3 ms·

Can you elaborate on your reasons why? I like to hear both sides of an argument. I see Google not as a monopoly but as a majority holder where people have cont

by baldfat 12y ago

Can you elaborate on your reasons why? I like to hear both sides of an argument. I see Google not as a monopoly but as a majority holder where people have control of what services they use. Are they abusing this position to the detriment of users and market?

ocdtrekkie 12y ago
The problem is that people don't have control of what services they use. The vertical integration model, used quite successfully by both Google and Apple, is specifically designed to make it unfavorable or impossible to use competitors. At least under the US definition, the practice of "tying" is illegal when you use your monopoly position in one market to try to monopolize another market. By using Search to prioritize promoting their other services, they are trying to capture other markets through their dominance in Search. This is what the law was written to prevent. Most of my issues stem with how they do this in Android though, which is a separate investigation the EU is conducting. Google's Search behavior hurts consumers in a lot of ways. Since Google is the front door to the Internet, effectively, particularly in Europe where their market share is nearly uncontested, being an unfavorable result in Google prevents you from adequately competing. Being "penalized" by Google Search for any reason can put you out of business. And Google is now trying to exact their will on the entire Internet through penalizing sites in Search as a means of activism. For example, choosing to penalize sites for not using HTTPS, or penalizing sites for not using "mobile responsive" design, which has at best, subjective appeal.
- fixermark 12y ago
  I'm failing to see an issue with penalizing sites for not using HTTPS. Google has incentive to maintain the quality of their search results by being able to make some guarantees that the sites they send visitors to are what they say they are. It's reasonable to extend that to prioritizing sites that can be verified over sites that are easily MITM'd.
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    The quality of a local business cannot be determined by whether or not they cough up $70 a year for HTTPS. The quality of content cannot be determined by whether or not they cough up $70 a year for HTTPS. Penalizing sites for not using it raises the cost of having an opinion or trying to run a business on a nearly arbitrary restriction defined by a monopoly with conflicting business interests who sells web hosting services.
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
> I see Google not as a monopoly but as a majority holder where people have control of what services they use. Even if people could switch search engine - which they can't given they have only one competitor which isn't very good - it wouldn't make Google's actions fine. Google has a near-monopoly on search. They are abusing their market share.

by baldfat 12y ago

ocdtrekkie 12y ago

The problem is that people don't have control of what services they use. The vertical integration model, used quite successfully by both Google and Apple, is specifically designed to make it unfavorable or impossible to use competitors. At least under the US definition, the practice of "tying" is illegal when you use your monopoly position in one market to try to monopolize another market. By using Search to prioritize promoting their other services, they are trying to capture other markets through their dominance in Search. This is what the law was written to prevent. Most of my issues stem with how they do this in Android though, which is a separate investigation the EU is conducting. Google's Search behavior hurts consumers in a lot of ways. Since Google is the front door to the Internet, effectively, particularly in Europe where their market share is nearly uncontested, being an unfavorable result in Google prevents you from adequately competing. Being "penalized" by Google Search for any reason can put you out of business. And Google is now trying to exact their will on the entire Internet through penalizing sites in Search as a means of activism. For example, choosing to penalize sites for not using HTTPS, or penalizing sites for not using "mobile responsive" design, which has at best, subjective appeal.

fixermark 12y ago
I'm failing to see an issue with penalizing sites for not using HTTPS. Google has incentive to maintain the quality of their search results by being able to make some guarantees that the sites they send visitors to are what they say they are. It's reasonable to extend that to prioritizing sites that can be verified over sites that are easily MITM'd.
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  The quality of a local business cannot be determined by whether or not they cough up $70 a year for HTTPS. The quality of content cannot be determined by whether or not they cough up $70 a year for HTTPS. Penalizing sites for not using it raises the cost of having an opinion or trying to run a business on a nearly arbitrary restriction defined by a monopoly with conflicting business interests who sells web hosting services.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

> I see Google not as a monopoly but as a majority holder where people have control of what services they use. Even if people could switch search engine - which they can't given they have only one competitor which isn't very good - it wouldn't make Google's actions fine. Google has a near-monopoly on search. They are abusing their market share.