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

[Parminder]

     >>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?

McTim

Treating everything, in this case a company's (self-declared) aim of 
organizing the world's information, as akin  to buying coke or  KFC 
chicken  is behind many problems of the modern world. And since you 
have, in the past, declared your innocence regarding this 
socio-political term, I may say that this is more or less what 
neoliberalism means.

You may however know that all drug manufacturers, for instance, are 
obliged to disclose all ingredients of the drugs, whether it effects 
their competitiveness or not. This is because someone sensible decided 
that drugs are not the same as KFC chicken. Media companies are obliged 
to clearly demarcate editorial content from advertisement, once again 
some policy makers were a bit nuanced, with public interest in mind. And 
you spoke about patents, as Lee points out, all patents are to be 
publicly available information. In fact patents were initially devised 
so that innovative ideas could be widely shared.

But coming back to the main point about Raff's article.

 >>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

The link you forward does not address the principle point made by Raff's 
article. Relevant parts are posted again for your reference.

        "Another way that Google exploits its control is through
        preferential placement. With the introduction in 2007 of what it
        calls "universal search," Google began promoting its own
        services at or near the top of its search results, bypassing the
        algorithms it uses to rank the services of others. Google now
        favors its own price-comparison results for product queries, its
        own map results for geographic queries, its own news results for
        topical queries, and its own YouTube results for video queries.
        And Google's stated plans for universal search make it clear
        that this is only the beginning."

        "Because of its domination of the global search market and
        ability to penalize competitors while placing its own services
        at the top of its search results, Google has a virtually
        unassailable competitive advantage. And Google can deploy this
        advantage well beyond the confines of search to any service it
        chooses. Wherever it does so, incumbents are toppled, new
        entrants are suppressed and innovation is imperiled."

Above is a clear allegation that without telling us "Google ... (is) 
promoting its own services at or near the top of its search results, 
bypassing the algorithms it uses to rank the services of others". I do 
not know whether they actually do so or not. But if they do not do so, 
by my reckoning, they will jump in with a strong rejoinder within hours 
of such an allegation being carried in a NY op-ed article. So, lets 
assume that they do so. Can anything be more anti-competitive than this.

 >>Also there is definitely a connection between NN practices and 
allegations about Google, both being anti-competitive activities. 
 
 >What connection is that?

Cant see how you cannot make the connection. One of the worst NN 
violation consists in telco's promoting their own services on their 
network over that of their competitors. Google is doing the same at 
another level of the network that it controls. Isnt it the same level of 
offense?

Parminder


McTim wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100104/ef41a215/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