6 ms·

If they didn’t pay so much then Bing or Yahoo would pay a slightly smaller amount to be the default and not Google. Would that be fair?

by hmate9 4y ago

spywaregorilla 4y ago
Its not the money so much as the methods. Though the money does keep it out of reach.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
I thought Yahoo shows Bing search results.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  Correct. Yahoo! Search is powered by Bing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search
gausswho 4y ago
If we're going for fair how about outlawing search engine defaults since they've proven to lead to unreasonable competitive advantage.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  What's the alternative? During setup you have to choose amongst hundreds of options, e.g. does "you.com" make the list?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Maybe those engines could all bid on an annual basis to be positioned higher in the rankings? /s :)
  - Closi 4y ago
    Well it could be a small list chosen by Firefox as a result of an honest selection of the best options their users would most likely want, rather than just defaulting to the megacorp that bribed them with the most money. But I'm really solutionising here, and I'm sure some of the worlds brightest engineers can come up with a solution thats better for users than "we default to whoever pays us the most money".
    - kornhole 4y ago
      Let's create an extension that merely prompts for the URL of your desired search engine. On confirm, it makes all the technical browser settings to set as default.
      - kyleee 4y ago
        good idea, where to start? do you have a good extension skeleton repo to start from? i've only worked on a firefox only extension but it probably should be chrome and ff compatible especially now with brave
        kornhole 4y ago
        I noticed that Ecosia, Startpage, and Brave search all have extensions that will set those as the default. I am not sure if their code is open, but I imagine the Brave extension is probably best place to start.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Browsers don't have to have default search engines built-in at all. They didn't used to.
    - musictubes 4y ago
      Huh, I wonder what the effect would be if integrating search into the browser was outlawed. Short term I don't think much would change but long term? Dunno...
n4r9 4y ago
Not sure what you're getting at; ideally they're subject to the same anti-trust legislation as Google. The fact that others might also try to break the law doesn't make it pointless to uphold the law.
rendaw 4y ago
We're in a weird world where we're asking if it's okay for the public to be harmed because a company with lots of money (that they earned from the public) is paying another company lots of money.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Changing a default search engine is extremely easy and cheap. I struggle to define it as “harm”. Should a person not be expected to be able to do that much?
  - pydry 4y ago
    In theory it is and yet the extremely high price Google is willing to pay to keep it default suggests that it's harder than it looks. Plenty of non techies are deathly afraid of changing any settings. Google is paying a high price to erect an artificial barrier to entry against less well capitalized competitors looking to target them.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Google paying a high price suggests people will not change the default. It does not suggest changing the default is hard. People may not change the default because they 1. find it too difficult 2. they do not believe they are negatively effected by not changing the default 3. they do not even know it is a choice 4. or they prefer Google. Going into 2022, I would rather governments focus on educating people how to use computing devices than nannying them by barring two businesses from engaging in business. #1 thru #3 can be changed via public education, or even requiring more transparency from search engines to make comparing them easier. The physical actions of changing the default are not hard.
      - pydry 4y ago
        >Going into 2022, I would rather governments focus on educating people Yes, thats what most corporations engaged in abusive or anticompetitive business practices say. Credit card companies rake in the dough from abusive interest rates and then feign an interest in helping "educate" the consumers out of being exploited by them to keep regulators off their back and the senators they purchase do the same. Rinse and repeat, feigning concern for "financial literacy" for 30 years with nothing changing because nothing was supposed to. The system was "working". I say put the regulators on their backs. If a business transaction is bad for the public then f*king prohibit it. End of story. "Educating users" out of avoiding abusive practices isnt meant to work.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
So it's okay for me to rob you, because if I dont do it, the next criminal will?

If they didn’t pay so much then Bing or Yahoo would pay a slightly smaller amount to be the default and not Google. Would that be fair?

by hmate9 4y ago

If they didn’t pay so much then Bing or Yahoo would pay a slightly smaller amount to be the default and not Google. Would that be fair?

spywaregorilla 4y ago

Its not the money so much as the methods. Though the money does keep it out of reach.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

I thought Yahoo shows Bing search results.

andsoitis 4y ago
Correct. Yahoo! Search is powered by Bing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search

gausswho 4y ago

If we're going for fair how about outlawing search engine defaults since they've proven to lead to unreasonable competitive advantage.

andsoitis 4y ago
What's the alternative? During setup you have to choose amongst hundreds of options, e.g. does "you.com" make the list?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Maybe those engines could all bid on an annual basis to be positioned higher in the rankings? /s :)
- Closi 4y ago
  Well it could be a small list chosen by Firefox as a result of an honest selection of the best options their users would most likely want, rather than just defaulting to the megacorp that bribed them with the most money. But I'm really solutionising here, and I'm sure some of the worlds brightest engineers can come up with a solution thats better for users than "we default to whoever pays us the most money".
  - kornhole 4y ago
    Let's create an extension that merely prompts for the URL of your desired search engine. On confirm, it makes all the technical browser settings to set as default.
    - kyleee 4y ago
      good idea, where to start? do you have a good extension skeleton repo to start from? i've only worked on a firefox only extension but it probably should be chrome and ff compatible especially now with brave
      - kornhole 4y ago
        I noticed that Ecosia, Startpage, and Brave search all have extensions that will set those as the default. I am not sure if their code is open, but I imagine the Brave extension is probably best place to start.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Browsers don't have to have default search engines built-in at all. They didn't used to.
  - musictubes 4y ago
    Huh, I wonder what the effect would be if integrating search into the browser was outlawed. Short term I don't think much would change but long term? Dunno...

n4r9 4y ago

Not sure what you're getting at; ideally they're subject to the same anti-trust legislation as Google. The fact that others might also try to break the law doesn't make it pointless to uphold the law.

rendaw 4y ago

We're in a weird world where we're asking if it's okay for the public to be harmed because a company with lots of money (that they earned from the public) is paying another company lots of money.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Changing a default search engine is extremely easy and cheap. I struggle to define it as “harm”. Should a person not be expected to be able to do that much?
- pydry 4y ago
  In theory it is and yet the extremely high price Google is willing to pay to keep it default suggests that it's harder than it looks. Plenty of non techies are deathly afraid of changing any settings. Google is paying a high price to erect an artificial barrier to entry against less well capitalized competitors looking to target them.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Google paying a high price suggests people will not change the default. It does not suggest changing the default is hard. People may not change the default because they 1. find it too difficult 2. they do not believe they are negatively effected by not changing the default 3. they do not even know it is a choice 4. or they prefer Google. Going into 2022, I would rather governments focus on educating people how to use computing devices than nannying them by barring two businesses from engaging in business. #1 thru #3 can be changed via public education, or even requiring more transparency from search engines to make comparing them easier. The physical actions of changing the default are not hard.
    - pydry 4y ago
      >Going into 2022, I would rather governments focus on educating people Yes, thats what most corporations engaged in abusive or anticompetitive business practices say. Credit card companies rake in the dough from abusive interest rates and then feign an interest in helping "educate" the consumers out of being exploited by them to keep regulators off their back and the senators they purchase do the same. Rinse and repeat, feigning concern for "financial literacy" for 30 years with nothing changing because nothing was supposed to. The system was "working". I say put the regulators on their backs. If a business transaction is bad for the public then f*king prohibit it. End of story. "Educating users" out of avoiding abusive practices isnt meant to work.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

So it's okay for me to rob you, because if I dont do it, the next criminal will?