[governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality

Sun Jan 3 01:47:28 EST 2010

McTim,

I disagree with two points you made in your 12-29-09 comments on search neutrality.

First, you said:

"Either it works or it doesn't. If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing."  

I look at search and its impact on local governance and worry about an instance like this. Google seeks to build an intellectually stimulating office facility for its growing staff in New York City and feels that privatizing a park is the best way to accomplish this - following the example the New York Yankees set with their new stadium. 

Some park neighbors get riled up, go to the Net, and do a search for "opponents to the Google variance." What lists first is a milquetoast advocacy group that opposes certain aspects of the development but sees overall advantage from the construction jobs and to the economy. Perhaps there are other listings and a Google ad or two that point to materials supportive of this viewpoint. And perhaps Milquetoast has an agreement with Google to meliorate neighborhood impacts.

Here's my concern and the problem: How are the neighbors to know what's not there? 

If Google hand-wires the results to suite its needs, overriding its secret proprietary sauce, how are the atomized neighbors to know there are others opposed to the development? How are they to know to go to Bing? I suspect many would conclude, "Gee, no one else cares. Maybe I'm wrong?" And Google wins.

Of course education is the answer. And we've plans to develop curriculum that begins in the 3rd grade and to educates the public at all levels as to civic ills that might arise by putting too much trust in one search engine. But this is likely to take a decade or so to permeate society.

(Before I move to my second point of disagreement let me slip in another example. Imagine we're a few years down the road and Google "winner$" begin running for public office. How are we to trust its opaque search algorithm during the rough and tumble of an election campaign? Then we'll clearly see the relationship between link and ballot voting! And even if Google didn't hand-wire, opponents would surely charge that it did, poisoning the system.) 

Second, when you say, 

"We, as IGC (or even CS as a whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?"

I disagree. Given the importance of search in the development of civic attitudes - like the newspapers and TV of old - I think it's vital that we address the issue. 

Here's a path. Initially we make the importance of "search transparency" known to Google and encourage them to provide their secret sauce's recipe. (I prefer "search transparency" to "search neutrality" as it is a somewhat easier to devise a metric.) 

Google has capitalized their search lead and integrated it into a plethora of other services and should be able to keep their lead for the foreseeable future, and might be prescient to see the poisoning possibility and be agreeable to the need to move toward transparency.  Perhaps they might initially agree to a trusted outsider initially, a Moody's-like entity to judge all search engines. And if Google doesn't see the light, perhaps Bing might take a lead in offering transparent search.

And if the search industry doesn't see the necessity - no one steps in - it's incumbent on civil society to educate the public and decision makers about the impact of search opacity and encourage the development of a transparent search engine.

Tom Lowenhaupt, Founder and Chair

Connecting.nyc Inc.

connectingnyc.org

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: McTim 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 12:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality

  On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

    McTim

    So you agree with Lauren that urgent regulatory action is needed to ensure network neutrality,

  Urgent, no, action, well if the FCC principles, are a form of "action", then yes.

    and that efforts to confuse this issue should be resisted. 

  yes

    Efforts at confusion like the arguments " that Internet content edge-caching (like that used by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many other Web services) somehow violates net neutrality principles -- clearly a false assertion." (quoting the article you forwarded.)

    That to me is a great improvement on whatever I have ever heard you speak on network neutrality on this list :). (And i remember the precise 'confusing argument' of edge catching got discussed during NN discussions on this list.) So congrats to us, we are in a rare agreement.

  This is entirely in line with what I have argued in the past.  I am abig fan of NN, always have been, I think we just used a different definition of NN.

    However, what goes past me is that while i agree that when FCC is discussing NN, it is of no avail, and even reprehensible, for the implicated parties to point fingers at Google alleging another kind of anti-competitive practice, I cant see how Adam Raff's article can be criticized on this account. He mentions NN only in the passing in the opening para just to show that Google itself is not all smelling of roses. Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive activities. 

  What connection is that?

    Rest of the article has to be dealt on its own merit, not only in terms of muddying waters in the NN debate. That is unfair. Adam clearly supports NN regulation, but he has a right to go ahead and make his case against Google. And it is not an ordinary article - it is a NYT op-ed, and so if Google has something to say or refute it must issue a rejoinder. 

  http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html  

     Just addressing one main points of Lauren's blog in defense of Google which seems so shallow. It is roughly the assertion, I have often earlier also heard, that with one click one can switch search engines.  A powerful actor telling weaker dependent groups that they always have the option to move away is a old trick, and mostly a cruel one. I wont expand on this but I think everyone can understand this. 

  I certainly don't.  I have moved away from lots of search engines/homepages/and other web services over the decades.

    Secondly, I will move away only if I knew what logic/ algorithm Google used, and so I can decide if it works for me or not.

  Either it works or it doesn't.  If PageRank doesn't give you what you need, then try Yahoo or Bing.  We, as IGC (or even CS asa whole) can't expect to seriously ask Google to show us their patented IP, can we?  While we are at it, why don't we insist that coca-cola publish their recipe for Coke or that KFC tell us exactly what their secret recipe is?
  \

    So can we at least ask it to publish its logic of arranging search results so the consumers can make a choice. It is a wrong thing to ask? 

  yes

    So what really is Lauren's blog trying to do by being so defensive about Google and what exactly you are agreeing  with is not clear to me.

  I agree with the below paragraph.

    "Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products, that more people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same thing, at least as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the Internet playing field via their total hold over Internet access to all sites!" (From Luaran's blog)

  Happy New Year,

  McTim

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

  For all list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100103/121988d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance