RSS
Google Might Stop Violating 'Search Neutrality' If Anybody Knew What That Actually Meant
from the now-you're-just-making-things-up dept
"AT&T went so far as to tell the FCC that nothing it could possible do would be as worrisome as what Google was up to. "And more than any physical network provider, search engines pose concerns that the [rulemaking] identifies as a potential basis for government intervention: They 'determine the information ... that customers access online' through algorithms that highlight some information, favor certain websites, and even omit some sites altogether. As a result, they can 'deter market entry in areas that would benefit consumers and damage[e] potential entrants.' Just as search engines dominate the selection of winners and losers on the Internet, one search engine in particular -- Google's -- dominates the search engine market."
"Search neutrality" is an absurd notion, given that search algorithms by their very nature aren't neutral, and the entire purpose of search is to discriminate and point the user toward more pertinent results. Meanwhile, Google became a market leader by being good at what they do. Users have other options available if they feel that isn't the case, or if they find that Google is suddenly discriminating in terms of search results -- so Google can very quickly be punished should they begin to engage in ranking skulduggery. A company like AT&T, meanwhile, holds a physical monopoly in many markets -- leaving consumers with little to no option should AT&T choose to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
Search neutrality at its core is a term created by companies eager to bog Google down in bad regulation -- the same kind of bad regulation companies like AT&T believe Google is foisting upon them in the network neutrality debate. The difference, again, is that Google's customers can vote with their wallet, while most broadband customers have few if any alternatives (which is why we argue that tackling competition should take priority). Meanwhile, ISPs repeatedly insist that network neutrality rules aren't necessary because there's no evidence of ISP foul play -- yet here they are -- pushing for nebulous regulations without providing evidence of Google abuse (aside from a few people whining late last year that they weren't ranked high enough for their liking).
All of this simply highlights how the entire network neutrality debate has been so polluted by lobbyist, lawyer and think tank nonsense and hypocrisy (on all sides) -- that it has just completely degraded into incoherent rhetoric. Whatever you think of the need for neutrality regulation, it's important to remember the network neutrality debate truly took off in 2005, with AT&T telling Google they wanted to charge content companies already paying for bandwidth an extra toll -- just because. AT&T was loudly and clearly told by Internet users that this was idiotic idea -- though the conversation seems to have gone completely downhill from there in terms of actually making sense.
I have a business...
How To Successfully Get Your App Into China
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
I’m looking for research...
Innovate More. Code Less: Optimizing Open-Source Utilization
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
I have an idea...
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Why it won't happen
FBI
CIA
think about it hard ...its all smoke and mirrors....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
last time i checked
Don't get me wrong, I am all for Google ruling the world... I just don't want idiots getting in the way of that happening.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
agreed
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO
I am an adult , i am able to make reasoned choices
GET OFF MY FUCKING LAWN
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
That's great! I need something to replace New Bing (which is like "New Coke") with.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
That's great! I need something to replace New Bing (which is like "New Coke") with.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
* Every time TAM makes a fact-free argument, drink
* Every time TAM employs a hilariously illogical non sequitur, drink
* If TAM employs a strawman in the same sentence, take a shot
* If he ever refers to "The Masnick", finish your drink
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Agreed
We have been waiting for Verizon FIOS forever in San Francisco and probably won't EVER get it because of the Monopoly these companies hold on this city.....its F***** ridiculous.
This forcing Google to be neutral thing is retarded and just trying to muddy the waters as to hide their own horrible practices!!!!!!
Now I'm getting flustered and I must stop commenting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Why does that matter? Is this a challenge for him to post so you can see if your comment moderation thingy works?
Besides, he's at Don Rickles Birthday Cruise this weekend.
Have a safe one!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why it won't happen
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Google ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: agreed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: agreed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: last time i checked
I believe you're on to something there.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Google Searches
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment