12 ms·

French Senate Backs Bid To Force Google To Disclose Search Algorithm Workings

140 points by krisgenre 12y ago

purringmeow 12y ago
the upper house of parliament yesterday voted to support an amendment to a draft economy bill that would require search engines to display at least three rivals on their homepage That's just absurd. Can someone acquainted with the situation shed light on why they are doing this? Simple populism and lobbying from local businesses or something else?
- vinay427 12y ago
  Not the answer you're looking for, but French protectionism (agriculture, film, etc.) is consistently stronger than the Western norm in the rest of Europe and the US. In those cases it is to protect domestic interests, which of course comes with its own consequences.
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    Consequences, like that the last time France had annual budget surplus was in 1974.
    - seszett 12y ago
      A time when France was a lot more protectionist and interventionist than today, actually.
      - ptaipale 12y ago
        Like all countries were; however, economic growth has been since stimulated by opening trade.
- aikah 12y ago
  > Can someone acquainted with the situation shed light on why they are doing this? Hard to explain, even for a french person. That's why I basically want to move ASAP, at least abroad I'll care less about politics. It tragically funny, there is like 10% unemployment rate in France right now, and instead of trying to give businesses some air, ie less laws and regulations, they keep on coming with ridiculous ones.
  - bane 12y ago
    I've found that whenever the media or lawmakers get caught up in some absolutely useless bullshit, they're almost always trying to distract from something more important that they can't address (or caused). It seems to hold no matter what country it is.
- glass- 12y ago
  No more or less absurd than Microsoft being forced to advertise rival web browsers.
  - plorkyeran 12y ago
    A bit more absurd. A closer analogy would be if Windows was required to ask you on first startup if you wanted to install Linux (i.e. advertising a competitor to the thing you're using vs. a thing bundled with the thing you're using).
    - oh_sigh 12y ago
      Not only on the first startup, but on every use.
- protomyth 12y ago
  They did it to Microsoft in Windows to do the browser selection, so its a pretty small step in their minds to do it to Google. Its still absurd, but it fits their thinking.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Lobbying from local businesses? Ha! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/technology/microsoft-once-an-antitrust-target-is-now-googles-regulatory-scold.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/technology/microsoft-once-... Microsoft is the puppet-master in all of this, it seems.
boona 12y ago
Google hasn't been paying enough campaign contributions in France it seems. Back in the day Microsoft tried to avoid politics, and the US government almost broke them up. "You may have all the money, Raymond, but I have all the men with guns." (Frank Underwood, House of Cards) Looks like you're going to have to start paying more attention to the wallets of those with all the guns Google.
- bildung 12y ago
  > Google hasn't been paying enough campaign contributions in France it seems. That's by design: Campaign contributions are heavily regulated in France: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php
  - moe 12y ago
    Without knowing much about french politicians I'd wager the guess that they receive the same amount of contributions as their colleagues in every other country, just through less public channels.
    - peterfirefly 12y ago
      I'd wager they get more.
    - mercurial 12y ago
      It's more a party thing, usually (the conservative party has been embroiled in a series of scandals concerning the last presidential elections, and the one before).
    - epsylon 12y ago
      Such as well paid executive jobs when they leave politics.
  - raverbashing 12y ago
    Sure, and there are no other way of influencing politics But if someone happens to have a fancy "Cave à Vin", or a week end in Monaco, it's a coincidence
erazor42 12y ago
As a french i'm ashamed about how useless/bad/mediocre our politics are (all of them)
- erik14th 12y ago
  Why is it bad? it's definitely bad for Google but for french citizens I can't see how fomenting diversity in a market hurts.
  - aikah 12y ago
    > Why is it bad? it's definitely bad for Google but for french citizens I can't see how fomenting diversity in a market hurts. How is it going to "foment diversity" ? it's not. You want to "foment diversity" ? Remove some of these stupid regulations and make France more business friendly. Forcing google to display 3 of its competitors on its search engine page isn't going to create jobs or new startups in France. Google is the least of France's problems. Its politicans on the other hand.
  - adventured 12y ago
    It's bad because they were unable to compete in an open market and must turn to the government to handicap Google. There's nothing preventing a French company from producing their own equal or superior search engine - other than competence or will.
    - scrollaway 12y ago
      "Producing an equal or superior product" does not necessarily give the ability to "compete in an open market". That's an idealistic view of capitalism which simply doesn't work. It's merely a factor, and a fairly small one at that. For all you know, there's plenty of "equal or superior products" to [anything] out there. You've just never heard of them for reasons that have nothing to do with their quality.
    - ericd 12y ago
      There's a very high minimum technical bar for successfully competing with Google in search, and then a mountain of brand awareness and user inertia on top of that.
pmontra 12y ago
It won't be the first time a company has to disclose its source code to a government to keep doing business in that country. Apple 2015 http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-chinese-government-access-to-its-devices-for-a-security-assessment/ http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-chinese-... Microsoft 2003 http://news.cnet.com/China-to-view-Windows-code/2100-1007_3-990526.html http://news.cnet.com/China-to-view-Windows-code/2100-1007_3-...
- lewisl9029 12y ago
  Although France doesn't exactly hold the same leverage as China when it comes to market size...
  - moe 12y ago
    It is not in Google's interest to flash the true power balance here by cutting off France anyway. They couldn't care less about french revenue, but it would be a global PR disaster, likely resulting in new EU-wide regulations that would then actually hurt Google.
    - shubb 12y ago
      Ah that's a really interesting part of the picture - Google clearly doesn't pay adequate tax on the sales it makes in the EU. Google are pretty obviously not paying tax like a normal company. To put that more explicitly, they are probably committing massive tax fraud, taking billions in local money and not paying tax on it... that isn't unusual for a mega corporation, and they need local government to continue cooperating. So, the UK gets a big Google office, it's government keeps quiet. I guess France needs one too...
  - shubb 12y ago
    China has 66M google users, while France has 44M. However, if we split HK google users from mainland Google users, it would be pretty clear that Google is toast in China just like Excite in the US. There are a lot of people in China. Only about half of those use the Internet, and only a small percentage of those want to consume silicon valley internet product. People say excitable stuff about the size of the Chinese market but forget that customes are only customers if they are buying your stuff.
imh 12y ago
I'd love to see how they define "search engine." Would this require amazon's search functionality to also show links from rakuten or barnes & noble? Would tech crunch's search have to show wired articles?
- jfoster 12y ago
  One difference between politicians & lawyers when compared with scientists & engineers is that politicians & lawyers don't share the same feeling of needing to precisely define what they mean. They tend to write things that are vague and turn to courts when they desire enforcement. You might be let down if expecting something so specific that Amazon & TechCrunch are clearly included or excluded.
  - umanwizard 12y ago
    This is certainly true in places with legal systems evolved from that of England. It's less true in France, where precedent is less important and courts don't have the power to make law.
    - jfoster 12y ago
      Interesting; I had no idea that difference existed. Thank you for correcting me.
      - prodigal_erik 12y ago
        "Common law" is the name for a system that is mostly built on consistency with prior judgments; "civil law" mostly built on legislation. http://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/common-law-vs-civil-law/ http://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/common-law-vs-civil-law/
ferongr 12y ago
Google should just block French citizens from using any search-related functions on its properties (even things like Youtube search for example). The bill will be repealed in no time.
- learnstats2 12y ago
  There's a reason why Google won't do this, and it relates to the purpose of the bill. Google doesn't want competition, and France wants it to compete. This is the whole point of this action. French businesses can and will produce competitive search products, and the 90% market leader voluntarily leaving the market would be the perfect opportunity.
  - zaphar 12y ago
    Google doesn't want competition That is a statement that reveals more about your own biases than it does about Google. There is no evidence indicating Google doesn't want competition. If french businesses can and will produce competitive search products then they wouldn't need the market leader to leave the market to give them the opportunity. There is 0 barrier to entry here. Anyone can spider the same pages Google does. Anyone can develop ML algorithms to rank them. The only thing keeping Google at the top of search is how good they are at it. Google is global leaving France wouldn't hurt them.
