6 ms·

1. Forbid Google from paying Apple and Android OEM’s to be the default search engine. Also, detach Google search from Android and forbid Google from forcing it

1. Forbid Google from paying Apple and Android OEM’s to be the default search engine. Also, detach Google search from Android and forbid Google from forcing it to be included on every Android phone. 2. Give Google search competitors access to Google’s search data so these new AI search engine companies can compete. Without these huge amounts of data, they have no chance. Done!

soared 2y ago
2 is not how the US breaks up monopolies
- kaptainscarlet 2y ago
  [flagged]
- KMag 2y ago
  Right. Government-mandated access to proprietary data isn't how the US breaks up monopolies, but somewhat along those lines, it might make sense for some government to provide some similar data. This seems much closer to a European style government approach, and I wouldn't expect such a thing in the U.S. The infra for a decent crawl is prohibitive. There's a bit of black magic in crawl scheduling, and a bit in de-duplication, but most of the challenge is in scale. I used to work on Google's indexing system, and sat with the guys who wrote the Percolator system that basically used BigTable triggers to drive indexing and make it less batch-oriented. I know France has made at least a couple of attempts at a government-funded "Google killer" search engine. I think it would be a better use of government money to make something like a government-run event-driven first-level indexing system where search engine companies could pay basically cloud computing costs to have their proprietary triggers populate their proprietary databases based on the government-run crawling and first-level analysis. When one page updates, you'd want all of the search engine startups running their triggers on the same copy of the data, rather than having to stream the data out to each of the search engine startups. Basically, you want to take some importance metric, some estimate of the probability some content has changed since the last time you crawled it, combine the product of the two plus some additional constraints (crawl every known page at least some maximum period, don't hit any domain too hard, etc.) as a crawl priority. You then crawl the content, convert HTML, PDF, etc. to some marked-up text format (UTF-8 HTML isn't bad, but I think UTF-8 plain text plus some separate annotations in a binary format would be better). You strip out text that's too small or too close to the background color. You calculate one or more locality-sensitive hash functions over the plain text, cluster similar texts, pick a canonical URL for each cluster. You calculate the directed link graph across clusters. The PageRank patent has expired, so you could calculate PageRank and several other link-graph ranking signals across canonical clusters. You'd presumably compute some uniqueness scores, age scores, etc. for each canonical URL, and then in parallel run each of the search engine startup's analysis over this package of analysis data each time you find a change for a particular canonical URL. You might have some startups providing spam scoring or other analysis and providing that (for fees, of course) to search engine startups, etc. Basically, you want to modularize the indexing and analysis to provide competition and nearly seamless transition between competing providers within your ecosystem. I think that's the way to drive innovation in the search engine startup space and properly leverage economies of scale across search engine startups.
- 8note 2y ago
  The US can split the crawler yesterday into its own business though, which could sell access to that index and the execute training operations over it
matthewfelgate 2y ago
Then do the same for Microsoft with Windows?
FMecha 2y ago
Don't the court already did #1?
- brookst 2y ago
  Nope
throwadobe 2y ago
#2 will get you laughed out of any room. The goal here is not to destroy Google.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
The way monopoly law works in the US, it's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's illegal to try to leverage your monopoly to acquire a monopoly on a different line of business. For example, it was found to be illegal for Microsoft to use the Windows monopoly to try to acquire a monopoly on web browsers. This is kind of going the other way. Google had a monopoly on search (arguably - Bing would like a word). All these other actions are to keep that from being eroded. They didn't do Chrome because they wanted to own the browser market, they did Chrome because they wanted browsers to not be owned by somebody else who could make the default search engine be not-Google. That's entering other businesses to protect your main one. IANAL, but that may not be against antitrust law. It's at least not the main thrust of antitrust law.

soared 2y ago

2 is not how the US breaks up monopolies

kaptainscarlet 2y ago
[flagged]
KMag 2y ago
Right. Government-mandated access to proprietary data isn't how the US breaks up monopolies, but somewhat along those lines, it might make sense for some government to provide some similar data. This seems much closer to a European style government approach, and I wouldn't expect such a thing in the U.S. The infra for a decent crawl is prohibitive. There's a bit of black magic in crawl scheduling, and a bit in de-duplication, but most of the challenge is in scale. I used to work on Google's indexing system, and sat with the guys who wrote the Percolator system that basically used BigTable triggers to drive indexing and make it less batch-oriented. I know France has made at least a couple of attempts at a government-funded "Google killer" search engine. I think it would be a better use of government money to make something like a government-run event-driven first-level indexing system where search engine companies could pay basically cloud computing costs to have their proprietary triggers populate their proprietary databases based on the government-run crawling and first-level analysis. When one page updates, you'd want all of the search engine startups running their triggers on the same copy of the data, rather than having to stream the data out to each of the search engine startups. Basically, you want to take some importance metric, some estimate of the probability some content has changed since the last time you crawled it, combine the product of the two plus some additional constraints (crawl every known page at least some maximum period, don't hit any domain too hard, etc.) as a crawl priority. You then crawl the content, convert HTML, PDF, etc. to some marked-up text format (UTF-8 HTML isn't bad, but I think UTF-8 plain text plus some separate annotations in a binary format would be better). You strip out text that's too small or too close to the background color. You calculate one or more locality-sensitive hash functions over the plain text, cluster similar texts, pick a canonical URL for each cluster. You calculate the directed link graph across clusters. The PageRank patent has expired, so you could calculate PageRank and several other link-graph ranking signals across canonical clusters. You'd presumably compute some uniqueness scores, age scores, etc. for each canonical URL, and then in parallel run each of the search engine startup's analysis over this package of analysis data each time you find a change for a particular canonical URL. You might have some startups providing spam scoring or other analysis and providing that (for fees, of course) to search engine startups, etc. Basically, you want to modularize the indexing and analysis to provide competition and nearly seamless transition between competing providers within your ecosystem. I think that's the way to drive innovation in the search engine startup space and properly leverage economies of scale across search engine startups.
8note 2y ago
The US can split the crawler yesterday into its own business though, which could sell access to that index and the execute training operations over it

matthewfelgate 2y ago

Then do the same for Microsoft with Windows?

FMecha 2y ago

Don't the court already did #1?

brookst 2y ago
Nope

throwadobe 2y ago

#2 will get you laughed out of any room. The goal here is not to destroy Google.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

The way monopoly law works in the US, it's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's illegal to try to leverage your monopoly to acquire a monopoly on a different line of business. For example, it was found to be illegal for Microsoft to use the Windows monopoly to try to acquire a monopoly on web browsers. This is kind of going the other way. Google had a monopoly on search (arguably - Bing would like a word). All these other actions are to keep that from being eroded. They didn't do Chrome because they wanted to own the browser market, they did Chrome because they wanted browsers to not be owned by somebody else who could make the default search engine be not-Google. That's entering other businesses to protect your main one. IANAL, but that may not be against antitrust law. It's at least not the main thrust of antitrust law.