Evil is as evil does - Page 3

Steeler · 05-23-2006, 01:17 PM

1. You have not proven that Google has a political bias that effects the quality or substance of it's services. Nor has the article in question.

2. Google is already filtering. All search engines filter. Google News is specifically designed to filter "news" according to the standards set by the company that does the filtering. You yourself can personalize the filter for your own use. If you do not like the standards, you are free to protest (as some users clearly have) or find another service.

3. Google operates a completely unfiltered search which most of us are more familiar with. Anything that is not specifically highlighted in the news service will at some point turn up in a regular search. If you feel that "liberal" pages turn up at a higher ranking than "conservative" pages, however you define them, maybe that is because those "liberal" pages are just more popular.

4. Net Neutrality deals with the issue of ISPs drawing more fees for services for which the are already compensated and, in the process, exerting more direct control over what content reaches the user regardless of the software or source. An indexing service such as Google cannot effect the critical physical or operational mechanics of your net connection, as an ISP can without your knowledge. As such, regardless of how prominent it is, Google is still an optional service. Google could be supplanted at any time by an index of higher quality or reputation.

Simply put, you are overstating your case, I think, in an effort to dig at proponents of NN. When NN is marginal to the current topic.

Beatnik · 05-23-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Hey, leave icky out of this! He's a Canadian for chrissakes!

**leejo** · 05-23-2006, 05:38 PM

Steeler you don't seem to recognize that the MSM is generally leaning to the left. You won't acknowledge that the NY Times is a left-biased paper, despite their own Ombudsman's matter-of-fact statement to that effect. So I'm not at all surprised that, in your eyes, I've failed to prove that Google is the same. FWIW I'm not attempting to prove that and I don't intend to try. I'm predicting that they will have to lie in the row they're hoeing for themselves with these iffy business practices.

Net neutrality, contrary to your and Poker's assertions, is not about ISPs double-dipping the consumer and the content provider, it is about ensuring that ISPs do not discriminate between content providers. One possible cause for an ISP wishing to do that is because of a favorable business relationship (having double dipped) but another cause could be political, philosophical, or otherwise. Net Neutrality addresses the actions but does not attempt to determine the cause. You are doing that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

The overarching principle of Net Neutrality is one I do agree with: that consumers should basically be able to access the legal content of their choosing. I happen to think that legislation is neither necessary nor wise, but I'm not opposed to the idea in principle.

As I see it, Google's actions are inconsistent with this principle and they should take some steps to correct their exposure and behavior. I'd recommend that they open up the process a little to give consumers some assurance that they are getting all of the news, not just the news that Google likes.

**Wyzcrak** · 05-23-2006, 05:40 PM

Why does NN address those actions, and is that motivation relevant here?

**leejo** · 05-23-2006, 05:49 PM

What is "those actions"?

**Pokerface** · 05-23-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

No, it doesn't. Like I said, THE DEFINITION of hate speech is totally irrelavent. You're defining it as "a political affiliation Google doesn't care for". Google may think they're defining it as something else. What we need to agree upon -- and what we do agree upon -- is that there's a subjective basis that's part of their algorithm.

We are in agreement, and you're still poking me with a pointy stick to watch me wiggle.

Man, for calling people for verbal histrionics, your kettle sure is black too.

**Wyzcrak** · 05-23-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

What is "those actions"?

Mea culpa. Those referred to in the quote above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Net Neutrality addresses the actions

**leejo** · 05-23-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

No, it doesn't. Like I said, THE DEFINITION of hate speech is totally irrelavent. You're defining it as "a political affiliation Google doesn't care for". Google may think they're defining it as something else. What we need to agree upon -- and what we do agree upon -- is that there's a subjective basis that's part of their algorithm.

We are in agreement, and you're still poking me with a pointy stick to watch me wiggle.

Man, for calling people for verbal histrionics, your kettle sure is black too.

First of all, yes I guess we are in agreement, generally, but I think the words one uses to describe the situation are important because they frame the discussion. Should Google filter hate speech out of the news? Sure! Should Google filter politically incorrect speech out of the news? No! Same act, but very different typical response.