    - learnstats2 12y ago
      Why does any business want competition? I wasn't criticising Google on this particular point; it's an obvious and well-known fact of capitalism. > The only thing keeping Google at the top of search is how good they are at it. As far as I'm aware, other search engines are usually competitive in blind tests for quality. Other things keeping Google at the top include: their incumbency; anti-competitive practices such as browser bundling.
      - zaphar 12y ago
        I wasn't criticising Google on this point; it's an obvious part of capitalism. Except it isn't really. Capitalism the theory may stipulate that an idealized company doesn't want competition but in the real world people run companies and everyone is a different. Google as a company (speaking from insider experience as a former employee, But not in any official capacity) values competition. It provides a way to measure your success as a company. Google loves measuring things it's so deeply ingrained into their DNA they can't help it. Ranking themselves against other search engines is a vital part of how they work. They would quite possibly be lost without it and very definitely be a different company without it. Google loves competition.
tel 12y ago
It's not the genuine article, but reading the title I imagined the effort it would require for Google to teach the French Senate how their algorithm worked. This has an assumption that the algorithm is understandable first by politicians and second by... humans! I have no firsthand knowledge at all of Google's "algorithm", but I assume given the investment they have in ML that it is on the side of "optimization, feature selection, and tuning" instead of "logical, human-understandable decision process".
- skj 12y ago
  That's actually pretty fair. All the big players more or less have a handle on how to do Google-style search. The big differentiator is the data backing that search algorithm. The primary (not only) reason Google keeps its search algorithm details a secret is to prevent people from having an edge on gaming the system.
- peterkelly 12y ago
  I imagine it being of similar difficulty to Microsoft describing how Windows' virtual memory subsystem and similar components work. Imagine trying to explain the intricacies of NTFS to a bunch of politicians who wish to evaluate it.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
ape4 12y ago
PageRank is already public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank But, of course, Google don't solely use that anymore.
borgia 12y ago
Realistically though they merely have to show them a search algorithm.
- gress 12y ago
  And then lose credibility with all government inquiries in all countries into the future.
ataggart 12y ago
How curious that being the best in a competition is seen as anti-competitive, and that keeping one's innovations secret is seen as a barrier to entry. "[T]he English language... becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
- krapp 12y ago
  I think that some people misinterpret the premise of a free (or freeish) market to mean that, no matter how successful a player is, barriers to entry should still remain constant and neutral. This appeals to the ideal image of a lone entrepreneur disrupting industries from their garage with pocket money, sweat and genius, but obviously doesn't consider that the last thing any successful company wants is to provide a level playing field for their competitors. Of course it's "anti-competitive", in a sense, but not unfair. No one is stopping other companies from competing against Google. It just happens that the market decided Google won... years ago. And now they own Youtube and Gmail and the OS that runs on a lot of mobile phones and they have so much money to burn they can try to make cars that drive themselves. No one is stopping people from using other search engines as well, it just happens that people decided years ago that Google worked better than anything else. This is the way it's supposed to work. The superior product wins and dominates, and redefines the market so that everyone has to play on their terms, while everything else dies, or limps along in the shadows hoping not to get eaten. But maybe if you're lucky, you find a niche, or the dinosaurs get wiped out.
SG- 12y ago
Being that Google is essentially the gatekeeper of all content for today's world I kind of think they should publish it freely anyways on their own. I realize there's a wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank but there's clearly more to it for ranking of all things and it should be maintained by Google itself too.
- peterkelly 12y ago
  Part of the reason it works so well is that SEO people who are trying to manipulate the rankings of their site don't know the details of the algorithm. At best they can guess and run experiments. Google making their algorithm public would result in it being much easier for website owners to inflate their rankings, resulting in lower quality search results, and giving companies who pay enough money to SEO experts an unfair advantage (far more so than is already the case today).
  - SG- 12y ago
    True, but at the same time I think that's also an issue. How many sites get unfair advantages from ex-Googlers or insiders? I don't actually consider it an issue today, but going forward it will only be amplified even more.
simula67 12y ago
Behind closed doors ? Or will the entire world get to see how Google search algorithm works ?
T3RMINATED 12y ago
google belongs to google and if they want to shape the search results its their FRICKING Search Engine... they can do whatever they want and remove whom ever they want... its THEIRS get it... dont like it... use someone else... build your own.
kalyan02 12y ago
There is no way they would reveal their most precious secret sauce for the sake of satisfying one country's law and I can only think of one way this can end - Google pulling off another Google News Spain, by shutting down Google.fr. Forcing Google's hand did not go well neither in Germany nor Spain not too long ago. How are law makers failing to see this? How are even the lobbyists fuelling the whole thing not seeing this?
nickik 12y ago
Google should make a really, really simple alorigthm for search and use that only for french people and show that to the french goverment. I don't see why that should not be allowed, they allready have diffrent alorithm for diffrent places.
- ataggart 12y ago
  The only truly egalitarian algorithm is a random sort.
  - _yosefk 12y ago
    No it's not - if I put up more webpages than you, the first random page is more likely to be mine than yours. The only truly egalitarian algorithm is to send all queries to a state-run committee of experts and have them sort it out. That said... are the Chinese worse off due to their protectionism that gave Baidu an advantage? I sincerely don't know. When everybody plays dirty, it's hard to know which sequence of dirty moves will let one get the farthest ahead... (What's really interesting here is how much actual sovereignty the French have, and if it's enough to pull off this particular move. There are trade agreements and even regardless of these, governments intervene to protect their companies.)
paul 12y ago
They have no concept of how complex ranking is. There are millions of factors being fed into massive machine learning systems that try to predict which results users want (which is different from which they are most likely to click). It's like asking to see the algorithm for a cat. They should go back to working on their own "Google killer" search engine :) http://www.infoworld.com/article/2672709/operating-systems/europe-s--google-killer--goes-into-hiding.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2672709/operating-systems/e...
- DavidSJ 12y ago
  If Google actually had the algorithm for a cat, I'd like to see them release that too.
  - stretchwithme 12y ago
    Its freely available. A copy can be found in every cell of every cat.
    - ehmmm 12y ago
      Algorithm is not the same as the the source code, which is what genes contain. We have obtained them trough gene sequencing, but we still don't know how organisms work and grow.
  - compbio 12y ago
    They have: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/using-large-scale-brain-simulations-for.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/using-large-scale-bra... Furthermore they already published their search engine algorithm: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html
- jfoster 12y ago
  Plus those factors and their weightings would be changing on a very regular basis. Then there's also the personalization and localization layers of search. Would each user be able to see the weightings specific to them, or would Google just publish the general algorithm with weightings left unspecified? Another open question is what degree of disclosure is being requested from Google. Suppose Google just give them the daily dump of weightings and such from the machine learning systems. Does that qualify as disclosure? They may have a hell of a time trying to figure out whether there is any bias in the system using that. They may just refuse to believe how complex the system is, and think that Google is being difficult.
bsaul 12y ago
for non french, let me remind people what is the political debate in the country : on the left side, people want a state-owned economy, and on the other side, they want a state-governed economy ( "etat stratège", meaning the state takes all the strategic decision). The belief that a state could stick to ensuring fair competition and simply foster innovation, instead of directly acting on the companies themselves ( or even worse, directly owning them), is shared by less than 5% of the population ( highest score of the "economicaly liberal" party during the past 30 years elections). If they wanted to hurt google a bit, all they had to do is hit them at the tax level ( they're currently trying that as well, but it has a low chance of working, the main problem being that ireland is both in europe and has 0% tax). Now, with all that being said, i'm still curious to know what are the true complaints regarding google search engine practices before i completely dismiss the whole affair as another typically french symptom.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bane 12y ago
