6 ms·

I'm not entirely convinced that a public body would be better at determining what should be visible than a private company. Both have their pros and cons. Priva

by swombat 17y ago

I'm not entirely convinced that a public body would be better at determining what should be visible than a private company. Both have their pros and cons. Private companies will tend to look at what's best for their users in order to maximise profits. Public bodies will tend to look at what's appropriate politically. Considering how corrupt most political bodies are (see all the various lobbying efforts and other expenses scandals) and considering the importance of search, I'm not sure that a public body can be entrusted with it. It's too important to screw it up in the way that governments tend to.

madair 17y ago
Wow, wow, and wow. So you're saying better to trust a private interest than a public one, due to scandal & corruption? Okay, I'm trying to do justice to this with a response, but it's just going to fall into a trap, probably a libertarian one, but I'm not really sure, perhaps just a childish one. I do need to leave a comment though, even one not very information filled, at least to cover the gap and give people pause and think about what you just said and all hopefully they will think of all its implications, until someone with more time fills in the gap or this article just fades away and the comment with it. I hope, swombat, that you just haven't thought about all the implications of what you're saying, so at least you're just uneducated, and not evil.
- swombat 17y ago
  Typing a 3-paragraph comment to finish with an empty ad-hominem is very lame. I'm saying that I'm not convinced that putting a public body in charge of search would be any better than the current situation. I don't trust either of them. I know what Google wants - they want us to continue using them and they want us to click on adverts. And I think they're smart enough to realise that if they mess too much with search results in an unethical way, people will get pissed off and go elsewhere. A government body could have any number of varied and colourful motivations. They might want to pander to the latest anti-whatever craze and ban all related results. They might abuse their power for political purposes (far worse than commercial abuse imho). Importantly, they might mandate that everything has to go through them. With search engines being private, I at least have the choice to go elsewhere. If you make this a public, government affair, they might pass laws requiring you to use their search engine, or other equally asinine things. Google at least is under no illusion that the only way it can convince people to use it is to provide the best results.
  - madair 17y ago
    A typical set of fears of regulation. At least you clarify that you really meant what you said. The people who think the market will self-regulate remain convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, for instance the current banking and mortgage crisis.
    - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
      Actually, the case has been made that the current economic crisis is a good example of the consequences of too much government involvement. I'm not sure I agree, but the fact is that both sides are using this crisis as an example to backup their ideological viewpoints, and there's evidence on both sides. The truth is complex. To characterize one side as just sticking their head in the sand reveals your own bias.
  - madair 17y ago
    It's more profitable for Google to self-censor in China. So they do.
    - spot 17y ago
      self-censorship is "Self-censorship is the act of censoring ... without an authority directly pressuring one to do so" (quoting the wikipedia). needless to say, this is not the case of google in china.
      - madair 17y ago
        Self-censor, or be blocked. They self-censored.
        spot 17y ago
        does "or be blocked" sound like direct pressure to you?
        17y ago
Confusion 17y ago
Private companies try to maximize profits, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do what's best for their users. Fast-food stores encouraging people to eat there often are a good example. Apple refusing certain apps is another one: it's not in my advantage, nor in that of most of my peers, that they limit my choice. Furthermore, not everything can be left to companies. Public utilities like the police and water are supplied/regulated by the government for all the usual reasons. Knowledge is also a public utility. We cannot leave the protection of free speech to companies, or other groups of citizens: they would inevitably suppress certain bits of knowledge from becoming publicly known. Isn't the knowledge of 'where to find what' exactly that kind of knowledge? A near monopoly on search results grants a company great power. In a possible near future, wouldn't it be in Google's best interests to suppress the information of where to find competitors? Not blatantly of course, but when done is subtle ways, will anyone notice? Will anyone believe those who cry wolf? And how devastating it would be to the competition!
- anamax 17y ago
  > Public utilities like the police and water Lots of places get water from private suppliers. And, you might notice a lot of private security. They don't have extraordinary arrest powers, but .... > We cannot leave the protection of free speech to companies, or other groups of citizens: they would inevitably suppress certain bits of knowledge from becoming publicly known. How does a private entity suppress what I want to say? (They may refuse to pay me to say something, refuse to help me say something, or refuse to say something themselves, but that's no suppression.)
  - Confusion 17y ago
    Governments must force companies to publish all kinds of information about their practices, such as a yearly financial report. Without that obligation, that information would never be made public, because the company would force individuals that wanted to publish the data to keep their mouth shut (that follows from the fact that many companies do their best to get an exemption from publishing all kinds of data). Free speech includes the freedom to publish information that has been decided to be 'public information'.
calambrac 17y ago
This is Cory Doctorow, I doubt very much that he means 'government' when he says 'public'.

