6 ms·

They clearly don't understand the complexity, but just because it's complex doesn't mean it's not biased, and if nobody is allowed to audit it, we will never kn

by gress 11y ago

They clearly don't understand the complexity, but just because it's complex doesn't mean it's not biased, and if nobody is allowed to audit it, we will never know.

wyager 11y ago
So? Why isn't Google allowed to make a biased search algorithm? And again, you might as well be saying "just because cats are complex doesn't mean they're not biased, and if nobody's allowed to audit them, we will never know". Even Google probably doesn't know the specifics of what their engine has learned.
- untog 11y ago
  The central issue here is whether Google are biased towards their own services, and as such abusing their market position. The rest of the bias doesn't matter.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    The former doesn't imply the latter. Thinking of (for instance) Google search and Google maps as two entirely separate products ignores the value of being able to search for an address in the former and automatically embed a map from the latter. That's not an example of biased search results; that's useful integration. And I can't see any possible reason why Google should be forced to make the same integration possible with MapQuest.
    - mercurial 11y ago
      > Thinking of (for instance) Google search and Google maps as two entirely separate products ignores the value of being able to search for an address in the former and automatically embed a map from the latter. It's also useful to open a link from Word. Do you see any reason why Microsoft should make it possible to open it in anything else than IE? The way the game works is that you can get away with vertical integration and anti-competitive behaviour as long as you are not in a situation of monopoly. Then the rules change.
      - JoshTriplett 11y ago
        There's a difference between clicking a link (where "open in default browser" is the obvious behavior, and there's no advantage to forcing any particular browser) and searching for an address (where it makes sense to recognize an address and offer special handling, such as displaying a map, or directions). Searching for an address is a special case of search. If you search for an address, you're unlikely to get useful results by just searching the web, unless the address happens to be that of a business who lists their address on their site; even then, the result you want from the address is probably a map or directions, rather than the site for the business at that address. So what, precisely, would you suggest Google or another search engine do in that case to continue providing a good user experience? (Answers such as "don't do that" are obviously wrong, as are answers like "go to extra trouble to build a generic search plugin API and make users explicitly select a map provider". Neither of those provides a satisfactory experience for users.)
        mercurial 11y ago
        > There's a difference between clicking a link (where "open in default browser" is the obvious behavior, and there's no advantage to forcing any particular browser) and searching for an address (where it makes sense to recognize an address and offer special handling, such as displaying a map, or directions). Clearly, there is a competitive advantage in controlling the browser, or Google would not have spend so much money in giant billboards in the Paris subway to explain how Chrome was better than anything. > So what, precisely, would you suggest Google or another search engine do in that case to continue providing a good user experience? Agree with map service vendors on a standard API, and make it possible in the settings to select the service to handle an address search. You know, competition and all that.
    - gress 11y ago
      The reason is that google has established a monopoly on search, and search provides market power over customer's selection of Internet services. The reason is clear. You might want Google to have that power, or dislike the concept of antitrust, but the reasoning for the action is straightforward.
    - tomjen3 11y ago
      It is not just that, if we allow that search is Googles domain then maps are also in their domain: maps are information and that is what search is supposed to find.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Why? Because new laws apply when you are the dominant player in the market. Biasing the search would be "tying"[1] if the bias is related to another market Google participates in. See the Sherman/Clayton antitrust acts and the long list of related SCOTUS rulings.
- lazylizard 11y ago
  um. i'm thinking more along the lines like. is toyota allowed to use toyota parts to make toyota cars? or they must buy from all 3rd party suppliers? can toyota force install toyota radios? can blaupunkt ask a court to force toyota to buy blaupunkt radios?
mike_hearn 11y ago
What does "bias" even mean, in this context? I use Google exactly because I want its bias - the bias towards websites they think are good, and putting answers right in the results page.
thrownaway2424 11y ago
You say "bias", I say "quality".

by gress 11y ago

They clearly don't understand the complexity, but just because it's complex doesn't mean it's not biased, and if nobody is allowed to audit it, we will never know.

wyager 11y ago

So? Why isn't Google allowed to make a biased search algorithm? And again, you might as well be saying "just because cats are complex doesn't mean they're not biased, and if nobody's allowed to audit them, we will never know". Even Google probably doesn't know the specifics of what their engine has learned.

untog 11y ago
The central issue here is whether Google are biased towards their own services, and as such abusing their market position. The rest of the bias doesn't matter.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  The former doesn't imply the latter. Thinking of (for instance) Google search and Google maps as two entirely separate products ignores the value of being able to search for an address in the former and automatically embed a map from the latter. That's not an example of biased search results; that's useful integration. And I can't see any possible reason why Google should be forced to make the same integration possible with MapQuest.
  - mercurial 11y ago
    > Thinking of (for instance) Google search and Google maps as two entirely separate products ignores the value of being able to search for an address in the former and automatically embed a map from the latter. It's also useful to open a link from Word. Do you see any reason why Microsoft should make it possible to open it in anything else than IE? The way the game works is that you can get away with vertical integration and anti-competitive behaviour as long as you are not in a situation of monopoly. Then the rules change.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      There's a difference between clicking a link (where "open in default browser" is the obvious behavior, and there's no advantage to forcing any particular browser) and searching for an address (where it makes sense to recognize an address and offer special handling, such as displaying a map, or directions). Searching for an address is a special case of search. If you search for an address, you're unlikely to get useful results by just searching the web, unless the address happens to be that of a business who lists their address on their site; even then, the result you want from the address is probably a map or directions, rather than the site for the business at that address. So what, precisely, would you suggest Google or another search engine do in that case to continue providing a good user experience? (Answers such as "don't do that" are obviously wrong, as are answers like "go to extra trouble to build a generic search plugin API and make users explicitly select a map provider". Neither of those provides a satisfactory experience for users.)
      - mercurial 11y ago
        > There's a difference between clicking a link (where "open in default browser" is the obvious behavior, and there's no advantage to forcing any particular browser) and searching for an address (where it makes sense to recognize an address and offer special handling, such as displaying a map, or directions). Clearly, there is a competitive advantage in controlling the browser, or Google would not have spend so much money in giant billboards in the Paris subway to explain how Chrome was better than anything. > So what, precisely, would you suggest Google or another search engine do in that case to continue providing a good user experience? Agree with map service vendors on a standard API, and make it possible in the settings to select the service to handle an address search. You know, competition and all that.
  - gress 11y ago
    The reason is that google has established a monopoly on search, and search provides market power over customer's selection of Internet services. The reason is clear. You might want Google to have that power, or dislike the concept of antitrust, but the reasoning for the action is straightforward.
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    It is not just that, if we allow that search is Googles domain then maps are also in their domain: maps are information and that is what search is supposed to find.
pdkl95 11y ago
Why? Because new laws apply when you are the dominant player in the market. Biasing the search would be "tying"[1] if the bias is related to another market Google participates in. See the Sherman/Clayton antitrust acts and the long list of related SCOTUS rulings.
lazylizard 11y ago
um. i'm thinking more along the lines like. is toyota allowed to use toyota parts to make toyota cars? or they must buy from all 3rd party suppliers? can toyota force install toyota radios? can blaupunkt ask a court to force toyota to buy blaupunkt radios?

mike_hearn 11y ago

What does "bias" even mean, in this context? I use Google exactly because I want its bias - the bias towards websites they think are good, and putting answers right in the results page.

thrownaway2424 11y ago

You say "bias", I say "quality".