This seems stupid to most sane people, but there's a kind of logic behind it. 1) This is clearly bullshit designed to distract from more pressing issues that the French government can't solve or is unwilling to solve. 2) France's notorious protectionism, while immensely irritating to outsiders, does a reasonable job at preserving French language and culture, and creating a local vacuum for French native solutions. Trade and culture protectionism has a long-history of working quite well in many countries seeking to create national identity and industry when used correctly. These two riffs will continue to get played, with #2 reinforcing #1 while necessary, to try and encourage native French solutions. France is under tremendous economic and cultural pressure from better performing regional partners like Germany and the U.K., and globally by the U.S., China and Japan (pick whichever you think is better performing in terms of economics and cultural expansion). It kind of sucks, but it's also why, when you go to France, and even Paris, you know you're in Paris and not yet another cosmopolitan mega-city. It's also part of the reason why French culture and ideas continue to be interesting and exportable. Much of this of course is France's continued decline as a global power. London, New York and Paris used to be a given global triumvirate. And Paris's membership in the top-3 isn't a given any more. It's now in a mix of second-tier alpha cities with Tokyo, Beijing and Dubai. Outsiders look at this and say "of course Paris is in decline, this kind of behavior is why". Tighter global integration and more openness seems to be the way to the top and maintaining it. But for French leadership, losing cultural identity is not worth it. What if the world thought La Défense = Paris and the rest of the city was just some curious suburb? Is this [1] something that anybody cares about? 1 - http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2014/067/b/7/skyline_la_defense_02_by_eolneth-d79d8ck.jpg http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2014/067/b/7/skyline_la_de...
- crdb 12y ago
  As one of the more than 1.6 million French citizen living abroad [1] (2.5% of the French population [2]), I could tell you a lot about the actual effects of attempting to create barriers around the French market. I'm also not sure French culture is preserved that well in France. Sir Colin Davis was a better Berlioz interpreter than any French conductor I ever heard (and I was born 50km from la Cote St Andre), and even traditional Haute Cuisine is better abroad (particularly in Tokyo - see Apicius). On the upside, a castle in Normandie or the South West today [3] costs less than a 1 bedroom in the nicer parts of Sydney. And those mostly empty TGVs where first class can be cheaper than second are nice when you need to get between Paris and Geneva and avoid those awful Parisian airports. Acemoglu and Robinson [4] describe how the descendants of the world-leading Venetian Republicans now serve ice creams on their ancestors' plazas to today's "Venetians", visiting from Houston or Hong Kong. Sometimes, going home for Christmas feels like that. Luckily, London is only 45 minutes away with EasyJet. [1] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ais_%C3%A9tablis_hors_de_France#Chiffres http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ais_%C3%A9tablis_hors... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France [3] http://www.patrice-besse.com/ http://www.patrice-besse.com/ is one of the best sites for castles. http://www.realestate.com.au/ http://www.realestate.com.au/ for Sydney prices. [4] http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity-ebook/dp/B0058Z4NR8 http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity-eb...
opinali 12y ago
The worst part will be when they force us to translate all search's source code and internal docs to French. :)
zone411 12y ago
Until recently, I believed that while Google abuses its search dominance in order to promote its own services above the fold, their actual search results are still fair. Then I saw the search results for "domains" and "domain." It is a big stretch to imagine how a fair algorithm can rank recently launched beta of Google Domains #4 and #1 against the competitors, such as GoDaddy or NameCheap, or even against informational websites.
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  I just searched for domains (from the UK) and the only reference to Google Domains I see is an advert. If you see differently, I guess there's some reason for that, but it doesn't seem to happen everywhere.
  - SG- 12y ago
    That might simply be because Google Domains is US only.
- aaron42net 12y ago
  That depends on how you define fair, I guess. If this isn't a hardcoded bonus for "google.com" and instead all established, high-PageRank sites receive the same benefit, is it still not fair? There's a not well-known component of Google ranking that acts sort of like a slow-moving, domain-wide PageRank. And because they launched domains.google.com as a subdomain of google.com, which contains PageRank 10 pages and is therefore very trusted, the assumption is that domains.google.com is also very trusted, even though it currently seems to have no inbound links from other google.com pages. This effect is usually hidden because it's rare to have a highly ranked page with no obvious inbound links competing on an established keyword.
argc 12y ago
I think they would be better off taking all they money they would potentially spend on this stupid and putting it up as prize money for a French startup to create a viable Google competitor--encouraging them to view search in a new way. In the very least, it would be a positive message rather than a negative one and maybe an interesting company would come of it. I don't think this will have anything but a negative effect on Google (which does not mean there will magically be a french competitor to jump in a take its place). It also makes the French government look really dumb...
emanuelsaringan 12y ago
Does this mean that French politicians are willing to study Computer Science for 4 years?
thrownaway2424 12y ago
While this story is good feedstock for the Internet noise machine, I feel that if we discussed every stupid idea that came out of one half of a bicameral legislature in any country, we'd be buried in stupidity. An amendment to a draft bill in one house of parliament in a single small country does not amount to a movement.
20kleagues 12y ago
They should show minified versions of their code to the senate under closed doors. Let them make sense of it.
thx1139 12y ago
FRENCH SENATOR (via translator): "Mr. Page, on page 1123 of Exhibit D we see that a signal component called NewInvSqPR is retrieved from a service of similar name. However, cross-referencing with Exhibit P, we see on page 8987 what appears to be a description of this service. This description leads with the text 'DEPRECATED DO NOT USE TO BE REPLACED BY Q2 2010'. Can you account for the current status of this service, and the provenance of any data it relies upon? Furthermore, after the NewInvSqPR is retrieved, if that indeed ever does take place, the resulting data is placed into a field in a ranking output message, but it is unclear from where that field is read. On page 6766 of Exhibit E, the field appears to be cleared, but the surrounding functionality looks like it is disabled by a flag. Can you explain to this chamber the meaning of this information, specifically with regards to ranking of Google properties relative to competing vertical search websites?" LARRY PAGE: "..."
ericfrigot 12y ago
I will not comment on the debate that exasperates me . However, France is also very angry with the way Google optimizes (legally) its income to pay very little tax in France despite substantial profits. It's not fair for the politicians and also for the whole population that cannot make such optimization. I think France just wants to hit Google in a manner respecting its own laws.
jsmith0295 12y ago
They shouldn't comply with this. Better to lose the entire French market than to set a precedent of allowing themselves to bullied by governments. I would imagine people would vote to get rid of this once they're unable to use Google.
fullwedgewhale 12y ago
I'm sorry, but the switch over cost to setting Bing as your home page instead of Google, or using Firefox which defaults to Yahoo, just isn't that much. It's one thing to have a lock on the desktop market where switching over your desktop software (or 10,000 company desktops) is a significant cost. For users with IE or Firefox they have specifically set the search engine to Google. That means users are actively seeking out Google. Maybe require all French citizens to switch search engines once a year? Make browser vendors randomize the choice of search engine? I would imagine that people would still use Google, regardless, even if links to Bing, Duck Duck Go and Yahoo were on the page. I like Duck Duck Go, but every once and awhile I go back to Google because they do a better job. Things I'm more worried about than Google's search hegemony: 1) The fact that new computers may soon be unable to load unsigned kernels 2) You buy a device, like a console, it is illegal for you to root it. 3) Content is locked out region by region, and VPN users are considered pirates. 4) Governments want to incorporate back doors to encryption - leaving all less secure
- geofft 12y ago
  > 1) The fact that new computers may soon be unable to load unsigned kernels I am confident in the human race's ability to find an arbitrary code execution vulnerability in all major kernels. I'm rather more worried by the fact that I'm not confident in the human race's ability to write a major kernel without arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities.
- sbarker 12y ago
