8y ago
"adjusting the algorithm" is something they do all the time. Then the algorithm is to blame or credit for search rank, they're not choosing winners and losers.
- sp332 8y ago
  What would be the point of adjusting the algorithm other than picking which results should be surfaced? That's what the algorithm does, that's its whole raison d'être. And in addition to the algorithm, Google has a substantial block list which is different for different regions.
  - acomjean 8y ago
    >What would be the point of adjusting the algorithm other than picking which results should be surfaced? Well I like to think they do want to improve the results.

candiodari 8y ago

> The internet exists, is way to big to manually curate, and google is just providing a window into it with algorithmic searches. You're assuming that because they can't do it, they won't. You forget that these people are making the laws. They can just vote a law that "the internet must be curated, and uphold standards X and Y". Then they simply force providers to block anything that isn't perfectly curated at the simple request to a court. Done/done. So they can simply force others to do it. They can simply force self-censorship (see GPDR, and why that law is such a horrible thing). Congress can't check food for safety, so they make others do it (e.g. the FDA doesn't check food safety (except where it has already gone wrong), it forces vendors to check it, then does a basic sanity check on the report of said check, same is true in Europe, except for the name of the organization).