‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated • Hacker News Board

Re: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

#101

Post by liftbigweights » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 4:00 PM UTC

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #39

I think it's appropriate to quote Vint Cerf here, "The internet is a reflection of our society and that mirror is going to be reflecting what we see. If we do not like what we see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix society." ―Vint Cerf https://icannwiki.org/Vinton_Cerf

That was the relatively decentralized and competitive pre-social media internet.

The problem now is that google and facebook have such a dominant position that larry page and zuckerburg can decide what to show us and what not to show us. They essentially hold the mirror and they decide what we get to see.

Vint Cerf's internet is the one I grew up with and the one I believe in. With the rise of social media and monopolistic tech companies, the relatively uncensored decentralized internet has turned into a dystopian curated and centralized one.

Re: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

#102

Post by iron0013 » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 4:15 PM UTC

It is frankly terrifying to me that so many voices in this thread are defending this blatantly unconstitutional and thoroughly authoritarian idea. If this ridiculous proposition is not beyond the pale, perhaps nothing is--a chilling thought, imo.

Re: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

#103

Post by adventured » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 4:19 PM UTC

jchw wrote: post #100

lgleason wrote: post #28

Google, Facebook, Twitter, Patreon and others were able to grow to the size they did based on Safe Harbor provisions that exempted them from libel laws under the premise that they were neutral platforms that allowed anybody to post content etc.. Newspapers and television stations are held liable for their content. Once they started to editorialize by banning things under subjective pretexts such as "hate speech" they…

This is a weird argument to have. It raises many questions. Like, it's one thing to suggest maybe libel laws should apply to big tech companies. But do we really want to force them to be "politically neutral?" Such a thing literally does not exist, for one thing; but who gets to define it? For example, can the president order that a given news source appear higher in the rankings? Who decides what deserves to be rank…

Why would we look at the NY Times? They don't have a monopoly on national news. They have a small minority position overall and always have.

Google effectively has three monopolies (or near monopolies): search, YouTube, Android.

I include YouTube because in their user-video / amateur-video space they have an overwhelming position, there's nothing even remotely close (Facebook is still a poor competitor, and will probably never capture the higher quality amateur content).

Re: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

#104

Post by UncleMeat » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #80

beams_of_light wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't produce news, though. It aggregates it based on user preferences and history. Complaining that the aggregate of news doesn't cast you in a good light is more of a reflection of who you are than what the aggregator is, as a public figure.

It also filters some sources and promotes other sources based on opaque criteria that many suspect to have political bias.

Do you really want a unsorted list of all web pages that contain your search keywords?

Re: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

#105

Post by stanleydrew » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

liftbigweights wrote: post #89

cphoover wrote: post #37

I have no doubt in my mind, if the United States was a country without checks and balances and the protection of the Constitution, we would be living under authoritarian dictatorship right now. The quickness by the administration to attack media, promote propaganda, and now censorship is frightening.

> The quickness by the administration to attack media, promote propaganda, and now censorship is frightening. How exactly is trump promoting censorship here? Isn't he doing the exact opposite? Isn't he promoting free speech? And frankly, I think it's great that the media and the president have an adversarial relationship. The president should attack the media ( free speech ) and the media should attack the president…

Censorship isn't the best word for this, but he's certainly not promoting free speech here. Promoting free speech would mean acknowledging that Google can do whatever it wants, and say whatever it wants to say via its search results, whether the government likes the results or not.

Regarding the media, there's nothing wrong with the president and the media having an adversarial relationship and in fact I think that's the norm. But I wouldn't describe a president attacking the media as promoting free speech.

Re: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

#106

Post by 18pfsmt » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 4:28 PM UTC

lgleason wrote: post #99

pitaj wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't making a statement on current law. I said "should". As in, I don't think there should be any law pushing liability onto the service providers, regardless of neutrality.

I might agree with you if news outlets and others were held to the same standard. That said it would be be interesting to know how that changed the landscape. Right now you have the powerful choosing the narrative and the little guy being crushed with the current system. All of that being said, libel and slander offer protections against unfounded smear campaigns against individuals and adds accountability which shou…

>Right now you have the powerful choosing the narrative and the little guy being crushed

So, Trump, a billionaire and POTUS, with Republican majorities in both houses is a victim/ little guy? As a conservative this makes no sense.

Re: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

#107

Post by jchw » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #103

jchw wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weird argument to have. It raises many questions. Like, it's one thing to suggest maybe libel laws should apply to big tech companies. But do we really want to force them to be "politically neutral?" Such a thing literally does not exist, for one thing; but who gets to define it? For example, can the president order that a given news source appear higher in the rankings? Who decides what deserves to be rank…

Why would we look at the NY Times? They don't have a monopoly on national news. They have a small minority position overall and always have. Google effectively has three monopolies (or near monopolies): search, YouTube, Android. I include YouTube because in their user-video / amateur-video space they have an overwhelming position, there's nothing even remotely close (Facebook is still a poor competitor, and will prob…

Now we're talking about an entirely different problem altogether. If you want that problem fixed, we need better legislation for tech companies, not worse. Adding more regulatory hurdles and legal obligations will just get you even stronger incumbents.

Re: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

#108

Post by malvosenior » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #104

malvosenior wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also filters some sources and promotes other sources based on opaque criteria that many suspect to have political bias.

Do you really want a unsorted list of all web pages that contain your search keywords?

No, but I definitely don't want the results influenced by partisan politics.

Re: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

#109

Post by lifeisstillgood » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 4:39 PM UTC

They (FAANG) have moved from "interesting startups" to "essential utility". The thing about essential utilities is they are always regulated.

The question is not should Google be regulated (as a new form of utility) but who should regulate it, and under what terms of reference.

An American regulator? European? Chinese ? A new form of UN based regulator for new forms of multi national company? Should it be laissez faire? What views on privacy should the regulator have - is it a price based privacy or an inalienable right?

God knows. But she ain't telling.

Re: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

#110

Post by Youden » Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 4:56 PM UTC

jchw wrote: post #100

lgleason wrote: post #28

Google, Facebook, Twitter, Patreon and others were able to grow to the size they did based on Safe Harbor provisions that exempted them from libel laws under the premise that they were neutral platforms that allowed anybody to post content etc.. Newspapers and television stations are held liable for their content. Once they started to editorialize by banning things under subjective pretexts such as "hate speech" they…

This is a weird argument to have. It raises many questions. Like, it's one thing to suggest maybe libel laws should apply to big tech companies. But do we really want to force them to be "politically neutral?" Such a thing literally does not exist, for one thing; but who gets to define it? For example, can the president order that a given news source appear higher in the rankings? Who decides what deserves to be rank…

> But do we really want to force them to be "politically neutral?" Such a thing literally does not exist, for one thing; but who gets to define it?

Just a naive idea but personally, I'd say a platform is politically neutral if it takes no action to prioritise or remove content unless required by law. This puts what should and shouldn't be on the platform in the hands of lawmakers, who, theoretically at least, represent the will of the people.

However that's bad for business so I'm under no illusions it'll ever become reality.