<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Grande CA,<br>
<br>
With due respect, the argument that 'you need not use Google
search' is quite impractical/rhetorical. Search is essential to
meaning making and in today's digital society, let us not delude
ourselves that we can do without Google search. Google search is
a monopoly (conventional meaning - dominant market share) for
very good reasons, of which its algorithms perceived superiority
is an important one, but also its HUGE economic power invested
in numerous data centres that help crawl/store and crunch the
indexed information fast enough to make the engine formidable. <br>
<br>
You find my argument difficult to accept, because you have
perhaps already imagined that the only way search can work is in
its current form -where it is offered in a secretive manner by a
for profit entity - where you_can_not_be_sure that the
commercial interests of the search engine would affect your
actual agency in searching. Sorry, did I said you cannot be
sure, I should have said - YOU_CAN_BE_SURE that google's
commercial interests would make it fiddle with the search
algorithms in ways that would maximise its profit (Read Eli
Pariser on how Google search engine is manipulating search for
maximising its profits ...and in this process could be giving
the world a global lobotomy, article attached! So whose to care?
so long as we all click on the EULAs, all is well?)<br>
<br>
Whether these manipulations by Google, would be within current
legal limits or could cross these limits is what for instance
Indian CCI is investigating. We have NO_IDEA.<br>
<br>
<u>Another world is possible</u><br>
We could imagine search otherwise as well ... as a huge public
digital library, where neither information nor its search need
to be proprietary. In my view, I CANNOT see any other way to
prevent manipulation of algorithms by the vendor for maximising
their profits.Whether this manipulation is legal or not can only
be detected by knowing the algorithm <span
class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-) </span></span>, <br>
<br>
The "JustNetCoalition's" principles and roadmap can be
something we can take forward for building a just and equitable
net. See principle 8 of the JNC principles on this issue (also
attached) and share your thoughts... <br>
<br>
warm regards,<br>
Guru<br>
<br>
On 03/10/2014 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.
Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
risk and will.
Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
can demand consumer and other rights.
I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.
IMHO
--c.a.
On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all,
Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
regards,
Guru
Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
have violated competition norms of the country. Google, which is facing
anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
(Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
the country.
Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
nearly $5 billion.
When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
Competition Commission of India in their investigation.” The emailed
statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
users and good for competition.”
A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
“That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
source -
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html">http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>