Sorry for the confusion.

Second of all, huh? If I'd engaged in verbal histrionics I would have said some thing like "OMG OMG OMG I don't like Google so I must be Nixon and Liberace rolled into one OMG." or made some other silly statement. Right?

Steeler · 05-23-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Steeler you don't seem to recognize that the MSM is generally leaning to the left. You won't acknowledge that the NY Times is a left-biased paper, despite their own Ombudsman's matter-of-fact statement to that effect. So I'm not at all surprised that, in your eyes, I've failed to prove that Google is the same. FWIW I'm not attempting to prove that and I don't intend to try. I'm predicting that they will have to lie in the row they're hoeing for themselves with these iffy business practices.

I simply believe, as Derrida would say, the issue of the "MSM" leaning left or right is a false dichotomy. The NYT publishes hundreds of articles a year pleasing to liberals, hundreds pleasing to conservatives, and thousands with zero bearing on any agenda, real or imagined. It is rarely even worthwhile comparing the two philosophies as opponents, considering that they are so abused and malformed according to petty political desires for labels. All of that clouds the primary purpose of media, which one would hope would be to report the truth.*

As for the NN thing. I just don't think it's relevant to the original article or discussion. I see the connection you are trying to make, but it sounds tenuous to me. We're at an impasse on that.

*I'm aware that the primary purpose of the media is to make money. Platonically, though, reporting the truth is a nice ideal.

Edit: Can you imagine the horror unleashed upon the world by a combined Nixon/Liberace?! OMGBBQ!!111!eleven!!

**leejo** · 05-23-2006, 06:21 PM

From the wikipedia article on Net Neutrality:

Quote:

Past discriminatory access by ISPs

Below are examples listed by SaveTheInternet of past examples of abuses by ISP companies where they blocked rivals or unfavorable opinions about themselves.

* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.

* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.

* Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by making their opponents seem worse than they really are.

* In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

In these examples, at least one was principally political in nature. Two I think. Sure the bottom line was a motivator for all but in two cases the act was to cut off access to speech that offended the ISP.

Net Neutrality exists as a principle to overcome tendencies of monopolies to abuse their power by segregating information into preferred and "other" classes, thereby affecting the content that reaches consumers. The only monopoly discussed has been ISPs, but I think Google's actions show that indexing services can also run afoul of Net Neutrality. An index may be a free service, but the underlying advertising revenue is the lifeblood of the businesses that rely on these indexing services to connect consumers with their product. Indexing services and investors are aware of this. Google is not a $118B corporation because it offers a bunch of nifty free toys but because it is most effective at connecting consumers and sellers.

I think that the bigger Google gets the more likely it will come to be seen by regulators, watchdogs, and consumers as wielding basically the same type of power to grant or impede access to content that ISPs have today. I also think that a new technology could instantly wipe out all of the ISPs power in this area and place Google on top of the heap, so their behavior merits close attention. So far, with China and this, they're disappointing.

**Wyzcrak** · 05-23-2006, 07:28 PM

Isn't part of the NN concern the fact that folks can't just pick and choose their ISP (geography being the key, if nothing else)? Isn't that fact core to the livelihood of the NN concern? That is, would NN be a non-issue if I could access the ISP that does allow access to ... whatever... no matter where I was (essentially enabling me to access whatever I wanted to)?

Diceman · 05-23-2006, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I'd recommend that they open up the process a little to give consumers some assurance that they are getting all of the news, not just the news that Google likes.

By extension of the above logic, can you please explain to me how WalMart should not be required to sell *all* videogames, regardless of any discretion they may wish to exercise regarding taste or appropriateness? Also, can't this complaint be made about any and all media companies?

It seems to me that you are working to build up Google as this rhetorical monolithic gateway, which has all the People on one side, and the Internet on the other. This is simply not true. Google cannot stop me from going, or force me to go, to any website whatsoever - except their own, and only in the negative sense.

