4 ms·

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 w

by 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?
        madair 17y ago
        Okay, so you're going to quibble over a questionable definition. Fine. Google censors themselves. [ADDED] And since the brigade on this seems determined to dull the impact of the statement that in order to achieve higher profits, Google has chosen to censor itself, and thus is an excellent example of problems of self-regulation, here are some references: "Google enters China, but censors itself" -- http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5436358&fsrc=RSS http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=54... "Google's decision to set up a self-censored version of its search engine in China this year aroused a storm of criticism in America." http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6850080 http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=685... "Google censors itself for China" -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm "Google has agreed to censor its search engine in China. In return for blocking politically sensitive terms, Google gains access to the world's No. 2 Internet market." -- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/jan-june06/google_1-25.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/jan-june06/google_... Wow, can't believe this. Neither can I believe the claims also here that it's somehow debatable that too little regulation had nothing to do with the economic crisis we're in. Sigh.

by madair 17y ago

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?
      - madair 17y ago
        Okay, so you're going to quibble over a questionable definition. Fine. Google censors themselves. [ADDED] And since the brigade on this seems determined to dull the impact of the statement that in order to achieve higher profits, Google has chosen to censor itself, and thus is an excellent example of problems of self-regulation, here are some references: "Google enters China, but censors itself" -- http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5436358&fsrc=RSS http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=54... "Google's decision to set up a self-censored version of its search engine in China this year aroused a storm of criticism in America." http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6850080 http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=685... "Google censors itself for China" -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm "Google has agreed to censor its search engine in China. In return for blocking politically sensitive terms, Google gains access to the world's No. 2 Internet market." -- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/jan-june06/google_1-25.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/jan-june06/google_... Wow, can't believe this. Neither can I believe the claims also here that it's somehow debatable that too little regulation had nothing to do with the economic crisis we're in. Sigh.