leejo

So we're all agreed then that we'll hear no more about the Federal Government shoving "net neutrality" down anyone's throat and just let the market take care of things?

Diceman

leejo, I almost suspect that you're intentionally confounding the issues. Google is not a service provider. It is a content provider. If some one doesn't like Google, they should use a different search provider. NMJ has a list of just about every other search engine on the planet, for those that choose to not use Google. There are literally dozens.

Net Neutrality remains an issue - regardless of one's position on Google's alleged bias - quite simply because there is a real concern about the level of competition as it relates to ISPs, last mile or otherwise.

Are you intentionally interleaving these ideas? If so, why?

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

Steeler

Huffington Post is in their index. So is TPM Cafe and American Thinker. Redstate is up there, but not Daily Kos. I wouldn't qualify either as news, but if you're looking for evidence of conservative bias, that's a pretty big smoking gun.

__________________

leejo

Google isn't a content provider in this case, they're a content referrer. All Google does is search the internet for content based on criteria I input and present hits based on an algorithm. As I understand it, Google is a content provider some of the time, but most of their business and interaction with the public is as a referrer, an index.

So I don't understand why Google gets a free pass on the very behavior that makes you think Net Neutrality is a necessity. The idea is that a person on the internet should have unfettered access to the information they choose, right? What difference does it make where the roadblock is?

And I don't accept the argument that there are a bunch of other indices: there were a bunch of other operating systems besides Windows too, but none with the power and cache of Microsoft. Same with Google, and Google is growing rapidly.

Furthermore, if I WANT to find an article or site I know exists, yes I can still find it by using another search engine. The problem is that by removing these sites from the index, many people won't even know they are gone or ever existed. Thanks to Google, someday soon if I run a news search for "Israeli Arab relations" I will not get a full set of articles, I will only get the arcticles that Google chooses to let me see. And this is fine?

I'm not a fan of Google. They make some neat stuff and do some cool things, but they abandoned the Chinese people for a buck, and they hold themselves forth as 1st amendment champions by defying the NSA, sort of, then at the same time stifle others' free speech that doesn't suit them. I could accept a model in which they included these sites in their index but added a disclaimer or some notice that the content therein may be offensive. But these actions smell.

xTYBALTx

There is ample competition amongst internet searches to neuter complaints of abuse. Just take your business elsewhere. Google has every right to censor their searches in any way they deem appropriate.

No one should be using Google anyway. The cookies it keeps on your computer log 28 years worth of searches.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Pokerface

Yes, this is fine. This is not the same argument as the net neutrality one (which boils down to ISPs trying to make money from both ends of a connection).

You're right in that they are a content referrer, and that they present hits based on algorithms. It so happens that they algorithm says "No hate speech" (the definition of which we can debate elsewhere, if you wish; for now, so long as we both accept that this is part of how they index, we're copasetic). This isn't the only reason they drop things that might otherwise hit high on their index, but the other reasons are more technical and less subjective (like HTML tweaks so web bots see a different page than the public sees).

Should it be part of how they index? I think so, especially in furthering the idea of Don't Be Evil (yeah, they dropped the ball on that for China, and I've got no good defense for that). There are other options for searching, including rolling your own engine.

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

leejo

I don't accept the "no hate speech" definition, no. I think it's highly slanted to the left.

Go to news.google.com and start searching for hateful things you could say about christians, or conservatives, or americans, and you'll see plenty of speech there that makes these articles seem pretty tame.

The net neutrality issue may have revolved around ISPs charging practices for you, but the law being contemplated and the reasons given for its necessity don't discuss that particular angle, I don't think. The concern is that ISPs will start favoring certain content providers and shunning others based on business partnerships. The issue is that content might not be as available, not that ISPs might take a bigger cut.

I think it's funny how people fall over themselves to defend Google but won't hesitate to slam Wal*Mart as if there weren't other places to buy cheap crap. Wal*Mart uses bullying tactics and oppressive business practices to stifle competition and limit consumer choice. Google uses bullying tactics and oppressive business practices to stifle free speech and limit consumer choice. One is evil and the other does no evil.

Seems to depend on the underlying politics.

Pokerface

...

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

Steeler

Let's not start raising banners and declaring allegiances for each other here. Net Neutrality and WalMart are really tangental to this topic, IMO. And we are far removed from proving that Google uses bullying tactics and oppressive business practices.

__________________

leejo

You've asked me to accept an assertion I consider completely false and said we should debate it elsewhere. My contention is that Google edits more based on political affiliation than "hate speech".

