141–150 of 630 posts
I don’t want to break Google’s monopoly on search. Google’s search is fantastic. It’s their advertising business knowing too much about me I care about.
If you want Google search without tracking, you should try StartPage https://www.startpage.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially with voice searches. People are searching entire sentences rather than specific keywords which are much more likely to be unique.
Do people do this? Or do you mean queries forwarded by home assistants trying to parse inputs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ah yes, the only reason you could ever have for being anti google, et al, is that you want to lie... You started with a decent premise, that google isn't an actual monopoly because it has "competitors" (and yes, those quotes are intentional). But then you go off the deep end and completely lost me to the point that I didn't even finish the entirety of your post. There are many many reasons that someone could be again…
Where do you see their absolute market dominance... I checked here for example http://gs.statcounter.com/ and for browsers globally it's 63% that's not a monopoly... I checked here https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-... for search engine and 90% is pretty close but it's not a monopoly... contrast that with MS in the late 90s according to https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/12/13/mic…
You should look at markets, not globally. Google doesn't have a global monopoly (and likely never will because China, Russia won't allow their web to be controlled by a US company), but it has a monopoly in lots of markets (read: countries).
This idea is a pipe dream. It would be nationalizing property, it's never going to happen in the US. If you want to enforce anti-trust actions against google's app store policies, I'm all for that. But forcing them to give away property is insane.
> This idea is a pipe dream. It would be nationalizing property The author references precedent in the 1956 consent decree with Bell Labs [1]. If anything, that was more extreme. AT&T developed those patents. The author's proposal doesn't involve Google surrendering its algorithm. Just the index it compiled from public resources using a publicly-subsidized Internet infrastructure. All without content owners' permissi…
Google can't have a monopoly on data gathered from the publicly available internet, that's absurd.
Okay, this is a relatively serious proposal to require Google to allow API access to its search index, with the premise that it would democratize the search engine ecosystem. There are some issues with the regulations he proposes (you have to allow throttling to prevent DDoS attacks, and you can't let anyone with API access add content to prevent garbage results), but it's roughly feasible. The main problem is, I thi…
> 1) a record of searches and user clicks for the past 20 years If a government was serious about getting more players in the search industry, they would force Google (and all other players) to make this data public. Simply say "All user-behaviour data used to improve the service must be freely published". Make the law apply to any web service with more than 20 million users globally so small businesses aren't burden…
> the private parts must be seperated
This means literally making legal interpretation of all documents on the net, to determine whether each of them is private or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially with voice searches. People are searching entire sentences rather than specific keywords which are much more likely to be unique.
Do people do this? Or do you mean queries forwarded by home assistants trying to parse inputs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comments he made are not just questionable, they're outright wrong (and a great example of the problem with cherry-picking data): https://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-googl... https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jun/23... (Disclosure: I work at Google, but this opinion is my own)
Speaking of cherry picking, I wouldn't use vox as reliable source for bipartisan data.
I'm of two minds here: Google's whole reason for ascending to where they are is the PageRank algorithm which is why Google was created in order to monetize. I see this in similar veins to Apple and iOS: would we support calls for Apple to be forced to allow iOS to be installed on non-Apple hardware? If not, then why would we insist on Google giving up it's reason for being, it's reason a lot of us use it to find rele…
i.e. iOS (especially new versions) would fall under copyright protection [0].
PageRank is a patented technique for search. The patent apparently ran out about 6 weeks ago [0].
While both copyright and patents are intended to protect creators for a certain period of time, copyright protects a specific work and patents protect an idea. Patents should generally expire much more quickly since they cover a much broader topic.
I also realize both systems are completely crippled at the moment, but I'm trying to stick to what they're at least intended to be.
[0]: I'm sure they have tons of patents centered around iOS but this is about protecting the OS itself. [1]: https://pulse2.com/googles-pagerank-patent-expired/