3 ms·

>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 b

by 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?
- SCHiM 12y ago
  >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? This really, _really_ depends on your philosophy, the way you view companies. In your opinion are they basically structures by which a larger group of people can collaborate on a shared vision/product, another way to serve the community while making a _little_ money on the side? Or are companies inherently self-serving in your opinion, do they exist only to make money regardless of how good increased usage/sales are for society? Is this structure owned by many people, or are founders the only true, and exclusive, owners of a company (not talking about stock here). I'm not really good at expressing my view on this, so maybe a personal example is more helpful: I'm all in favour of google being broken up and/or regulated more as a public utility and less as a private company. The reason is that because of the ubiquitousness of 'google' and it's traces in everything related to tech it is more of a public utility than a privately owned company, and should be regulated and restricted as such. So to explain that in the previous narrative: I think google's importance to society outweighs the rights of the founders/stock holders in regards to who should decide what direction the company should be going in. Also if you can forgive the snark, there's something more to point out about that sentence: >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? >I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because [society decided they are too big]. What did they do? Did they do something [society thinks is wrong]? Yes, they grew to big.
  - Fando 12y ago
    Breaking up Google because its influence on the internet is largest? Absurd. Reasoning like a doomsday prophet is silly. So is jumping to solutions without understanding the problem. The problem is potential for abuse of power. But, so far no indications of such behavior were found, indeed the opposite is true, Google is quite respectable. Accusing them with this in mind seems malicious and raises the real question - why would someone do that? The reason of course is that Google quality is hard to complete with which prompts many shady parties to resort dirty tactics. This isn't about equality for all, it's about reducing Google's competitive advantage. Coca cola is the most valuable brand, and it's nearly impossible for new beverage companies to complete. Surely you would not think that restricting coke's areas of operation, breaking it up, or making it reveal its secret recipe is justifiable. Yet, this is precisely what France is advocating.
    - SCHiM 12y ago
      >Breaking up Google because its influence on the internet is largest Not the internet, the whole western world would be closer. I don't know anyone who uses the internet and doesn't use a search engine. And the very large majority use google. Like I said, it's really how you approach the issue, even determining if there's an issue in the first place. To me it's not about the company, they come and go. It's about the people, the structures the social aspects of it. No matter if it's Google, Apple or Coca Cola. They're just names and I think people should feel no great sense of loyalty to a company aren't working for or who's ideals they don't believe in. >This isn't about equality for all You're right, but you must have missed something. Because, indeed, I don't advocate equality too/for companies and especially not for Google (search). Comprehend for a moment the huge influence a subtle change in search results _could_ have. I don't want that power/chance to lay in the hands of stockholders and/or founders, until such a time that google's usage is down or google is better regulated. Because I feel that they are barely regulated right now. They appear to be able to do whatever they want with their search results. I don't say we should steal google, but they should be prohibited to manipulate current events for example. Also the reason I'm not too concerned about Coca cola is because there's already rigorous testing and regulation for the foods that you can sell. Furthermore I don't care about which soda is the most popular, I really, _really_ couldn't care less. I _do_ care about what the most popular search engine is. Because, and it's been said before, the person who controls education controls the future. And Google undeniably has a share in the metaphorical control pie.
- learc83 12y ago
  >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? It doesn't matter if they did something illegal. Under the interstate commerce act the Federal Government most definitely has the constitutional authority to regulate internet search if they choose to. The government recently exercised that power to regulate ISPs. The FCC didn't accuse those companies of acting illegally. >Why would they expose themselves to such scrutiny? To make more money. If they think they can get away with it, of course they will abuse their monopoly. Show me a monopoly that hasn't done this. >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. Their isn't a magical market share that allows anticompetiveness. The key is to look at the potential harm that Google's monopoly allows. As a society we do it all the time. The constitution says we have a right to bear arms, but we still regulate weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is so great.
  - currysausage 12y ago
    > The government recently exercised that power to regulate ISPs. ISPs are natural monopolies. Duplicating the subscriber line network would (usually) be economically inefficient and pointless. "A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which it is most efficient (...) for production to be permanently concentrated in a single firm rather than contested competitively." (Wikipedia) This is not at all the case with search engines. Develop a superior algorithm and you're in the game. That's how Google once overtook Yahoo, Ask, etc.
