Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

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

#131

Post by schizoidboy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #116
schizoidboy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also possible that they consciously decided to stop being neutral (e.g. Zuckerberg's statement in Congress about being like a publisher) which would ultimately lead to regulation and thus reduce competition against them and "outsource" all the drama against them over to Congress.

> which would ultimately lead to regulation Why would acting as a publisher lead to government content regulations? Do we not have freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution?

I don't remember the details but I remember some people were surprised by some of Zuckerberg's comments and thought it could open them up to regulation. Maybe it wasn't the comment about publishing.

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

#132

Post by beams_of_light »

malvosenior wrote: post #129
root_axis wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? If you don't like how the algorithm sorts search results then use one of the many competitors. If you think the competition is inferior then you're by definition saying that the google algorithm is preferable to the competition despite whatever political bias you see in the results.

It's good to call for transparency. Google has an effective monopoly on search so it's not just about me as an individual switching to ddg or something. Google can make and break media properties based on what are currently hidden and seemingly editorialized levers. I'm not a fan of regulation but as a consumer I'm absolutely within my rights to ask Google tough questions.

Google does not have an effective monopoly on search, and they've been very transparent about how you receive news on news.google.com.

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

#133

Post by malvosenior »

beams_of_light wrote: post #132
malvosenior wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good to call for transparency. Google has an effective monopoly on search so it's not just about me as an individual switching to ddg or something. Google can make and break media properties based on what are currently hidden and seemingly editorialized levers. I'm not a fan of regulation but as a consumer I'm absolutely within my rights to ask Google tough questions.

Google does not have an effective monopoly on search, and they've been very transparent about how you receive news on news.google.com.

> Google does not have an effective monopoly on search

That is clearly false.

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

#134

Post by root_axis »

malvosenior wrote: post #129
root_axis wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? If you don't like how the algorithm sorts search results then use one of the many competitors. If you think the competition is inferior then you're by definition saying that the google algorithm is preferable to the competition despite whatever political bias you see in the results.

It's good to call for transparency. Google has an effective monopoly on search so it's not just about me as an individual switching to ddg or something. Google can make and break media properties based on what are currently hidden and seemingly editorialized levers. I'm not a fan of regulation but as a consumer I'm absolutely within my rights to ask Google tough questions.

What does it mean to have a monopoly on a product that costs nothing? Saying google has a monopoly on search is akin to saying that Tolkien has a monopoly on high fantasy novels; just because it's the most popular on the market doesn't mean its your only option, and the same is true of search engines.

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

#135

Post by malvosenior »

root_axis wrote: post #134
malvosenior wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good to call for transparency. Google has an effective monopoly on search so it's not just about me as an individual switching to ddg or something. Google can make and break media properties based on what are currently hidden and seemingly editorialized levers. I'm not a fan of regulation but as a consumer I'm absolutely within my rights to ask Google tough questions.

What does it mean to have a monopoly on a product that costs nothing? Saying google has a monopoly on search is akin to saying that Tolkien has a monopoly on high fantasy novels; just because it's the most popular on the market doesn't mean its your only option, and the same is true of search engines.

https://quarterlyvalue.com/is-google-a-monopoly-79627b04941d

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

#136

Post by cphoover »

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…

> "How exactly is trump promoting censorship here? Isn't he doing the exact opposite? Isn't he promoting free speech?"

We are talking about a president who routinely threatens punitive government actions against detractors. There exists a line between criticizing bad journalism, and using executive powers to threaten critics. The later is what dictators do.

In the case of Google, they maintain their search algorithm is not politically biased. Unless we have substantive evidence proving otherwise I see no reason not to believe them.

It seems what Trump is suggesting here, is a government regime controlling what search results we see... That is a very scary prospect, right now.

I have a brother working as a journalist, who toils away fact checking, all day long. I can assure you he and his colleagues do way more due-diligence, fact-checking, and gathering of supporting evidence, than the Office of the Press Secretary could even try to pretend to.

It's so easy to get up in a press-conference say something patently false, when you don't allow any dissent.

If you don't like criticism it's "Fake News".

If you can't see what Trump is doing when he calls the media "Anti-American", you have the wool over your eyes. It's dictator 101.

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

#137

Post by lifeisstillgood »

iron0013 wrote: post #121
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #109

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 fai…

The very fact that so many people happily use DuckDuckGo instead of Google is proof enough that Google isn't an essential utility. The same story is true for all the rest: I'm sure you know people who have left Facebook completely behind without any ill effects--in fact, everyone I know who has left FB has heartily recommended it to anyone who will listen. No stretch of the imagination is going to put these websites…

plenty of people have septic tanks and even generate their own electricity - but that does not mean the 98% of users do not see the sewer company as essential.

What google does is privatise a public good (our markup and usage of internet) - that seems a strong case for regulation irrespective of the very small amount of competition

It is also worth remembering that gas and electric companies also were seen as "not essential" for a long time, as many people managed the old way - there just came a tipping point where the value and convenience (and economic / social benefits) were so great the old ways died out and suddenly a significant proportion of society was dependent. Humans have lived without electrical supplies for many years just as we managed without search engines - but at some point it was "better" for everyone to have electricity, and so everyone got it and we don't want to go back.

US military doctrine of "shock and awe" talks about "bombing people back to the stone age" by destroying electricity and water supplies- when really they mean bombing people back to the early victorian era. But from the vantage point of a man sitting on the loo using a electrically powered internet device, 1840s and the neolithic don't seem very far apart.

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

#138

Post by antidesitter »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #137
iron0013 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very fact that so many people happily use DuckDuckGo instead of Google is proof enough that Google isn't an essential utility. The same story is true for all the rest: I'm sure you know people who have left Facebook completely behind without any ill effects--in fact, everyone I know who has left FB has heartily recommended it to anyone who will listen. No stretch of the imagination is going to put these websites…

plenty of people have septic tanks and even generate their own electricity - but that does not mean the 98% of users do not see the sewer company as essential. What google does is privatise a public good (our markup and usage of internet) - that seems a strong case for regulation irrespective of the very small amount of competition It is also worth remembering that gas and electric companies also were seen as "not es…

> What google does is privatise a public good (our markup and usage of internet)

Please don’t throw around terms incorrectly. That’s not what “public good” means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Post reply on HN