  1) Microsoft mandates that PC vendors allow users to disable Secure Boot. In the last rev it's up to the hardware manufacture. Do research before you buy. 2)root is not allowed to be illegal. 3)I've never had this issue but I don't play by the rules. 4)This is two issues a)it will not be less secure it would be the same as having a second key for your front door, or creating a second private key. Just because you have two keys does not mean it's less secure the proof is in the proof (it's math problem). b)government spying/big brother/what have you... I don't know anyone who would like this.
  - deleted 12y ago
jangid 12y ago
Are we moving towards socialism of the internet?
Fando 12y ago
If France doesn't want its citizens to use Google search, then be straight up and admit that. Why are they playing games and penalizing Google? After all, the people of France prefer it and indeed choose to use it.l, no doubt because it's good at etsy it does. Why on earth would Google reveal its algorithm, it's a vital competative advantage. And why is it illegal for search to be biased. If it's bad then people won't use it. If France wants its citizens to avoid Google, instead of crying about it, it ought to advertise a better solution, or in the extreme case, pass a law barring people from using it. Not all lawyers and politicians are bad, but a lot seem detached from reality and cause serious problems as result of their ignorance.
- learc83 12y ago
  >If it's bad then people won't use it. It doesn't have to be that bad to be uncompetitive. They can steer people towards their properties in a way that won't bother most people, but will do tremendous harm to their competitors. > And why is it illegal for search to be biased. It wouldn't be if Google didn't have 95% of the market share. Google got this market share by being better than everyone else no doubt, but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have. Right now Google has the power to effectively remove anyone or any company from the internet. So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator, left unchecked the eventually will.
  - minot 12y ago
    > It wouldn't be if Google didn't have 95% of the market share. I thought you didn't need a huge market share to be anticompetitive. Apple didn't have a huge market share in ebooks when it colluded with the publishers. > but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have. I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal? > Right now Google has the power to effectively remove anyone or any company from the internet. So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator, left unchecked the eventually will. Why would they expose themselves to such scrutiny? What is it that they can do ten years from now that they can't already do? You don't think their market share could get any larger, do you?
learc83 12y ago
I'm very concerned with Google's search monopoly. For the vast majority of users (in western countries), Google is the internet. That's a lot of power for one company to have, and it's only going to get worse as more and more transactions move online. Why should we trust one company with that much power?
- aparadja 12y ago
  You certainly don't have to trust or use Google. However, it would certainly be weird to order Google to stop because of its popularity. The Beatles had the number one position in the billboard charts for almost 60 weeks. That's a lot of popularity for one band to have. Should we have told them to stop making music?
  - learc83 12y ago
    You have to look at this practically instead of ideologically. Everything is a matter of degree. The potential harm a band can do by being too popular is far less than the potential harm done by effectively controlling the internet. Certainly you'll agree that their is a market where it is possible for a company to be "too popular", i.e., the government should step in with regulation. Lets look at a very extreme case. What if one company develops a cure for all forms of cancer, and they won't release the secret (let's assume our hypothetical country has no drug regulations), and they charge $100k for treatment. Is it wrong for the government to step in and regulate? Google is effectively the gateway to the internet, and whether you choose to use them or not you are beholden to that control. If you want to do business a web presence is an absolute necessity, but if Google decides they don't like you, there is no recourse. I'd say that that ability to do harm rises to the level that we should consider potential regulatory remedies. I don't necessarily support forcing them to make their algorithm public, but I would support some kind of government audit.
    - sib 12y ago
      Lets look at a very extreme case. What if one company develops a cure for all forms of cancer, and they won't release the secret (let's assume our hypothetical country has no drug regulations), and they charge $100k for treatment. Is it wrong for the government to step in and regulate? Yes, it is wrong for them to do so (if by regulating you mean setting the company's price for the product that it developed, rather than just the standard regulations that are in place). And the fact that there are people who don't believe it is wrong - probably including politicians - produces a reduction in the amount of money that would be rational to invest to search for such cures, thereby reducing the likelihood of finding them.
S4M 12y ago
Am I missing something? Google search is "just" a very sophisticated algorithm to ranks the pages on internet matching some criteria. If Google doesn't disclose its algorithm and doesn't want to pay the fine ("up to 10% of total global revenue of a search engine business" according to the article), what could France do? Bane Google from the country? Although it would be possible, it would result in a massive loss of productivity for the whole country, since French would have to switch to admittedly inferiors search engines. I say that as a French expat using duckduckgo as his main search engine.
mark_l_watson 12y ago
My government (USA) seems to be shooting itself in the foot re: hurting our tech industries: NSA collections and back doors cause foreign companies to not use our tech, etc. France seems to want to catch up with the USA, and hurt its tech industries and infrastructure also. I don't understand it, unless it is just putting the interest of government bureaucracies ahead of the public good.
dean 12y ago
Do Bing, Duck Duck Go and Yahoo also have to disclose their algorithms? Or is it just Google? Who would want to compete in this space if you have to disclose trade secrets to do so?
- devcpp 12y ago
  >Who would want to compete in this space if you have to disclose trade secrets to do so? Someone who wants money. It's the same argument that Big Pharma presents against those who want to make the patent system lighter, or any company that protests against IP freedom. They just don't want fair competition.
codecamper 12y ago
i think we'll see more & more government vs. big internet. for now governments have more power, but I wonder what it will be like 20 or 50 years from now. after all, they want at least 10% growth and starting from 360 billion, you become very big at that rate over 20-50 years. not sure this world will be as awesome as some may think it could be. sure we don't like our governments & the are incredibly inefficient. maybe that's a good thing though.
littletimmy 12y ago
Good. This is an unpopular view, but Google is simply too powerful. Anything that acts against the Google monopoly on search can only be a good thing.
coliveira 12y ago
It is interesting that many people who are so devote to open source software in general are just OK with the software oligopoly of search that is practiced today by Google and a few other companies. I think it is terrible that we don't have a clear idea of what is going on within the most used search engine, and that they are able to change the algorithm without little second thought. It would be very nice if this lawsuit could bring to the forefront the issues involved with the way Google is controlling everyone's access to information.
pdkl95 12y ago
Why is it that so many people misunderstand monopoly/anti-trust? This isn't about search or pagerank, because having a monopoly is generally not illegal. It doesn't matter what the future of the search market might be or the ease in which customers can switch to a different search service. The complaint, according to the article, is: "...accusation being that it uses this closed code to promote its own products ahead of rivals.“ Search only matters in how it might be a tool that can be abused to gain influence in other, not-search markets. Being a monopoly is usually legal. Monopoly status simply means new laws apply relating to how that power is used. Google is patently a search monopoly right now, so France is well within their right to accuse them of abusing that power to take over other markets. Some sort of trial will determine if those charges are true or not. What is obvious - regardless of the outcome or politics surrounding France's legal action - is that the exact nature of how Google's search algorithms work is the exact evidence needed to properly judge how Google's search service (via the algorithm it relies upon) is unfairly interfering with the markets that Google may also be participating in.
- somerandomness 12y ago
  > Google is patently a search monopoly right now No. Bing is a click away and provides comparable results. A monopoly occurs when the consumer has no choice but the monopolist. That's clearly not the case here.
  - pdkl95 12y ago
    This is exactly the misunderstanding of antitrust laws that I was talking about. Contrary to popular belief, this is not about how much of the market a given business. Monopoly starts to be covered by the antitrust acts when "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market"[1]. Controlling a very large percentage of the market is merely one of the easier ways to demonstrate the existence of that power. [1] United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
    - asher_ 12y ago
      Please explain. The suggestion that Google has "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market" in the search market is clearly false. Google's search product is free. Are you suggesting Google could start charging for search without a significant loss of market share?

