5 ms·

I sincerely hope the antitrust suit ends this practice soon. This is so obviously anticompetitive.

cogman10 2y ago
How? I also think the antitrust suit (and many more) need to happen for more obvious things like buying out competitors. However, how does publishing a list of valid IPs for their web crawlers constitute anticompetitive behavior? Anyone can publish a similar list, and any company can choose to reference those lists.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  It allows Google to access data that is denied to competitors. It’s a clear example of Google using its market power to suppress competition.
  - 8organicbits 2y ago
    Hmm, the robots.txt, IP blocking, and user agent blocking are all policies chosen by the web server hosting the data. If web admins choose to block Google competitors, I'm not sure that's on Google. Can you clarify?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - GreenWatermelon 2y ago
      A nice example is the recent reddit-google deal which gives google' crawler exclusive access to reddit's data. This just serves to give google a competitive advantage over other search engine.
      - not2b 2y ago
        Well yes, the Reddit-Google deal might be found to violate antitrust. Probably will, because it is so blatantly anticompetitive. But if a publication decides to give special access to search engines so they can enforce their paywall but still be findable by search, I don't think the regulators would worry about that, provided that there's a way for competing search engines to get the same access.
        arrosenberg 2y ago
        Which is it? Regulators shouldn’t worry, or we need regulations to ensure equal access to the market?
        immibis 2y ago
        regulators wouldn't worry if all search engines had equal access, even if you didn't because you're not a search engine
        arrosenberg 2y ago
        And if I had wheels, I would be a car. Theres no equal access without regulation.
      - sroussey 2y ago
        Nope. That deal was for AI not search.
        darkwater 2y ago
        Antitrust kicks in exactly in cases like this: using your moat in one market (search) to win another market (AI)
        dns_snek 2y ago
        This is false, the deal cuts all other search engines off from accessing Reddit. Go to Bing and search for "news site:reddit.com" and filter results by date from the past week - 0 results. https://www.404media.co/google-is-the-only-search-engine-that-works-on-reddit-now-thanks-to-ai-deal/ https://www.404media.co/google-is-the-only-search-engine-tha...
        wahnfrieden 2y ago
        What do you think search is
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    It's not anticompetitive behavior by Google for a website to restrict their content. Whether by IP, user account, user agent, whatever
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      It kind of is. If Google divested search and the new company provided utility style access to that data feed, I would agree with you. Webmasters allow a limited number of crawlers based on who had market share in a specific window of time, which serves to lock in the dominance of a small number of competitors. It may not be the kind of explicit anticompetitive behavior we normally see, but it needs to be regulated on the same grounds.
      - paulddraper 2y ago
        Google's action is to declare its identity. The website operator can do with that identity as they wish. They could block it, accept it, accept it but only on Tuesday afternoon. --- "Anticompetitive" would be some action by Google to suppress competitors. Offering identification is not that.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        arrosenberg 2y ago
        Regardless of whether Google has broken the law, the arrangement is clearly anticompetitive. It is not dissimilar to owning the telephone or power wires 100 years ago. Building operators were not willing to install redundant connections for the same service for each operator, and webmasters are not willing to allow unlimited numbers of crawlers on their sites. If we continue to believe in competitive and robust markets, we can't allow a monopolistic corporation to act as a private regulator of a key service that powers the modern economy. The law may need more time to catch up, but search indexing will eventually be made a utility.
    - immibis 2y ago
  - bdd8f1df777b 2y ago
    If you can prove a deal made by Google and the website then you may have a case. Otherwise it is difficult to prove anything.
  - victorbjorklund 2y ago
    Which sites that allows Google to index their content blocks Bing and other search engines (not other bots just scraping for other purposes)?
- zo1 2y ago
  It's clearly meant to starve out competitors. Why else would they want website operators to definitively "know" if it's a GoogleBot IP, other than so that they can differentiate it and treat it differently. It's all the guise of feelgood stuff like "make sure it's google, and not some abusive scraper" language. But the end-result is pretty clear. Just because they have a parallel construction of a valid reason why they're doing something, doesn't mean they don't enjoy the convenient benefits it brings.