You've made a few references to Google impacting the profitability of other businesses, because they depend on the click-throughs provided by Google. But you seem to neglect that these businesses are not at the whim of Google either. There are certainly other options that are available for the budding marketers. Furthermore, if businesses realize (and they will, with gusto!) that Google does not provide good value for the money, they will flock to those services which offer that value that Google once did.

Insofar as China, a quick Google search reveals the following blog:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew McLaughlin, senior policy counsel for Google

Filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission. Failing to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world's population, however, does so far more severely. Whether our critics agree with our decision or not, due to the severe quality problems faced by users trying to access Google.com from within China, this is precisely the choice we believe we faced.

(Source: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/...-in-china.html)
I don't know how to say it clearer than that.

Lastly, regarding NN, I don't think it to be additive to our discussion to start talking about content-referrers, like they are some seperate and distinct entity from content-providers. The network neutrality debate goes back and forth between those who are in the business of content and those who are in the business of network service. Before I'm about to become comfortable talking about content-referrers as though they are some, as yet unconsidered, third element in the NN context, I'd like to hear what makes them fundamentally different from content-providers in the distinction you're wishing to make.

xTYBALTx · 05-23-2006, 10:22 PM

I just can't fathom why Google should be forced to put something in it's index.

**leejo** · 05-23-2006, 10:26 PM

It seems to me that in practical terms, for an internet entity to be successful, two things are required:

1) physical connection to the internet
2) virtual connection to the consumers

Right? The bits have to be physically able to flow from consumer to provider and vice versa, but, like finding an article in a magazine on microfiche in your college library, there needs to be an intermediary connector to help consumers find the product.

I think you guys are looking at net neutrality from the perspective of the end-user, but in practice net neutrality has to work at the content-provider end as well, right? In this case, on paper there are several options but in practice can an internet content provider be successful without Google? Honestly. That's a decent chunk of the revenue stream lopped off the top end.

As long as the answer truly is "yes" then there's no problem, but I think that's not the actual answer. I think that being delisted by Google is a devastating event for a small internet business, and I think it has a strongly negative impact on the internet as a neutral network.

Wal*Mart, of course, is a vendor, not an lister of available games at all stores. If Google were selling games, instead of providing information about which games were available, it would be a closer analogy.

I am suggesting that there is a critical layer that exists between ISPs and content providers that Google and Yahoo and other search engines fill: the indexer. Yes a site can exist on the web without them, and yes consumers can access them freely without an indexer, but how will most people know of these sites' existence or find them without the service these search engines provide? And how will they sell their space to advertisers without good relationships with these search engines?

To achieve the goals NN lays out, both ISPs and indexing services need to remain neutral.

**leejo** · 05-23-2006, 10:53 PM

The more I think about it the more I think that the solution is for the library of congress to step in and be the definitive web site registrar and indexing service, as it is currently for books. Maybe an international entity would would work given the nature of the internet. An instance of the fingerpost.

I doubt Google would like that option either.

05-23-2006, 01:17 PM	#31 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Evil is as evil does 1. You have not proven that Google has a political bias that effects the quality or substance of it's services. Nor has the article in question. 2. Google is already filtering. All search engines filter. Google News is specifically designed to filter "news" according to the standards set by the company that does the filtering. You yourself can personalize the filter for your own use. If you do not like the standards, you are free to protest (as some users clearly have) or find another service. 3. Google operates a completely unfiltered search which most of us are more familiar with. Anything that is not specifically highlighted in the news service will at some point turn up in a regular search. If you feel that "liberal" pages turn up at a higher ranking than "conservative" pages, however you define them, maybe that is because those "liberal" pages are just more popular. 4. Net Neutrality deals with the issue of ISPs drawing more fees for services for which the are already compensated and, in the process, exerting more direct control over what content reaches the user regardless of the software or source. An indexing service such as Google cannot effect the critical physical or operational mechanics of your net connection, as an ISP can without your knowledge. As such, regardless of how prominent it is, Google is still an optional service. Google could be supplanted at any time by an index of higher quality or reputation. Simply put, you are overstating your case, I think, in an effort to dig at proponents of NN. When NN is marginal to the current topic. __________________