140 points by krisgenre 12y ago

the upper house of parliament yesterday voted to support an amendment to a draft economy bill that would require search engines to display at least three rivals on their homepage That's just absurd. Can someone acquainted with the situation shed light on why they are doing this? Simple populism and lobbying from local businesses or something else?

vinay427 12y ago
Not the answer you're looking for, but French protectionism (agriculture, film, etc.) is consistently stronger than the Western norm in the rest of Europe and the US. In those cases it is to protect domestic interests, which of course comes with its own consequences.
- ptaipale 12y ago
  Consequences, like that the last time France had annual budget surplus was in 1974.
  - seszett 12y ago
    A time when France was a lot more protectionist and interventionist than today, actually.
    - ptaipale 12y ago
      Like all countries were; however, economic growth has been since stimulated by opening trade.
aikah 12y ago
> Can someone acquainted with the situation shed light on why they are doing this? Hard to explain, even for a french person. That's why I basically want to move ASAP, at least abroad I'll care less about politics. It tragically funny, there is like 10% unemployment rate in France right now, and instead of trying to give businesses some air, ie less laws and regulations, they keep on coming with ridiculous ones.
- bane 12y ago
  I've found that whenever the media or lawmakers get caught up in some absolutely useless bullshit, they're almost always trying to distract from something more important that they can't address (or caused). It seems to hold no matter what country it is.
glass- 12y ago
No more or less absurd than Microsoft being forced to advertise rival web browsers.
- plorkyeran 12y ago
  A bit more absurd. A closer analogy would be if Windows was required to ask you on first startup if you wanted to install Linux (i.e. advertising a competitor to the thing you're using vs. a thing bundled with the thing you're using).
  - oh_sigh 12y ago
    Not only on the first startup, but on every use.
protomyth 12y ago
They did it to Microsoft in Windows to do the browser selection, so its a pretty small step in their minds to do it to Google. Its still absurd, but it fits their thinking.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Lobbying from local businesses? Ha! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/technology/microsoft-once-an-antitrust-target-is-now-googles-regulatory-scold.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/technology/microsoft-once-... Microsoft is the puppet-master in all of this, it seems.

boona 12y ago

Google hasn't been paying enough campaign contributions in France it seems. Back in the day Microsoft tried to avoid politics, and the US government almost broke them up. "You may have all the money, Raymond, but I have all the men with guns." (Frank Underwood, House of Cards) Looks like you're going to have to start paying more attention to the wallets of those with all the guns Google.

bildung 12y ago
> Google hasn't been paying enough campaign contributions in France it seems. That's by design: Campaign contributions are heavily regulated in France: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php
- moe 12y ago
  Without knowing much about french politicians I'd wager the guess that they receive the same amount of contributions as their colleagues in every other country, just through less public channels.
  - peterfirefly 12y ago
    I'd wager they get more.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    It's more a party thing, usually (the conservative party has been embroiled in a series of scandals concerning the last presidential elections, and the one before).
  - epsylon 12y ago
    Such as well paid executive jobs when they leave politics.
- raverbashing 12y ago
  Sure, and there are no other way of influencing politics But if someone happens to have a fancy "Cave à Vin", or a week end in Monaco, it's a coincidence

erazor42 12y ago

As a french i'm ashamed about how useless/bad/mediocre our politics are (all of them)

erik14th 12y ago
Why is it bad? it's definitely bad for Google but for french citizens I can't see how fomenting diversity in a market hurts.
- aikah 12y ago
  > Why is it bad? it's definitely bad for Google but for french citizens I can't see how fomenting diversity in a market hurts. How is it going to "foment diversity" ? it's not. You want to "foment diversity" ? Remove some of these stupid regulations and make France more business friendly. Forcing google to display 3 of its competitors on its search engine page isn't going to create jobs or new startups in France. Google is the least of France's problems. Its politicans on the other hand.
- adventured 12y ago
  It's bad because they were unable to compete in an open market and must turn to the government to handicap Google. There's nothing preventing a French company from producing their own equal or superior search engine - other than competence or will.
  - scrollaway 12y ago
    "Producing an equal or superior product" does not necessarily give the ability to "compete in an open market". That's an idealistic view of capitalism which simply doesn't work. It's merely a factor, and a fairly small one at that. For all you know, there's plenty of "equal or superior products" to [anything] out there. You've just never heard of them for reasons that have nothing to do with their quality.
  - ericd 12y ago
    There's a very high minimum technical bar for successfully competing with Google in search, and then a mountain of brand awareness and user inertia on top of that.

pmontra 12y ago

It won't be the first time a company has to disclose its source code to a government to keep doing business in that country. Apple 2015 http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-chinese-government-access-to-its-devices-for-a-security-assessment/ http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-chinese-... Microsoft 2003 http://news.cnet.com/China-to-view-Windows-code/2100-1007_3-990526.html http://news.cnet.com/China-to-view-Windows-code/2100-1007_3-...

lewisl9029 12y ago
Although France doesn't exactly hold the same leverage as China when it comes to market size...
- moe 12y ago
  It is not in Google's interest to flash the true power balance here by cutting off France anyway. They couldn't care less about french revenue, but it would be a global PR disaster, likely resulting in new EU-wide regulations that would then actually hurt Google.
  - shubb 12y ago
    Ah that's a really interesting part of the picture - Google clearly doesn't pay adequate tax on the sales it makes in the EU. Google are pretty obviously not paying tax like a normal company. To put that more explicitly, they are probably committing massive tax fraud, taking billions in local money and not paying tax on it... that isn't unusual for a mega corporation, and they need local government to continue cooperating. So, the UK gets a big Google office, it's government keeps quiet. I guess France needs one too...
- shubb 12y ago
  China has 66M google users, while France has 44M. However, if we split HK google users from mainland Google users, it would be pretty clear that Google is toast in China just like Excite in the US. There are a lot of people in China. Only about half of those use the Internet, and only a small percentage of those want to consume silicon valley internet product. People say excitable stuff about the size of the Chinese market but forget that customes are only customers if they are buying your stuff.

imh 12y ago

I'd love to see how they define "search engine." Would this require amazon's search functionality to also show links from rakuten or barnes & noble? Would tech crunch's search have to show wired articles?

jfoster 12y ago
One difference between politicians & lawyers when compared with scientists & engineers is that politicians & lawyers don't share the same feeling of needing to precisely define what they mean. They tend to write things that are vague and turn to courts when they desire enforcement. You might be let down if expecting something so specific that Amazon & TechCrunch are clearly included or excluded.
- umanwizard 12y ago
  This is certainly true in places with legal systems evolved from that of England. It's less true in France, where precedent is less important and courts don't have the power to make law.
  - jfoster 12y ago
    Interesting; I had no idea that difference existed. Thank you for correcting me.
    - prodigal_erik 12y ago
      "Common law" is the name for a system that is mostly built on consistency with prior judgments; "civil law" mostly built on legislation. http://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/common-law-vs-civil-law/ http://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/common-law-vs-civil-law/

ferongr 12y ago

Google should just block French citizens from using any search-related functions on its properties (even things like Youtube search for example). The bill will be repealed in no time.

