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

Why we're saying no to Google

blog.ecosia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#51

Post by skybrian »

cameronbrown wrote: post #44

Sorry, but this really is the best way to go about this. What's the alternative? 1. Random list of all search engines - most of which may be far worse/less advanced/more evil (read: poor & desperate) than Google. 2. Hand picked list by Google? If you want neutrality, then you are joking... Right? 3. 'Independent' committee who decide every so often - I'm not against this, but who's going to fund this? I can guess the…

Maybe the auction proceeds could go to charity?

It wouldn't change things competitively, but it would be good for the charity.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#52

Post by MichaelGlass »

chupa-chups wrote: post #2

This sounds like 'I want money by being "not google" and thus people have to like me'. The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users. Which is nice, but if you want that I support tree planting initiatives explicitly (which I do), why don't you just encourage someone doing just that, maybe by point…

> an unknown percentage

Do like one or two google searches and you'll see a monthly transparency report. (https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planti...)

Spend another five minutes doing research and it feels like Ecosia goes above and beyond to make their purpose pretty legitimized. E.g. the company is a certified b-corporation. The founders donated their ownership of the company back to the share. (https://blog.ecosia.org/trees-not-profits/)

Sure, google has done a great job building the ecosystem. But Ecosia doesn't appear to deserve the skepticism I see here in the comments.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#53

Post by apatters »

cameronbrown wrote: post #48
apatters wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What else could they do? Mandate that the "choice screen" must display the top 5 search engines in the EU by market share as identified by an established, independent market research firm. If the regulator or a competitor feel that Google is not executing this mandate in good faith they can take Google to court. Done. Justice works. Pay for placement, my ass.

This has basically the same effect as an auction model except that you totally lock out the smaller search engines like Ecosia. Is improving the market for startups like Ecosia your goal, or just to decrease Google's marketshare (by increasing the market share of other big tech search engines like Bing/Yahoo/Amazon Product Search)? Being somebody's search engine is scarcity. As a society we've been solving scarcity f…

> Is improving the market for startups like Ecosia your goal, or just to decrease Google's marketshare (by increasing the market share of other big tech search engines like Bing/Amazon Product Search)?

While supporting startups is a good aspiration, it's not the purpose of antitrust action. The job of the regulator should be to punish Google for its illegal conduct, prevent it from committing additional crimes, and create opportunities for competitors so that a free market can re-establish itself.

Whether the competitors are big or small is outside of its purview. A competitive market for general web search in which there are 5 big healthy firms working to win over customers is absolutely an improvement over a monopoly.

Allowing Google to further enrich itself via the remedy does not support these goals and I suspect there's zero chance the EU will let it happen.

Also, the regulator should ensure that Google doesn't do silly things like highlight Amazon Product Search on a screen where you choose which engine you want to search the whole web with. I'm fairly confident they will do their job. These guys are not amateurs.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#54

Post by stakhanov »

cameronbrown wrote: post #44

Sorry, but this really is the best way to go about this. What's the alternative? 1. Random list of all search engines - most of which may be far worse/less advanced/more evil (read: poor & desperate) than Google. 2. Hand picked list by Google? If you want neutrality, then you are joking... Right? 3. 'Independent' committee who decide every so often - I'm not against this, but who's going to fund this? I can guess the…

Actually, your first choice, i.e. random list, would be great! If, as a consumer, the search engine you end up with would end up not being to your liking, you'd hit the browser extension marketplace and look for another default search engine and search engines would face (more or less) a level playing field.

This MAY seem like an absurdity, if one has been in the internet channel economics business for so long that one can't remember what a free market looks like, but THAT would be a free market.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#55

Post by tinus_hn »

bsder wrote: post #30
joelx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ongoing attacks on Google are crazy to me. Google has done wonders for all of us - remember how terrible search engines used to be? Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps? In my opinion these attacks are a paid PR driven distraction from the truly evil actors in the world - see the losses of freedom for people in Hong Kong or citizens of Russia who been impr…

> remember how terrible search engines used to be? Um, Altavista was better than Google for a very long time. And I STILL cry that I can't search and then get a graphical clustermap in order to drill down to what I want. (Yeah, when I search for Python I'm probably not looking for reptiles).