Let's assume that my assertion is correct, just so we're copacetic. We can debate that elsewhere if you wish.

Feels icky, no?

AMosely

On what legal grounds are they going to end up in Federal court? Do you really think this is a good article? I don't. It's whiney and lacks evidence. Show me evidence that Google ignored complaints about radical left speech yet honored the complaints regarding Islam-bashing and you'll have a point. Otherwise all I see is a company honoring complaints from its users - something every Internet content site does.

Regardless, the question is moot. Google can filter their news service (and search engine, for that matter) all they want - it's their company, and their service. If a conservative wants to build an automated news engine that runs with a right bias, nothing is stopping them.

theamericanthinker.com needs to think harder!

leejo

No, let's. That's the entire point of the thread. Google got caught removing some sites without notice or opportunity to clarify or comply. These sites share a common political slant. There is ample and growing evidence that Google has a particular political slant and that is beginning to impact their business decisions.

Google is also involved in the debates about Net Neutrality. One of their execs recently testified to Congress. His key points were that Net Neutrality is necessary to ensure that consumers can access the information they choose. But in practice, Google is giving consumers access to information that Google chooses.

I think their actions are dangerous, will hurt them as a corporation, and will undermine the very arguments they have presented to Congress. Yes they are welcome to do it, and more power to them.

Wyzcrak

Anyone who can get to Google can get to every other free search engine. Such is not the case for a guy who can get to some ISPs and not others.

Is the above true, and how is it relevant to this topic, and where does it fall when determining this topic's similarity to the net neutrality topic (which I did not follow)?

( also, don't hate the playa. )

__________________
Steam Community? Add me. | Join #tacticalgamer | Search Results Legend | New Posts Forum Filter | Postbox Toggle | Live Thread Review | One Line Results | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

leejo

There are two issues here, net neutrality and fair trade practices.

First my gripe with Google about NN. Net Neutrality contemplates a future in which ISPs begain filtering content for whatever reason. This is hypothetical concern.

Meanwhile, one of the main lobbying entities for Net Neutrality reform is *actually* filtering content for whatever reason. This is happening now.

Their concern, then, doesn't seem to be consumer choice, although that plays well to the masses and on Capital Hill, but instead THEIR choice. Google wants to have that power, not the ISPs. In a NN world, Google gets to make those insider deals and shake down the content providers, not the ISPs. Want to have anyone see your site ever? Better pay up or you'll be on page 27 of every search results list. Say something we don't like? Well you're de-listed. There's no transparency or appeal process.

So far the ISPs haven't done anything like this have they? But it's Google's SOP. Google is actively creating a non-neutral net and I think it would get worse with NN legislation placing them squarely in the driver's seat.

Second, my gripe with Google about their exposure to Federal lawsuits. The argument that other search engines are freely accessible doesn't change the fact that Google is now the world's #1 media company, recently taking the spot from Time Warner. People buy ad words on Google and generate revenue based on Google click-throughs. Sure I may be able to find an article by searching via some other engine, but the businesses that rely on revenue to provide the content will be starved to death if they don't play the Google game.

Can a free market adjust and create new markets for other search engines? Certainly. If Google gets obnoxious enough maybe Fox will launch a search engine and liberals can gripe about how unfair and biased it is while it steals market share and becomes the world's most used search engine. But I also think it's very possible that Google will fly under the radar with regard to its political bias long enough to harm enough businesses that the DOJ steps in and slaps them upside the head with some charges filed under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AMosely

Rub it in if I'm wrong, but there will be no lawsuit here, and Google will never be held accountable for any amount of 'censorship.'

Anti-trust litigation is trade based and does not apply here. Google doesn't trade in consumer goods (yet) - they trade in advertising, which has no anti-trust bearing, and they license their search engine as an appliance for private use. Google is a free service to consumers, therefore there is no need to fly under any radar when it comes to their content. Just like "the american thinker" can edit what they wish, so can Google - no different in the eyes of the law.

It's interesting that Wal-Mart was introduced into this thread, because they benefit from similar protections - in fact even more. Wal-Mart is a reseller, and therefore cannot be called a monopoly because they don't actually produce anything. There appears to be little to no legal recourse against a company like this when it comes to trade practices with consumers. There is recourse against their trade practices with other companies, however, and they have been held accountable to this multiple times (mostly price manipulation). I personally wish they would be held accountable for their labor practices, which is my biggest gripe, but that's outside the scope of this thread, and not something remotely comparable to Google, who is a fantastic company to work for (or was, before they went public) and does not encourage their employees to work part-time and subscribe to medicaid and other federal benefit programs.