    - learc83 12y ago
      I know what a natural monopoly is and I'm not arguing that Google search is a natural monopoly. Government regulation is not aimed only at natural monopolies. The authority for the government to regulate interstate commerce isn't based on whether a natural monopoly exists or not. There are natural monopolies that aren't strictly regulated. And there are industries that aren't natural monopolies that are strictly regulated. The key is to examine the potential harm and the desired outcomes. >Develop a superior algorithm and you're in the game. That is entirely possible (or it might not be [1]). It doesn't change the fact that right now and for the foreseeable future, Google is the gatekeeper to the internet. Right now Google directly controls the destiny of millions of people. One minor algorithm change can (and has) wiped out the fortunes of thousands of companies. [1]Android market share could easily become high enough that Google could retain their monopoly even with inferior search technology.
currysausage 12y ago
> but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have Competition law doesn't punish market power. Punishing success would be insane. The abuse of market power is what is illegal. And abuse needs to be proven. Yes, Google Maps is the first result if you search for "maps" on Google. Search for "maps" on Bing and the first result is... also Google Maps. So maybe, Google Maps is just the leading mapping service on the Web? > So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator So far we've seen no evidence that the defendant has indeed killed anyone, but can we be sure that he hasn't? No, but: In dubio pro reo.
- learc83 12y ago
  >Competition law doesn't punish market power, that would be insane. The abuse of market power is what is illegal. And abuse needs to be proven. Regulation doesn't require proof of illegal behavior. Yes to punish Google executives criminally would require proof of illegal behavior. But congress could easily pass a law that said search engine companies are subject to government search algorithm audits, with no proof of illegal activity required. >So far we've seen no evidence that the defendant has indeed killed anyone, but... This is a regulatory issue, not a criminal trial. I'm not suggesting that any Google executives be punished for anything. I'm suggesting that the potential for Google to do harm is too large not to examine the possibility of regulation. We don't allow private citizens to make weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is too great. In my opinion we also shouldn't allow private citizens to control the internet.
  - currysausage 12y ago
    > Regulation doesn't require proof of illegal behavior. Sanctions under competition law do require proof of abuse of market power. ISP-like regulation, which is a different beast, is usually being justified by the fact that ISPs are natural monopolies. [1] > In my opinion we also shouldn't allow private citizens to control the internet. What makes a search engine useful? The relevance of results. In my opinion, private companies (Google in particular) do a fairly good job at providing relevant results. I prefer that over a government-approved "neutral" algorithm, whatever that would even mean. If you feel that Google's results aren't relevant, give a competitor a try. Nothing stops you. Do you run a web site that was blocked by Google without justification? Go ahead, complain. The mere possibility of abuse doesn't justify tight regulation. > We don't allow private citizens to make weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is too great. Yeah, should Google ever choose to sell WMD to my neighbor, switching to Bing wouldn't really help me. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400975
Fando 12y ago
I understand that with so much market share Google has a bigger responsibility to practice good ethics. Which it seems to be doing. No? I'm sure if Google were to actually begin going astray, people would notice websites disappearing. Until clear evidence of this is found, it is unfair to scrutinize them to reveal their competative advantage. In fact doing so suggests malice more than anything. Sure Google may have the power to 'remove' content from the internet, but since when is that justification for accusations of malicious intent? If France was truly benevolent and actually concerned with improving Google equality, threatening a lawsuit is an odd way to address the problem. A good course of action would be to raise the issue with Google in a trustworthy way. Yes, in general, given enough power corruption emerges, but I'm not sure it applies in this case. Power could be wielded without corruption. Large market share does not imply corruption. Perhaps what is ought to be done by Google is to somehow address the issue of transparency without compromising their algorithm. I may be wrong but I feel confident that Google isn't corrupt. However, the people behind this legislation certainly appear to be up to something.
- learc83 12y ago
  > Which it seems to be doing. No? Who knows? I don't really support the requirement that they make their algorithm public. But I would support requiring that they expose it to government auditors. Or maybe some kind of 3rd party testing that proves their results aren't biased without actually seeing the algorithm. > Power could be wielded without corruption. Yes that is possible. But I think a government is certainly within their rights to demand that with a certain level of power a company must prove that they are wielding that power responsibly. For instance if I build a nuclear power plant, the government will of course require me to prove that it is safe. They won't wait until they have evidence that it is unsafe because the potential harm is too great.

by learc83 12y ago

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?