Altavista was completely useless compared to even the first version of Google. You had to prepend + to every search word and even then most of the results were spam or irrelevant.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#56

Post by cameronbrown »

apatters wrote: post #53
cameronbrown wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has basically the same effect as an auction model except that you totally lock out the smaller search engines like Ecosia. Is improving the market for startups like Ecosia your goal, or just to decrease Google's marketshare (by increasing the market share of other big tech search engines like Bing/Yahoo/Amazon Product Search)? Being somebody's search engine is scarcity. As a society we've been solving scarcity f…

> Is improving the market for startups like Ecosia your goal, or just to decrease Google's marketshare (by increasing the market share of other big tech search engines like Bing/Amazon Product Search)? While supporting startups is a good aspiration, it's not the purpose of antitrust action. The job of the regulator should be to punish Google for its illegal conduct, prevent it from committing additional crimes, and c…

> While supporting startups is a good aspiration, it's not the purpose of antitrust action.

Antitrust action is about keeping everyone in the market on a level playing field and startups have the most to gain from this. Although to be fair, you're right - the EU ruling did not really tell Google how to implement their decision. Maybe they should've been more specific?

> Also, the regulator should ensure that Google doesn't do silly things like highlight Amazon Product Search on a screen where you choose which engine you want to search the whole web with. I'm fairly confident they will do their job. These guys are not amateurs.

I have zero faith in EU regulators after Article 11/13.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#57

Post by londons_explore »

stakhanov wrote: post #54
cameronbrown wrote: post #44

Sorry, but this really is the best way to go about this. What's the alternative? 1. Random list of all search engines - most of which may be far worse/less advanced/more evil (read: poor & desperate) than Google. 2. Hand picked list by Google? If you want neutrality, then you are joking... Right? 3. 'Independent' committee who decide every so often - I'm not against this, but who's going to fund this? I can guess the…

Actually, your first choice, i.e. random list, would be great! If, as a consumer, the search engine you end up with would end up not being to your liking, you'd hit the browser extension marketplace and look for another default search engine and search engines would face (more or less) a level playing field. This MAY seem like an absurdity, if one has been in the internet channel economics business for so long that o…

If it is a random list of all search engines, I will be registering 10,000 search engines named every dictionary word...

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#58

Post by wartijn_ »

cameronbrown wrote: post #44

Sorry, but this really is the best way to go about this. What's the alternative? 1. Random list of all search engines - most of which may be far worse/less advanced/more evil (read: poor & desperate) than Google. 2. Hand picked list by Google? If you want neutrality, then you are joking... Right? 3. 'Independent' committee who decide every so often - I'm not against this, but who's going to fund this? I can guess the…

Maybe option 6: Don't have a search app by default?

I don't see why such an app is required. If user need to search for something, they can use their browser. And if someone wants to have a browser app/widget they can download it from the Play store.

This "solution" by Google is just a way to prevent more fines, while most people will still have a huge Google search bar on their phone and Google can make some extra money.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#59

Post by stakhanov »

londons_explore wrote: post #57
stakhanov wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, your first choice, i.e. random list, would be great! If, as a consumer, the search engine you end up with would end up not being to your liking, you'd hit the browser extension marketplace and look for another default search engine and search engines would face (more or less) a level playing field. This MAY seem like an absurdity, if one has been in the internet channel economics business for so long that o…

If it is a random list of all search engines, I will be registering 10,000 search engines named every dictionary word...

...and all of them will be shit meaning that, in every single case, the user will go looking for another default search engine using the browser extension marketplace or the web or a review website or some other discovery facility that's actually useful. Your 10.000 search engines business would go broke and they would disappear from the list of search engines getting randomly selected from. Making the random list useful again. Behold the power of free market economics. It could only be a long-term equilibrium if it actually delivered something that was in the consumer's best interests, rather than being designed for the purpose of handing the largest-possible pile of cash to Google.

Re: Why we're saying no to Google

#60

Post by stakhanov »

stakhanov wrote: post #59
londons_explore wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is a random list of all search engines, I will be registering 10,000 search engines named every dictionary word...

...and all of them will be shit meaning that, in every single case, the user will go looking for another default search engine using the browser extension marketplace or the web or a review website or some other discovery facility that's actually useful. Your 10.000 search engines business would go broke and they would disappear from the list of search engines getting randomly selected from. Making the random list us…

The real clash in opposing world-views that's going on here is that the competition authorities are trying to enforce a system of free consumer choice. And there are a bunch of people in Silicon Valley doing a Jack Nicholson impression going "Free choice? You want free choice? The consumer can't HANDLE free choice!"
Post reply on HN