How? I also think the antitrust suit (and many more) need to happen for more obvious things like buying out competitors. However, how does publishing a list of valid IPs for their web crawlers constitute anticompetitive behavior? Anyone can publish a similar list, and any company can choose to reference those lists.

arrosenberg 2y ago
It allows Google to access data that is denied to competitors. It’s a clear example of Google using its market power to suppress competition.
- 8organicbits 2y ago
  Hmm, the robots.txt, IP blocking, and user agent blocking are all policies chosen by the web server hosting the data. If web admins choose to block Google competitors, I'm not sure that's on Google. Can you clarify?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - GreenWatermelon 2y ago
    A nice example is the recent reddit-google deal which gives google' crawler exclusive access to reddit's data. This just serves to give google a competitive advantage over other search engine.
    - not2b 2y ago
      Well yes, the Reddit-Google deal might be found to violate antitrust. Probably will, because it is so blatantly anticompetitive. But if a publication decides to give special access to search engines so they can enforce their paywall but still be findable by search, I don't think the regulators would worry about that, provided that there's a way for competing search engines to get the same access.
      - arrosenberg 2y ago
        Which is it? Regulators shouldn’t worry, or we need regulations to ensure equal access to the market?
        immibis 2y ago
        regulators wouldn't worry if all search engines had equal access, even if you didn't because you're not a search engine
        arrosenberg 2y ago
        And if I had wheels, I would be a car. Theres no equal access without regulation.
    - sroussey 2y ago
      Nope. That deal was for AI not search.
      - darkwater 2y ago
        Antitrust kicks in exactly in cases like this: using your moat in one market (search) to win another market (AI)
      - dns_snek 2y ago
        This is false, the deal cuts all other search engines off from accessing Reddit. Go to Bing and search for "news site:reddit.com" and filter results by date from the past week - 0 results. https://www.404media.co/google-is-the-only-search-engine-that-works-on-reddit-now-thanks-to-ai-deal/ https://www.404media.co/google-is-the-only-search-engine-tha...
      - wahnfrieden 2y ago
        What do you think search is
- paulddraper 2y ago
  It's not anticompetitive behavior by Google for a website to restrict their content. Whether by IP, user account, user agent, whatever
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    It kind of is. If Google divested search and the new company provided utility style access to that data feed, I would agree with you. Webmasters allow a limited number of crawlers based on who had market share in a specific window of time, which serves to lock in the dominance of a small number of competitors. It may not be the kind of explicit anticompetitive behavior we normally see, but it needs to be regulated on the same grounds.
    - paulddraper 2y ago
      Google's action is to declare its identity. The website operator can do with that identity as they wish. They could block it, accept it, accept it but only on Tuesday afternoon. --- "Anticompetitive" would be some action by Google to suppress competitors. Offering identification is not that.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - arrosenberg 2y ago
        Regardless of whether Google has broken the law, the arrangement is clearly anticompetitive. It is not dissimilar to owning the telephone or power wires 100 years ago. Building operators were not willing to install redundant connections for the same service for each operator, and webmasters are not willing to allow unlimited numbers of crawlers on their sites. If we continue to believe in competitive and robust markets, we can't allow a monopolistic corporation to act as a private regulator of a key service that powers the modern economy. The law may need more time to catch up, but search indexing will eventually be made a utility.
  - immibis 2y ago
- bdd8f1df777b 2y ago
  If you can prove a deal made by Google and the website then you may have a case. Otherwise it is difficult to prove anything.
- victorbjorklund 2y ago
  Which sites that allows Google to index their content blocks Bing and other search engines (not other bots just scraping for other purposes)?
zo1 2y ago
It's clearly meant to starve out competitors. Why else would they want website operators to definitively "know" if it's a GoogleBot IP, other than so that they can differentiate it and treat it differently. It's all the guise of feelgood stuff like "make sure it's google, and not some abusive scraper" language. But the end-result is pretty clear. Just because they have a parallel construction of a valid reason why they're doing something, doesn't mean they don't enjoy the convenient benefits it brings.