SCHiM 12y ago
>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? This really, _really_ depends on your philosophy, the way you view companies. In your opinion are they basically structures by which a larger group of people can collaborate on a shared vision/product, another way to serve the community while making a _little_ money on the side? Or are companies inherently self-serving in your opinion, do they exist only to make money regardless of how good increased usage/sales are for society? Is this structure owned by many people, or are founders the only true, and exclusive, owners of a company (not talking about stock here). I'm not really good at expressing my view on this, so maybe a personal example is more helpful: I'm all in favour of google being broken up and/or regulated more as a public utility and less as a private company. The reason is that because of the ubiquitousness of 'google' and it's traces in everything related to tech it is more of a public utility than a privately owned company, and should be regulated and restricted as such. So to explain that in the previous narrative: I think google's importance to society outweighs the rights of the founders/stock holders in regards to who should decide what direction the company should be going in. Also if you can forgive the snark, there's something more to point out about that sentence: >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? >I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because [society decided they are too big]. What did they do? Did they do something [society thinks is wrong]? Yes, they grew to big.
- Fando 12y ago
  Breaking up Google because its influence on the internet is largest? Absurd. Reasoning like a doomsday prophet is silly. So is jumping to solutions without understanding the problem. The problem is potential for abuse of power. But, so far no indications of such behavior were found, indeed the opposite is true, Google is quite respectable. Accusing them with this in mind seems malicious and raises the real question - why would someone do that? The reason of course is that Google quality is hard to complete with which prompts many shady parties to resort dirty tactics. This isn't about equality for all, it's about reducing Google's competitive advantage. Coca cola is the most valuable brand, and it's nearly impossible for new beverage companies to complete. Surely you would not think that restricting coke's areas of operation, breaking it up, or making it reveal its secret recipe is justifiable. Yet, this is precisely what France is advocating.
  - SCHiM 12y ago
    >Breaking up Google because its influence on the internet is largest Not the internet, the whole western world would be closer. I don't know anyone who uses the internet and doesn't use a search engine. And the very large majority use google. Like I said, it's really how you approach the issue, even determining if there's an issue in the first place. To me it's not about the company, they come and go. It's about the people, the structures the social aspects of it. No matter if it's Google, Apple or Coca Cola. They're just names and I think people should feel no great sense of loyalty to a company aren't working for or who's ideals they don't believe in. >This isn't about equality for all You're right, but you must have missed something. Because, indeed, I don't advocate equality too/for companies and especially not for Google (search). Comprehend for a moment the huge influence a subtle change in search results _could_ have. I don't want that power/chance to lay in the hands of stockholders and/or founders, until such a time that google's usage is down or google is better regulated. Because I feel that they are barely regulated right now. They appear to be able to do whatever they want with their search results. I don't say we should steal google, but they should be prohibited to manipulate current events for example. Also the reason I'm not too concerned about Coca cola is because there's already rigorous testing and regulation for the foods that you can sell. Furthermore I don't care about which soda is the most popular, I really, _really_ couldn't care less. I _do_ care about what the most popular search engine is. Because, and it's been said before, the person who controls education controls the future. And Google undeniably has a share in the metaphorical control pie.
learc83 12y ago
>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? It doesn't matter if they did something illegal. Under the interstate commerce act the Federal Government most definitely has the constitutional authority to regulate internet search if they choose to. The government recently exercised that power to regulate ISPs. The FCC didn't accuse those companies of acting illegally. >Why would they expose themselves to such scrutiny? To make more money. If they think they can get away with it, of course they will abuse their monopoly. Show me a monopoly that hasn't done this. >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. Their isn't a magical market share that allows anticompetiveness. The key is to look at the potential harm that Google's monopoly allows. As a society we do it all the time. The constitution says we have a right to bear arms, but we still regulate weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is so great.
- currysausage 12y ago
  > The government recently exercised that power to regulate ISPs. ISPs are natural monopolies. Duplicating the subscriber line network would (usually) be economically inefficient and pointless. "A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which it is most efficient (...) for production to be permanently concentrated in a single firm rather than contested competitively." (Wikipedia) This is not at all the case with search engines. Develop a superior algorithm and you're in the game. That's how Google once overtook Yahoo, Ask, etc.
  - learc83 12y ago
    I know what a natural monopoly is and I'm not arguing that Google search is a natural monopoly. Government regulation is not aimed only at natural monopolies. The authority for the government to regulate interstate commerce isn't based on whether a natural monopoly exists or not. There are natural monopolies that aren't strictly regulated. And there are industries that aren't natural monopolies that are strictly regulated. The key is to examine the potential harm and the desired outcomes. >Develop a superior algorithm and you're in the game. That is entirely possible (or it might not be [1]). It doesn't change the fact that right now and for the foreseeable future, Google is the gatekeeper to the internet. Right now Google directly controls the destiny of millions of people. One minor algorithm change can (and has) wiped out the fortunes of thousands of companies. [1]Android market share could easily become high enough that Google could retain their monopoly even with inferior search technology.