learnstats2 12y ago
There's a reason why Google won't do this, and it relates to the purpose of the bill. Google doesn't want competition, and France wants it to compete. This is the whole point of this action. French businesses can and will produce competitive search products, and the 90% market leader voluntarily leaving the market would be the perfect opportunity.
- zaphar 12y ago
  Google doesn't want competition That is a statement that reveals more about your own biases than it does about Google. There is no evidence indicating Google doesn't want competition. If french businesses can and will produce competitive search products then they wouldn't need the market leader to leave the market to give them the opportunity. There is 0 barrier to entry here. Anyone can spider the same pages Google does. Anyone can develop ML algorithms to rank them. The only thing keeping Google at the top of search is how good they are at it. Google is global leaving France wouldn't hurt them.
  - learnstats2 12y ago
    Why does any business want competition? I wasn't criticising Google on this particular point; it's an obvious and well-known fact of capitalism. > The only thing keeping Google at the top of search is how good they are at it. As far as I'm aware, other search engines are usually competitive in blind tests for quality. Other things keeping Google at the top include: their incumbency; anti-competitive practices such as browser bundling.
    - zaphar 12y ago
      I wasn't criticising Google on this point; it's an obvious part of capitalism. Except it isn't really. Capitalism the theory may stipulate that an idealized company doesn't want competition but in the real world people run companies and everyone is a different. Google as a company (speaking from insider experience as a former employee, But not in any official capacity) values competition. It provides a way to measure your success as a company. Google loves measuring things it's so deeply ingrained into their DNA they can't help it. Ranking themselves against other search engines is a vital part of how they work. They would quite possibly be lost without it and very definitely be a different company without it. Google loves competition.

tel 12y ago

It's not the genuine article, but reading the title I imagined the effort it would require for Google to teach the French Senate how their algorithm worked. This has an assumption that the algorithm is understandable first by politicians and second by... humans! I have no firsthand knowledge at all of Google's "algorithm", but I assume given the investment they have in ML that it is on the side of "optimization, feature selection, and tuning" instead of "logical, human-understandable decision process".

skj 12y ago
That's actually pretty fair. All the big players more or less have a handle on how to do Google-style search. The big differentiator is the data backing that search algorithm. The primary (not only) reason Google keeps its search algorithm details a secret is to prevent people from having an edge on gaming the system.
peterkelly 12y ago
I imagine it being of similar difficulty to Microsoft describing how Windows' virtual memory subsystem and similar components work. Imagine trying to explain the intricacies of NTFS to a bunch of politicians who wish to evaluate it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

ape4 12y ago

PageRank is already public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank But, of course, Google don't solely use that anymore.

borgia 12y ago

Realistically though they merely have to show them a search algorithm.

gress 12y ago
And then lose credibility with all government inquiries in all countries into the future.

ataggart 12y ago

How curious that being the best in a competition is seen as anti-competitive, and that keeping one's innovations secret is seen as a barrier to entry. "[T]he English language... becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

krapp 12y ago
I think that some people misinterpret the premise of a free (or freeish) market to mean that, no matter how successful a player is, barriers to entry should still remain constant and neutral. This appeals to the ideal image of a lone entrepreneur disrupting industries from their garage with pocket money, sweat and genius, but obviously doesn't consider that the last thing any successful company wants is to provide a level playing field for their competitors. Of course it's "anti-competitive", in a sense, but not unfair. No one is stopping other companies from competing against Google. It just happens that the market decided Google won... years ago. And now they own Youtube and Gmail and the OS that runs on a lot of mobile phones and they have so much money to burn they can try to make cars that drive themselves. No one is stopping people from using other search engines as well, it just happens that people decided years ago that Google worked better than anything else. This is the way it's supposed to work. The superior product wins and dominates, and redefines the market so that everyone has to play on their terms, while everything else dies, or limps along in the shadows hoping not to get eaten. But maybe if you're lucky, you find a niche, or the dinosaurs get wiped out.

SG- 12y ago

Being that Google is essentially the gatekeeper of all content for today's world I kind of think they should publish it freely anyways on their own. I realize there's a wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank but there's clearly more to it for ranking of all things and it should be maintained by Google itself too.

peterkelly 12y ago
Part of the reason it works so well is that SEO people who are trying to manipulate the rankings of their site don't know the details of the algorithm. At best they can guess and run experiments. Google making their algorithm public would result in it being much easier for website owners to inflate their rankings, resulting in lower quality search results, and giving companies who pay enough money to SEO experts an unfair advantage (far more so than is already the case today).
- SG- 12y ago
  True, but at the same time I think that's also an issue. How many sites get unfair advantages from ex-Googlers or insiders? I don't actually consider it an issue today, but going forward it will only be amplified even more.

simula67 12y ago

Behind closed doors ? Or will the entire world get to see how Google search algorithm works ?

T3RMINATED 12y ago

google belongs to google and if they want to shape the search results its their FRICKING Search Engine... they can do whatever they want and remove whom ever they want... its THEIRS get it... dont like it... use someone else... build your own.

kalyan02 12y ago

There is no way they would reveal their most precious secret sauce for the sake of satisfying one country's law and I can only think of one way this can end - Google pulling off another Google News Spain, by shutting down Google.fr. Forcing Google's hand did not go well neither in Germany nor Spain not too long ago. How are law makers failing to see this? How are even the lobbyists fuelling the whole thing not seeing this?

nickik 12y ago

Google should make a really, really simple alorigthm for search and use that only for french people and show that to the french goverment. I don't see why that should not be allowed, they allready have diffrent alorithm for diffrent places.

ataggart 12y ago
The only truly egalitarian algorithm is a random sort.
- _yosefk 12y ago
  No it's not - if I put up more webpages than you, the first random page is more likely to be mine than yours. The only truly egalitarian algorithm is to send all queries to a state-run committee of experts and have them sort it out. That said... are the Chinese worse off due to their protectionism that gave Baidu an advantage? I sincerely don't know. When everybody plays dirty, it's hard to know which sequence of dirty moves will let one get the farthest ahead... (What's really interesting here is how much actual sovereignty the French have, and if it's enough to pull off this particular move. There are trade agreements and even regardless of these, governments intervene to protect their companies.)

paul 12y ago

They have no concept of how complex ranking is. There are millions of factors being fed into massive machine learning systems that try to predict which results users want (which is different from which they are most likely to click). It's like asking to see the algorithm for a cat. They should go back to working on their own "Google killer" search engine :) http://www.infoworld.com/article/2672709/operating-systems/europe-s--google-killer--goes-into-hiding.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2672709/operating-systems/e...

DavidSJ 12y ago
If Google actually had the algorithm for a cat, I'd like to see them release that too.
- stretchwithme 12y ago
  Its freely available. A copy can be found in every cell of every cat.
  - ehmmm 12y ago
    Algorithm is not the same as the the source code, which is what genes contain. We have obtained them trough gene sequencing, but we still don't know how organisms work and grow.
- compbio 12y ago
  They have: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/using-large-scale-brain-simulations-for.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/using-large-scale-bra... Furthermore they already published their search engine algorithm: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html
jfoster 12y ago
Plus those factors and their weightings would be changing on a very regular basis. Then there's also the personalization and localization layers of search. Would each user be able to see the weightings specific to them, or would Google just publish the general algorithm with weightings left unspecified? Another open question is what degree of disclosure is being requested from Google. Suppose Google just give them the daily dump of weightings and such from the machine learning systems. Does that qualify as disclosure? They may have a hell of a time trying to figure out whether there is any bias in the system using that. They may just refuse to believe how complex the system is, and think that Google is being difficult.