by swombat 17y ago

madair 17y ago

Wow, wow, and wow. So you're saying better to trust a private interest than a public one, due to scandal & corruption? Okay, I'm trying to do justice to this with a response, but it's just going to fall into a trap, probably a libertarian one, but I'm not really sure, perhaps just a childish one. I do need to leave a comment though, even one not very information filled, at least to cover the gap and give people pause and think about what you just said and all hopefully they will think of all its implications, until someone with more time fills in the gap or this article just fades away and the comment with it. I hope, swombat, that you just haven't thought about all the implications of what you're saying, so at least you're just uneducated, and not evil.

swombat 17y ago
Typing a 3-paragraph comment to finish with an empty ad-hominem is very lame. I'm saying that I'm not convinced that putting a public body in charge of search would be any better than the current situation. I don't trust either of them. I know what Google wants - they want us to continue using them and they want us to click on adverts. And I think they're smart enough to realise that if they mess too much with search results in an unethical way, people will get pissed off and go elsewhere. A government body could have any number of varied and colourful motivations. They might want to pander to the latest anti-whatever craze and ban all related results. They might abuse their power for political purposes (far worse than commercial abuse imho). Importantly, they might mandate that everything has to go through them. With search engines being private, I at least have the choice to go elsewhere. If you make this a public, government affair, they might pass laws requiring you to use their search engine, or other equally asinine things. Google at least is under no illusion that the only way it can convince people to use it is to provide the best results.
- madair 17y ago
  A typical set of fears of regulation. At least you clarify that you really meant what you said. The people who think the market will self-regulate remain convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, for instance the current banking and mortgage crisis.
  - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
    Actually, the case has been made that the current economic crisis is a good example of the consequences of too much government involvement. I'm not sure I agree, but the fact is that both sides are using this crisis as an example to backup their ideological viewpoints, and there's evidence on both sides. The truth is complex. To characterize one side as just sticking their head in the sand reveals your own bias.
- madair 17y ago
  It's more profitable for Google to self-censor in China. So they do.
  - spot 17y ago
    self-censorship is "Self-censorship is the act of censoring ... without an authority directly pressuring one to do so" (quoting the wikipedia). needless to say, this is not the case of google in china.
    - madair 17y ago
      Self-censor, or be blocked. They self-censored.
      - spot 17y ago
        does "or be blocked" sound like direct pressure to you?
        17y ago

Confusion 17y ago

Private companies try to maximize profits, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do what's best for their users. Fast-food stores encouraging people to eat there often are a good example. Apple refusing certain apps is another one: it's not in my advantage, nor in that of most of my peers, that they limit my choice. Furthermore, not everything can be left to companies. Public utilities like the police and water are supplied/regulated by the government for all the usual reasons. Knowledge is also a public utility. We cannot leave the protection of free speech to companies, or other groups of citizens: they would inevitably suppress certain bits of knowledge from becoming publicly known. Isn't the knowledge of 'where to find what' exactly that kind of knowledge? A near monopoly on search results grants a company great power. In a possible near future, wouldn't it be in Google's best interests to suppress the information of where to find competitors? Not blatantly of course, but when done is subtle ways, will anyone notice? Will anyone believe those who cry wolf? And how devastating it would be to the competition!

anamax 17y ago
> Public utilities like the police and water Lots of places get water from private suppliers. And, you might notice a lot of private security. They don't have extraordinary arrest powers, but .... > We cannot leave the protection of free speech to companies, or other groups of citizens: they would inevitably suppress certain bits of knowledge from becoming publicly known. How does a private entity suppress what I want to say? (They may refuse to pay me to say something, refuse to help me say something, or refuse to say something themselves, but that's no suppression.)
- Confusion 17y ago
  Governments must force companies to publish all kinds of information about their practices, such as a yearly financial report. Without that obligation, that information would never be made public, because the company would force individuals that wanted to publish the data to keep their mouth shut (that follows from the fact that many companies do their best to get an exemption from publishing all kinds of data). Free speech includes the freedom to publish information that has been decided to be 'public information'.

calambrac 17y ago

This is Cory Doctorow, I doubt very much that he means 'government' when he says 'public'.