currysausage 12y ago

> but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have Competition law doesn't punish market power. Punishing success would be insane. The abuse of market power is what is illegal. And abuse needs to be proven. Yes, Google Maps is the first result if you search for "maps" on Google. Search for "maps" on Bing and the first result is... also Google Maps. So maybe, Google Maps is just the leading mapping service on the Web? > So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator So far we've seen no evidence that the defendant has indeed killed anyone, but can we be sure that he hasn't? No, but: In dubio pro reo.

learc83 12y ago
>Competition law doesn't punish market power, that would be insane. The abuse of market power is what is illegal. And abuse needs to be proven. Regulation doesn't require proof of illegal behavior. Yes to punish Google executives criminally would require proof of illegal behavior. But congress could easily pass a law that said search engine companies are subject to government search algorithm audits, with no proof of illegal activity required. >So far we've seen no evidence that the defendant has indeed killed anyone, but... This is a regulatory issue, not a criminal trial. I'm not suggesting that any Google executives be punished for anything. I'm suggesting that the potential for Google to do harm is too large not to examine the possibility of regulation. We don't allow private citizens to make weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is too great. In my opinion we also shouldn't allow private citizens to control the internet.
- currysausage 12y ago
  > Regulation doesn't require proof of illegal behavior. Sanctions under competition law do require proof of abuse of market power. ISP-like regulation, which is a different beast, is usually being justified by the fact that ISPs are natural monopolies. [1] > In my opinion we also shouldn't allow private citizens to control the internet. What makes a search engine useful? The relevance of results. In my opinion, private companies (Google in particular) do a fairly good job at providing relevant results. I prefer that over a government-approved "neutral" algorithm, whatever that would even mean. If you feel that Google's results aren't relevant, give a competitor a try. Nothing stops you. Do you run a web site that was blocked by Google without justification? Go ahead, complain. The mere possibility of abuse doesn't justify tight regulation. > We don't allow private citizens to make weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is too great. Yeah, should Google ever choose to sell WMD to my neighbor, switching to Bing wouldn't really help me. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400975

Fando 12y ago

I understand that with so much market share Google has a bigger responsibility to practice good ethics. Which it seems to be doing. No? I'm sure if Google were to actually begin going astray, people would notice websites disappearing. Until clear evidence of this is found, it is unfair to scrutinize them to reveal their competative advantage. In fact doing so suggests malice more than anything. Sure Google may have the power to 'remove' content from the internet, but since when is that justification for accusations of malicious intent? If France was truly benevolent and actually concerned with improving Google equality, threatening a lawsuit is an odd way to address the problem. A good course of action would be to raise the issue with Google in a trustworthy way. Yes, in general, given enough power corruption emerges, but I'm not sure it applies in this case. Power could be wielded without corruption. Large market share does not imply corruption. Perhaps what is ought to be done by Google is to somehow address the issue of transparency without compromising their algorithm. I may be wrong but I feel confident that Google isn't corrupt. However, the people behind this legislation certainly appear to be up to something.

learc83 12y ago
> Which it seems to be doing. No? Who knows? I don't really support the requirement that they make their algorithm public. But I would support requiring that they expose it to government auditors. Or maybe some kind of 3rd party testing that proves their results aren't biased without actually seeing the algorithm. > Power could be wielded without corruption. Yes that is possible. But I think a government is certainly within their rights to demand that with a certain level of power a company must prove that they are wielding that power responsibly. For instance if I build a nuclear power plant, the government will of course require me to prove that it is safe. They won't wait until they have evidence that it is unsafe because the potential harm is too great.