05-23-2006, 05:38 PM	#33 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Evil is as evil does Steeler you don't seem to recognize that the MSM is generally leaning to the left. You won't acknowledge that the NY Times is a left-biased paper, despite their own Ombudsman's matter-of-fact statement to that effect. So I'm not at all surprised that, in your eyes, I've failed to prove that Google is the same. FWIW I'm not attempting to prove that and I don't intend to try. I'm predicting that they will have to lie in the row they're hoeing for themselves with these iffy business practices. Net neutrality, contrary to your and Poker's assertions, is not about ISPs double-dipping the consumer and the content provider, it is about ensuring that ISPs do not discriminate between content providers. One possible cause for an ISP wishing to do that is because of a favorable business relationship (having double dipped) but another cause could be political, philosophical, or otherwise. Net Neutrality addresses the actions but does not attempt to determine the cause. You are doing that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality The overarching principle of Net Neutrality is one I do agree with: that consumers should basically be able to access the legal content of their choosing. I happen to think that legislation is neither necessary nor wise, but I'm not opposed to the idea in principle. As I see it, Google's actions are inconsistent with this principle and they should take some steps to correct their exposure and behavior. I'd recommend that they open up the process a little to give consumers some assurance that they are getting all of the news, not just the news that Google likes.

05-23-2006, 05:40 PM	#34 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,148	Re: Evil is as evil does Why does NN address those actions, and is that motivation relevant here? __________________ 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.

05-23-2006, 05:49 PM	#35 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Evil is as evil does What is "those actions"?

05-23-2006, 07:28 PM	#41 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,148	Re: Evil is as evil does Isn't part of the NN concern the fact that folks can't just pick and choose their ISP (geography being the key, if nothing else)? Isn't that fact core to the livelihood of the NN concern? That is, would NN be a non-issue if I could access the ISP that does allow access to ... whatever... no matter where I was (essentially enabling me to access whatever I wanted to)? __________________ 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.

05-23-2006, 10:22 PM	#43 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,919	Re: Evil is as evil does I just can't fathom why Google should be forced to put something in it's index. __________________ A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

05-23-2006, 10:26 PM	#44 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Evil is as evil does It seems to me that in practical terms, for an internet entity to be successful, two things are required: 1) physical connection to the internet 2) virtual connection to the consumers Right? The bits have to be physically able to flow from consumer to provider and vice versa, but, like finding an article in a magazine on microfiche in your college library, there needs to be an intermediary connector to help consumers find the product. I think you guys are looking at net neutrality from the perspective of the end-user, but in practice net neutrality has to work at the content-provider end as well, right? In this case, on paper there are several options but in practice can an internet content provider be successful without Google? Honestly. That's a decent chunk of the revenue stream lopped off the top end. As long as the answer truly is "yes" then there's no problem, but I think that's not the actual answer. I think that being delisted by Google is a devastating event for a small internet business, and I think it has a strongly negative impact on the internet as a neutral network. Wal*Mart, of course, is a vendor, not an lister of available games at all stores. If Google were selling games, instead of providing information about which games were available, it would be a closer analogy. I am suggesting that there is a critical layer that exists between ISPs and content providers that Google and Yahoo and other search engines fill: the indexer. Yes a site can exist on the web without them, and yes consumers can access them freely without an indexer, but how will most people know of these sites' existence or find them without the service these search engines provide? And how will they sell their space to advertisers without good relationships with these search engines? To achieve the goals NN lays out, both ISPs and indexing services need to remain neutral.

05-23-2006, 10:53 PM	#45 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Evil is as evil does The more I think about it the more I think that the solution is for the library of congress to step in and be the definitive web site registrar and indexing service, as it is currently for books. Maybe an international entity would would work given the nature of the internet. An instance of the fingerpost. I doubt Google would like that option either.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Good vs Evil	jex	The Sandbox	46	08-19-2005 10:54 PM
For Resident Evil Fans	LegionPaulL	General Discussion	4	05-17-2004 05:35 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links