bsaul 12y ago

for non french, let me remind people what is the political debate in the country : on the left side, people want a state-owned economy, and on the other side, they want a state-governed economy ( "etat stratège", meaning the state takes all the strategic decision). The belief that a state could stick to ensuring fair competition and simply foster innovation, instead of directly acting on the companies themselves ( or even worse, directly owning them), is shared by less than 5% of the population ( highest score of the "economicaly liberal" party during the past 30 years elections). If they wanted to hurt google a bit, all they had to do is hit them at the tax level ( they're currently trying that as well, but it has a low chance of working, the main problem being that ireland is both in europe and has 0% tax). Now, with all that being said, i'm still curious to know what are the true complaints regarding google search engine practices before i completely dismiss the whole affair as another typically french symptom.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

bane 12y ago

This seems stupid to most sane people, but there's a kind of logic behind it. 1) This is clearly bullshit designed to distract from more pressing issues that the French government can't solve or is unwilling to solve. 2) France's notorious protectionism, while immensely irritating to outsiders, does a reasonable job at preserving French language and culture, and creating a local vacuum for French native solutions. Trade and culture protectionism has a long-history of working quite well in many countries seeking to create national identity and industry when used correctly. These two riffs will continue to get played, with #2 reinforcing #1 while necessary, to try and encourage native French solutions. France is under tremendous economic and cultural pressure from better performing regional partners like Germany and the U.K., and globally by the U.S., China and Japan (pick whichever you think is better performing in terms of economics and cultural expansion). It kind of sucks, but it's also why, when you go to France, and even Paris, you know you're in Paris and not yet another cosmopolitan mega-city. It's also part of the reason why French culture and ideas continue to be interesting and exportable. Much of this of course is France's continued decline as a global power. London, New York and Paris used to be a given global triumvirate. And Paris's membership in the top-3 isn't a given any more. It's now in a mix of second-tier alpha cities with Tokyo, Beijing and Dubai. Outsiders look at this and say "of course Paris is in decline, this kind of behavior is why". Tighter global integration and more openness seems to be the way to the top and maintaining it. But for French leadership, losing cultural identity is not worth it. What if the world thought La Défense = Paris and the rest of the city was just some curious suburb? Is this [1] something that anybody cares about? 1 - http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2014/067/b/7/skyline_la_defense_02_by_eolneth-d79d8ck.jpg http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2014/067/b/7/skyline_la_de...

crdb 12y ago
As one of the more than 1.6 million French citizen living abroad [1] (2.5% of the French population [2]), I could tell you a lot about the actual effects of attempting to create barriers around the French market. I'm also not sure French culture is preserved that well in France. Sir Colin Davis was a better Berlioz interpreter than any French conductor I ever heard (and I was born 50km from la Cote St Andre), and even traditional Haute Cuisine is better abroad (particularly in Tokyo - see Apicius). On the upside, a castle in Normandie or the South West today [3] costs less than a 1 bedroom in the nicer parts of Sydney. And those mostly empty TGVs where first class can be cheaper than second are nice when you need to get between Paris and Geneva and avoid those awful Parisian airports. Acemoglu and Robinson [4] describe how the descendants of the world-leading Venetian Republicans now serve ice creams on their ancestors' plazas to today's "Venetians", visiting from Houston or Hong Kong. Sometimes, going home for Christmas feels like that. Luckily, London is only 45 minutes away with EasyJet. [1] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ais_%C3%A9tablis_hors_de_France#Chiffres http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ais_%C3%A9tablis_hors... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France [3] http://www.patrice-besse.com/ http://www.patrice-besse.com/ is one of the best sites for castles. http://www.realestate.com.au/ http://www.realestate.com.au/ for Sydney prices. [4] http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity-ebook/dp/B0058Z4NR8 http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity-eb...

opinali 12y ago

The worst part will be when they force us to translate all search's source code and internal docs to French. :)

zone411 12y ago

Until recently, I believed that while Google abuses its search dominance in order to promote its own services above the fold, their actual search results are still fair. Then I saw the search results for "domains" and "domain." It is a big stretch to imagine how a fair algorithm can rank recently launched beta of Google Domains #4 and #1 against the competitors, such as GoDaddy or NameCheap, or even against informational websites.

mike_hearn 12y ago
I just searched for domains (from the UK) and the only reference to Google Domains I see is an advert. If you see differently, I guess there's some reason for that, but it doesn't seem to happen everywhere.
- SG- 12y ago
  That might simply be because Google Domains is US only.
aaron42net 12y ago
That depends on how you define fair, I guess. If this isn't a hardcoded bonus for "google.com" and instead all established, high-PageRank sites receive the same benefit, is it still not fair? There's a not well-known component of Google ranking that acts sort of like a slow-moving, domain-wide PageRank. And because they launched domains.google.com as a subdomain of google.com, which contains PageRank 10 pages and is therefore very trusted, the assumption is that domains.google.com is also very trusted, even though it currently seems to have no inbound links from other google.com pages. This effect is usually hidden because it's rare to have a highly ranked page with no obvious inbound links competing on an established keyword.

argc 12y ago

I think they would be better off taking all they money they would potentially spend on this stupid and putting it up as prize money for a French startup to create a viable Google competitor--encouraging them to view search in a new way. In the very least, it would be a positive message rather than a negative one and maybe an interesting company would come of it. I don't think this will have anything but a negative effect on Google (which does not mean there will magically be a french competitor to jump in a take its place). It also makes the French government look really dumb...

emanuelsaringan 12y ago

Does this mean that French politicians are willing to study Computer Science for 4 years?

thrownaway2424 12y ago

While this story is good feedstock for the Internet noise machine, I feel that if we discussed every stupid idea that came out of one half of a bicameral legislature in any country, we'd be buried in stupidity. An amendment to a draft bill in one house of parliament in a single small country does not amount to a movement.

20kleagues 12y ago

They should show minified versions of their code to the senate under closed doors. Let them make sense of it.

thx1139 12y ago

FRENCH SENATOR (via translator): "Mr. Page, on page 1123 of Exhibit D we see that a signal component called NewInvSqPR is retrieved from a service of similar name. However, cross-referencing with Exhibit P, we see on page 8987 what appears to be a description of this service. This description leads with the text 'DEPRECATED DO NOT USE TO BE REPLACED BY Q2 2010'. Can you account for the current status of this service, and the provenance of any data it relies upon? Furthermore, after the NewInvSqPR is retrieved, if that indeed ever does take place, the resulting data is placed into a field in a ranking output message, but it is unclear from where that field is read. On page 6766 of Exhibit E, the field appears to be cleared, but the surrounding functionality looks like it is disabled by a flag. Can you explain to this chamber the meaning of this information, specifically with regards to ranking of Google properties relative to competing vertical search websites?" LARRY PAGE: "..."

ericfrigot 12y ago

I will not comment on the debate that exasperates me . However, France is also very angry with the way Google optimizes (legally) its income to pay very little tax in France despite substantial profits. It's not fair for the politicians and also for the whole population that cannot make such optimization. I think France just wants to hit Google in a manner respecting its own laws.

jsmith0295 12y ago

They shouldn't comply with this. Better to lose the entire French market than to set a precedent of allowing themselves to bullied by governments. I would imagine people would vote to get rid of this once they're unable to use Google.

fullwedgewhale 12y ago

I'm sorry, but the switch over cost to setting Bing as your home page instead of Google, or using Firefox which defaults to Yahoo, just isn't that much. It's one thing to have a lock on the desktop market where switching over your desktop software (or 10,000 company desktops) is a significant cost. For users with IE or Firefox they have specifically set the search engine to Google. That means users are actively seeking out Google. Maybe require all French citizens to switch search engines once a year? Make browser vendors randomize the choice of search engine? I would imagine that people would still use Google, regardless, even if links to Bing, Duck Duck Go and Yahoo were on the page. I like Duck Duck Go, but every once and awhile I go back to Google because they do a better job. Things I'm more worried about than Google's search hegemony: 1) The fact that new computers may soon be unable to load unsigned kernels 2) You buy a device, like a console, it is illegal for you to root it. 3) Content is locked out region by region, and VPN users are considered pirates. 4) Governments want to incorporate back doors to encryption - leaving all less secure

geofft 12y ago
> 1) The fact that new computers may soon be unable to load unsigned kernels I am confident in the human race's ability to find an arbitrary code execution vulnerability in all major kernels. I'm rather more worried by the fact that I'm not confident in the human race's ability to write a major kernel without arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities.
sbarker 12y ago
1) Microsoft mandates that PC vendors allow users to disable Secure Boot. In the last rev it's up to the hardware manufacture. Do research before you buy. 2)root is not allowed to be illegal. 3)I've never had this issue but I don't play by the rules. 4)This is two issues a)it will not be less secure it would be the same as having a second key for your front door, or creating a second private key. Just because you have two keys does not mean it's less secure the proof is in the proof (it's math problem). b)government spying/big brother/what have you... I don't know anyone who would like this.
- deleted 12y ago

jangid 12y ago

Are we moving towards socialism of the internet?

