3 ms·

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 pa

by 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.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        >If a business transaction is bad for the public then f*king prohibit it. If only life were that easy. Is it bad for the public that Costco and Walmart deliver lower prices to customers via efficiencies if scale? Or is it better to have more inefficient local stores?
        pydry 4y ago
        >Is it bad for the public that Costco and Walmart deliver lower prices to customers via efficiencies if scale? Obviously not. Whereas if they could pay local governments money to keep the other one out so they could jack up prices that would be bad.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        It is not obvious to me. Maybe it is better for a society to have redundancies in supply chains and business operations. Or having businesses spread out through a region as opposed to conglomerated in a few spots with big box stores. Or maybe it is worth the lower prices. Or maybe it is not in society’s best interest if Walmart is so big they can force suppliers to cut quality to meet their prices.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > 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. Google/Microsoft/etc will donate tons of hardware and software to public schools to ensure teaching kids to use their products become the lesson plan. They're already doing this; they pay schools to be the default just like they pay Mozilla to be the default. So you still have to solve the same sort of problem, except "company donates computers to school" sounds like a sort of charity and that makes it relatively politically unassailable.
- bogwog 4y ago
  The issue is on competition. Nobody can really change consumer behavior, but we can regulate businesses to ensure the free market remains fair and competitive.
- danskeren 4y ago
  Changing the default search engine is incredibly difficult and sometimes even impossible. It's in fact so difficult that you'll have an easier time getting people to use your search engine if you ask them to install your extension or even your own browser. If you want somewhat fair competition that's 'easy and cheap' then it should be possible to prompt for user permission to change the default search engine on any browser. It should be possible to avoid abuse by restricting the search engine change to the domain requesting the change.
  - bagacrap 4y ago
    I disagree with the premise, but if you really think changing the default is so hard, that seems like FF's fault, not Google's.
    - danskeren 4y ago
      It's just as hard on Chrome and every other browser. So far I've yet to meet a single non-developer capable of changing their default search engine to my website without my help. Try changing the default search engine on iOS Safari to some search engine that Apple hasn't hardcoded into their settings (e.g. https://ask.moe https://ask.moe, https://search.brave.com https://search.brave.com, etc).
      - kornhole 4y ago
        This seems to be by design and influenced by the funding. Many search providers created an extension as the easiest path for end users. Most users don't seem to even understand the difference between a browser and search engine.
      - mrkramer 4y ago
        There should be government regulation around - according to which criteria internet browsers are offering their users default search engines. So for example if I make new internet search engine how do I get Apple and Google to offer it in their browsers as default search engine. Because it seems like Apple and Google are doing it on voluntary basis of good will not because government or anybody else told them to do so.
- rendaw 4y ago
  My comment was worded in generality because Google and default search engines is only one instance of the phenomenon. For instance: Microsoft or Sony paying game companies not to release games on competitors platforms. But to your specific point, this isn't (directly) about harm to users who don't know enough to care what search engine they use. It's about the number of users Google has allowing them to influence policy (privacy, tracking), technology decisions (internet standards), and the market (delisting or downlisting companies, promoting competitor pages, disabling adword accounts which can cascade to android developer accounts, etc).

by 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.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      >If a business transaction is bad for the public then f*king prohibit it. If only life were that easy. Is it bad for the public that Costco and Walmart deliver lower prices to customers via efficiencies if scale? Or is it better to have more inefficient local stores?
      - pydry 4y ago
        >Is it bad for the public that Costco and Walmart deliver lower prices to customers via efficiencies if scale? Obviously not. Whereas if they could pay local governments money to keep the other one out so they could jack up prices that would be bad.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        It is not obvious to me. Maybe it is better for a society to have redundancies in supply chains and business operations. Or having businesses spread out through a region as opposed to conglomerated in a few spots with big box stores. Or maybe it is worth the lower prices. Or maybe it is not in society’s best interest if Walmart is so big they can force suppliers to cut quality to meet their prices.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > 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. Google/Microsoft/etc will donate tons of hardware and software to public schools to ensure teaching kids to use their products become the lesson plan. They're already doing this; they pay schools to be the default just like they pay Mozilla to be the default. So you still have to solve the same sort of problem, except "company donates computers to school" sounds like a sort of charity and that makes it relatively politically unassailable.
bogwog 4y ago
The issue is on competition. Nobody can really change consumer behavior, but we can regulate businesses to ensure the free market remains fair and competitive.
danskeren 4y ago
Changing the default search engine is incredibly difficult and sometimes even impossible. It's in fact so difficult that you'll have an easier time getting people to use your search engine if you ask them to install your extension or even your own browser. If you want somewhat fair competition that's 'easy and cheap' then it should be possible to prompt for user permission to change the default search engine on any browser. It should be possible to avoid abuse by restricting the search engine change to the domain requesting the change.
- bagacrap 4y ago
  I disagree with the premise, but if you really think changing the default is so hard, that seems like FF's fault, not Google's.
  - danskeren 4y ago
    It's just as hard on Chrome and every other browser. So far I've yet to meet a single non-developer capable of changing their default search engine to my website without my help. Try changing the default search engine on iOS Safari to some search engine that Apple hasn't hardcoded into their settings (e.g. https://ask.moe https://ask.moe, https://search.brave.com https://search.brave.com, etc).
    - kornhole 4y ago
      This seems to be by design and influenced by the funding. Many search providers created an extension as the easiest path for end users. Most users don't seem to even understand the difference between a browser and search engine.
    - mrkramer 4y ago
      There should be government regulation around - according to which criteria internet browsers are offering their users default search engines. So for example if I make new internet search engine how do I get Apple and Google to offer it in their browsers as default search engine. Because it seems like Apple and Google are doing it on voluntary basis of good will not because government or anybody else told them to do so.
rendaw 4y ago
My comment was worded in generality because Google and default search engines is only one instance of the phenomenon. For instance: Microsoft or Sony paying game companies not to release games on competitors platforms. But to your specific point, this isn't (directly) about harm to users who don't know enough to care what search engine they use. It's about the number of users Google has allowing them to influence policy (privacy, tracking), technology decisions (internet standards), and the market (delisting or downlisting companies, promoting competitor pages, disabling adword accounts which can cascade to android developer accounts, etc).