3 ms·

Strange; what I get from those articles is roughly: - Google tailors results to users, so it shouldn't be considered a common carrier - Google doesn't charge

by jka 4y ago

Strange; what I get from those articles is roughly: - Google tailors results to users, so it shouldn't be considered a common carrier - Google doesn't charge users for access, so it shouldn't be considered a common carrier - Internet search isn't a vital public service, so Google shouldn't be considered a common carrier I totally believe you that there may be reasons not to consider common carrier a magic solution, but... I disagree with all three of those points. (in other words: I think two people searching for the same terms at the same time should see the same results, and I don't think it matters that the service is funded based on indirect (advertising / tax) revenue, and I do think that many people -- in all kinds of environments -- can reasonably expect Internet access and web search to the point where we should consider it a public necessity)

ziddoap 4y ago
>I think two people searching for the same terms should see the same results I agree, but that's not the point being stated. The point is that the entire concept of Google is about ranking (a form of discrimination) the relevancy of websites to the search query. Common carrier status means that a search for "Microsoft official website" would not be able to prioritize Microsoft's official website, because that would be discriminating against all other websites that claim to be Microsoft's official website (and, by extension, discrimination against the people hosting those websites, who would then be able to sue Google for that discrimination). Common carrier status also throws a giant wrench into the already problematic issue of content moderation. The 11th Circuit's ruling explains the concept much more eloquently and with much greater detail than I can hope to (the full ruling is available via the 2nd link in my post).
- dylan604 4y ago
  >>I think two people searching for the same terms should see the same results >I agree, but that's not the point being stated. I mostly agree, but I can see where being located in completely different locales might lead to slightly different results without nefarious intent.
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    >I mostly agree, but I can see where being located in completely different locales might lead to slightly different results without nefarious intent. Sure, I can get on board with some niche cases where tailored results are non-nefarious and beneficial to the end user. And that sort of hammers my point further, as common carrier status would make discrimination based on location a potential lawsuit.
    - _carbyau_ 4y ago
      Only if that option is not exposed. If I had a tickbox to "search local" vs "search planet" (search planet should get the same results anywhere on the planet) then I'd know exactly what is happening. I dislike that google hides what is being done.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > The point is that the entire concept of Google is about ranking (a form of discrimination) the relevancy of websites to the search query. Not really. All you'd have to do is make the algorithm public, and become a commodity. When you're a common carrier, you sell bandwidth, not magic fairy dust. > Common carrier status means that a search for "Microsoft official website" would not be able to prioritize Microsoft's official website, because that would be discriminating against all other websites that claim to be Microsoft's official website (and, by extension, discrimination against the people hosting those websites, who would then be able to sue Google for that discrimination). This is absurd. Trademark violators can't sue for not being treated like the real deal any more than I can demand that my phone company say that all of my calls come from the White House. If Microsoft backs up their claims to all be official, then they all should be able to sue. edit: > Common carrier status also throws a giant wrench into the already problematic issue of content moderation. No it doesn't, it decides it for Google. And Congress would be free to allow Google to do whatever moderation it wants, and this shitty court might give it even more latitude. Count me as someone who is perfectly happy with preventing Google from doing any content moderation not required by law. All of the drive to censor has been coming from Congress and the administration anyway; the real danger in the current climate is that Google becomes a common carrier and gets the analog of the Great Firewall dropped around it the next day.
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    Most of the points you brought up are covered by the articles I linked and the 11th Circuit's ruling, which disagree with most everything you've said (i.e. your hand-wave around the problem of content moderation, and whatever you're talking about with fairy dust). Although I admit my Microsoft website example could have used some work, I used it to illustrate the concept.

by jka 4y ago

ziddoap 4y ago

>I think two people searching for the same terms should see the same results I agree, but that's not the point being stated. The point is that the entire concept of Google is about ranking (a form of discrimination) the relevancy of websites to the search query. Common carrier status means that a search for "Microsoft official website" would not be able to prioritize Microsoft's official website, because that would be discriminating against all other websites that claim to be Microsoft's official website (and, by extension, discrimination against the people hosting those websites, who would then be able to sue Google for that discrimination). Common carrier status also throws a giant wrench into the already problematic issue of content moderation. The 11th Circuit's ruling explains the concept much more eloquently and with much greater detail than I can hope to (the full ruling is available via the 2nd link in my post).

dylan604 4y ago
>>I think two people searching for the same terms should see the same results >I agree, but that's not the point being stated. I mostly agree, but I can see where being located in completely different locales might lead to slightly different results without nefarious intent.
- ziddoap 4y ago
  >I mostly agree, but I can see where being located in completely different locales might lead to slightly different results without nefarious intent. Sure, I can get on board with some niche cases where tailored results are non-nefarious and beneficial to the end user. And that sort of hammers my point further, as common carrier status would make discrimination based on location a potential lawsuit.
  - _carbyau_ 4y ago
    Only if that option is not exposed. If I had a tickbox to "search local" vs "search planet" (search planet should get the same results anywhere on the planet) then I'd know exactly what is happening. I dislike that google hides what is being done.
pessimizer 4y ago
> The point is that the entire concept of Google is about ranking (a form of discrimination) the relevancy of websites to the search query. Not really. All you'd have to do is make the algorithm public, and become a commodity. When you're a common carrier, you sell bandwidth, not magic fairy dust. > Common carrier status means that a search for "Microsoft official website" would not be able to prioritize Microsoft's official website, because that would be discriminating against all other websites that claim to be Microsoft's official website (and, by extension, discrimination against the people hosting those websites, who would then be able to sue Google for that discrimination). This is absurd. Trademark violators can't sue for not being treated like the real deal any more than I can demand that my phone company say that all of my calls come from the White House. If Microsoft backs up their claims to all be official, then they all should be able to sue. edit: > Common carrier status also throws a giant wrench into the already problematic issue of content moderation. No it doesn't, it decides it for Google. And Congress would be free to allow Google to do whatever moderation it wants, and this shitty court might give it even more latitude. Count me as someone who is perfectly happy with preventing Google from doing any content moderation not required by law. All of the drive to censor has been coming from Congress and the administration anyway; the real danger in the current climate is that Google becomes a common carrier and gets the analog of the Great Firewall dropped around it the next day.
- ziddoap 4y ago
  Most of the points you brought up are covered by the articles I linked and the 11th Circuit's ruling, which disagree with most everything you've said (i.e. your hand-wave around the problem of content moderation, and whatever you're talking about with fairy dust). Although I admit my Microsoft website example could have used some work, I used it to illustrate the concept.