Fando 12y ago

If France doesn't want its citizens to use Google search, then be straight up and admit that. Why are they playing games and penalizing Google? After all, the people of France prefer it and indeed choose to use it.l, no doubt because it's good at etsy it does. Why on earth would Google reveal its algorithm, it's a vital competative advantage. And why is it illegal for search to be biased. If it's bad then people won't use it. If France wants its citizens to avoid Google, instead of crying about it, it ought to advertise a better solution, or in the extreme case, pass a law barring people from using it. Not all lawyers and politicians are bad, but a lot seem detached from reality and cause serious problems as result of their ignorance.

learc83 12y ago
>If it's bad then people won't use it. It doesn't have to be that bad to be uncompetitive. They can steer people towards their properties in a way that won't bother most people, but will do tremendous harm to their competitors. > And why is it illegal for search to be biased. It wouldn't be if Google didn't have 95% of the market share. Google got this market share by being better than everyone else no doubt, but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have. Right now Google has the power to effectively remove anyone or any company from the internet. So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator, left unchecked the eventually will.
- minot 12y ago
  > It wouldn't be if Google didn't have 95% of the market share. I thought you didn't need a huge market share to be anticompetitive. Apple didn't have a huge market share in ebooks when it colluded with the publishers. > but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have. I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal? > Right now Google has the power to effectively remove anyone or any company from the internet. So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator, left unchecked the eventually will. Why would they expose themselves to such scrutiny? What is it that they can do ten years from now that they can't already do? You don't think their market share could get any larger, do you?

learc83 12y ago

I'm very concerned with Google's search monopoly. For the vast majority of users (in western countries), Google is the internet. That's a lot of power for one company to have, and it's only going to get worse as more and more transactions move online. Why should we trust one company with that much power?

aparadja 12y ago
You certainly don't have to trust or use Google. However, it would certainly be weird to order Google to stop because of its popularity. The Beatles had the number one position in the billboard charts for almost 60 weeks. That's a lot of popularity for one band to have. Should we have told them to stop making music?
- learc83 12y ago
  You have to look at this practically instead of ideologically. Everything is a matter of degree. The potential harm a band can do by being too popular is far less than the potential harm done by effectively controlling the internet. Certainly you'll agree that their is a market where it is possible for a company to be "too popular", i.e., the government should step in with regulation. Lets look at a very extreme case. What if one company develops a cure for all forms of cancer, and they won't release the secret (let's assume our hypothetical country has no drug regulations), and they charge $100k for treatment. Is it wrong for the government to step in and regulate? Google is effectively the gateway to the internet, and whether you choose to use them or not you are beholden to that control. If you want to do business a web presence is an absolute necessity, but if Google decides they don't like you, there is no recourse. I'd say that that ability to do harm rises to the level that we should consider potential regulatory remedies. I don't necessarily support forcing them to make their algorithm public, but I would support some kind of government audit.
  - sib 12y ago
    Lets look at a very extreme case. What if one company develops a cure for all forms of cancer, and they won't release the secret (let's assume our hypothetical country has no drug regulations), and they charge $100k for treatment. Is it wrong for the government to step in and regulate? Yes, it is wrong for them to do so (if by regulating you mean setting the company's price for the product that it developed, rather than just the standard regulations that are in place). And the fact that there are people who don't believe it is wrong - probably including politicians - produces a reduction in the amount of money that would be rational to invest to search for such cures, thereby reducing the likelihood of finding them.

S4M 12y ago

Am I missing something? Google search is "just" a very sophisticated algorithm to ranks the pages on internet matching some criteria. If Google doesn't disclose its algorithm and doesn't want to pay the fine ("up to 10% of total global revenue of a search engine business" according to the article), what could France do? Bane Google from the country? Although it would be possible, it would result in a massive loss of productivity for the whole country, since French would have to switch to admittedly inferiors search engines. I say that as a French expat using duckduckgo as his main search engine.

mark_l_watson 12y ago

My government (USA) seems to be shooting itself in the foot re: hurting our tech industries: NSA collections and back doors cause foreign companies to not use our tech, etc. France seems to want to catch up with the USA, and hurt its tech industries and infrastructure also. I don't understand it, unless it is just putting the interest of government bureaucracies ahead of the public good.

dean 12y ago

Do Bing, Duck Duck Go and Yahoo also have to disclose their algorithms? Or is it just Google? Who would want to compete in this space if you have to disclose trade secrets to do so?

devcpp 12y ago
>Who would want to compete in this space if you have to disclose trade secrets to do so? Someone who wants money. It's the same argument that Big Pharma presents against those who want to make the patent system lighter, or any company that protests against IP freedom. They just don't want fair competition.

codecamper 12y ago

i think we'll see more & more government vs. big internet. for now governments have more power, but I wonder what it will be like 20 or 50 years from now. after all, they want at least 10% growth and starting from 360 billion, you become very big at that rate over 20-50 years. not sure this world will be as awesome as some may think it could be. sure we don't like our governments & the are incredibly inefficient. maybe that's a good thing though.

littletimmy 12y ago

Good. This is an unpopular view, but Google is simply too powerful. Anything that acts against the Google monopoly on search can only be a good thing.

coliveira 12y ago

It is interesting that many people who are so devote to open source software in general are just OK with the software oligopoly of search that is practiced today by Google and a few other companies. I think it is terrible that we don't have a clear idea of what is going on within the most used search engine, and that they are able to change the algorithm without little second thought. It would be very nice if this lawsuit could bring to the forefront the issues involved with the way Google is controlling everyone's access to information.

pdkl95 12y ago

Why is it that so many people misunderstand monopoly/anti-trust? This isn't about search or pagerank, because having a monopoly is generally not illegal. It doesn't matter what the future of the search market might be or the ease in which customers can switch to a different search service. The complaint, according to the article, is: "...accusation being that it uses this closed code to promote its own products ahead of rivals.“ Search only matters in how it might be a tool that can be abused to gain influence in other, not-search markets. Being a monopoly is usually legal. Monopoly status simply means new laws apply relating to how that power is used. Google is patently a search monopoly right now, so France is well within their right to accuse them of abusing that power to take over other markets. Some sort of trial will determine if those charges are true or not. What is obvious - regardless of the outcome or politics surrounding France's legal action - is that the exact nature of how Google's search algorithms work is the exact evidence needed to properly judge how Google's search service (via the algorithm it relies upon) is unfairly interfering with the markets that Google may also be participating in.

somerandomness 12y ago
> Google is patently a search monopoly right now No. Bing is a click away and provides comparable results. A monopoly occurs when the consumer has no choice but the monopolist. That's clearly not the case here.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  This is exactly the misunderstanding of antitrust laws that I was talking about. Contrary to popular belief, this is not about how much of the market a given business. Monopoly starts to be covered by the antitrust acts when "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market"[1]. Controlling a very large percentage of the market is merely one of the easier ways to demonstrate the existence of that power. [1] United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
  - asher_ 12y ago
    Please explain. The suggestion that Google has "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market" in the search market is clearly false. Google's search product is free. Are you suggesting Google could start charging for search without a significant loss of market share?