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

Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 236 posts

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#31

Post by whatshisface »

creato wrote: post #15
jiggawatts wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source addresses: the Google bot traffic comes from a small set of Google-owned IP address blocks. Third parties bake this into things like Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules. For example, Azure App Gateway WAF has a policy category for “known bots” which includes Google but excludes your tiny AI startup. It’s a moat built by giant corporations to keep tiny players in their place. Google "helpfully" publishes their…

I agree it’s a moat, but why would azure restrain competition from google? I think it’s just yet another example of an anti-abuse collateral damage, like email anti-spam blocking small unknown servers or Cloudflare blocking unknown IPs.

Moats are anticompetitive, that's the entire idea behind why founders want them. Who else would a moat keep away, customers? ;)

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#32

Post by majormajor »

bettercallsalad wrote: post #27

I am not following these testimonies in anti-trust cases where they have a competitor of Google testify against Google. Isn’t testifying all about presenting evidence? If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. Of course if it’s a substantiated material it would make sense but otherwise it doesn’t just makes sense at…

> If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me.

So, like, if you were arrested for assaulted your neighbor who you had a long-standing rivalry with, you wouldn't expect the court to hear from the neighbor? It's not like you wouldn't have your own chance to give your own testimony...

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#33

Post by ironSkillet »

gottorf wrote: post #24
kaibee wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments are at least supposed to be accountable to their constituencies, monopolies are only accountable to their shareholders.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

^^ C.S. Lewis, for anyone wondering.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#34

Post by kazinator »

whatshisface wrote: post #31
creato wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it’s a moat, but why would azure restrain competition from google? I think it’s just yet another example of an anti-abuse collateral damage, like email anti-spam blocking small unknown servers or Cloudflare blocking unknown IPs.

Moats are anticompetitive, that's the entire idea behind why founders want them. Who else would a moat keep away, customers? ;)

Customers are kept in by moats.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#35

Post by function_seven »

gottorf wrote: post #24
kaibee wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments are at least supposed to be accountable to their constituencies, monopolies are only accountable to their shareholders.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

With all due respect to Mr. Lewis, this quote is crap. I have no reason to believe that the robber baron's cruelty may sleep, nor that his cupidity might be satiated, nor that conscience enters into it for that robber baron.

A private monopoly is accountable to only the owner. May as well be feudalism. In a liberal democracy, government monopolies have accountability to the people. When that is subverted or corrupted, it sucks, but at least there's a mechanism.

There's no such mechanism with a private monopoly.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#36

Post by majormajor »

gwern wrote: post #20
qudat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea sounds nice but politicians controlling an index would be an abject disaster.

Already has been - what fraction of 'right to be forgotten' requests are actually in the social good, as opposed to just criminals of various levels covering up their crimes?

Of course, "criminals of various levels" "covering up" their, say, stupid 19-year-old mistake drug conviction is exactly why many people favor right to be forgotten things. The idea that it would be in the social good to have easy access to everything someone did or posted for decades seems ludicrous. Privatized ubiquitous surveillance and record-keeping is not a good thing.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#37

Post by nova22033 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #8
lp0_on_fire wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being only tangentially familiar with the indexing bots…what legal barriers are in place to prevent a competitor from impersonating a google indexing bot? Is it just a matter of the google bot originates from x subnet so that’s the only one webmasters allow? What’s to stop a competitor from running their own bot but sending user-agent: totally-the-google-indexing-bot-and-not-a-competitor?

Source addresses: the Google bot traffic comes from a small set of Google-owned IP address blocks. Third parties bake this into things like Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules. For example, Azure App Gateway WAF has a policy category for “known bots” which includes Google but excludes your tiny AI startup. It’s a moat built by giant corporations to keep tiny players in their place. Google "helpfully" publishes their…

For example, Azure App Gateway WAF has a policy category for “known bots”

So why should we take Satya's testimony seriously? Azure is a Microsoft product and if what you're saying is true, Microsoft is part of the problem.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#38

Post by wizofaus »

gottorf wrote: post #24
kaibee wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments are at least supposed to be accountable to their constituencies, monopolies are only accountable to their shareholders.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

I thought C.S. Lewis was an ardent apologist for a particular omnipotent moral busybody?

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#39

Post by havnagiggle »

jiggawatts wrote: post #3

One way Google maintains their monopoly is that many websites block all bots except for the Google indexing bot. This makes it literally impossible for anyone to make a competing search engine because millions of doors are slammed in their face. There is no practical way to negotiate access at this scale either leaving no options for small startups — e.g.: AI-based search! One possible anti-monopoly measure would be…

Got any reports/statistics to back this up? I highly doubt websites are not wanting major search engines to index them. AFAIK it's been standard practice to use `User-agent: *` for a long time. There are other anti-crawling measures because the bad crawlers are not going to respect your robots.txt.
Post reply on HN