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

[Michael Gurstein]

Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no
society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and
her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish
was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all.

Best,

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 4:34 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality


Hi,

I actually have a lot of trouble accepting this analysis.

I for one believe that people do have a choice no matter how much society
and culture or businesses interests are prevailing on us.  Yes. the
constraints of that choice may not be pleasant and we may have no 'good'
choices, but we do have the choice.  So what ever sociology or anthropology
may convince you of, I am convinced that we do remain independent agents.

In terms of the contracts with small print.  I read most of them, and then
decide to use the service I want regardless.  Whereas my housemate reads
every word and opts not to use any of the services.  A choice.

Yes propaganda abounds, but we can either listen to it or not listen to it.
And yes, most people choose to follow along and do what is expected of them
by the culture and the powers that be and most importantly their neighbors.
But there are always some who don't  - there are always those who make a
different choice.

Yes, there are those who have no access and hence don't have the choice to
use or not use.  but that is a different issue.

a.


On 5 Jan 2010, at 11:35, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> Quite honestly I find this whole discussion extremely odd.  The
> assumption seems to be that "we" either as "users" or as "customers" 
> or as autonomous "agents" interacting with Google are completely 
> independent and free (and
> able) to make or remake ourselves (through learning more, through
searching
> out competitors, through developing new companies etc.etc.) at will. 
> 
> This position ignores a couple of hundred years of
> anthropology/sociology that points out to anyone who may have missed 
> it that we are not first and foremost "independent" actors free to 
> make or remake ourselves at will. Rather we are creatures of culture 
> and community and while some of us have significant opportunities 
> because of our cultural and community backgrounds many of us do not. 
> Simply exhorting those who don't, to "pull up their sox and compete 
> like a man (or woman" is to my mind quite beside the point (and a 
> position which itself is highly highly culture/nation bound...
> 
> Some "users" will have the interest, skill, language to read fine
> print and
> (most) others won't... Some will have the capacity to see through Google
if
> it abuses its power/position--(most) others won't... Some will have the
> awareness of knowledge categories (sociology of knowledge) to understand
the
> ways in which Google is increasingly structuring/restructuring how we
> approach knowledge itself (others are arguing that Google is in fact
> influencing the very process of thinking/structure of thought but that is
a
> different issue) and will then be able to take a critical position for
> themselves on how to prevent any possible misuse of that position but most
> (and daresay including most of those on this list) will not.
> 
> That is why we have governments who have the mandate to intervene and
> regulate in the public interest.  All of the above arguments on this 
> issue could probably be made concerning things like food and auto 
> safety, pollution standards, and child protection (suthorizing third 
> parties to intervene in abusive relationships between parents and
children).
> 
> I personally see little difference apart from the same ideological
> blinkers that argued against each of the above interventions, in the 
> instance of Google which is probably the most broadly (at least 
> passively) influential (de facto monopoly) enterprise of the last 
> decade.
> 
> Mike Gurstein
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fearghas McKay [mailto:fm-lists at st-kilda.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:51 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: Fearghas McKay
> Subject: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net 
> neutrality
> 
> 
> 
> On 5 Jan 2010, at 14:45, Ginger Paque wrote:
> 
>> Should a user have to search the fine print to find the information 
>> they want?
> 
> Whatever regulation is done - a user will have to do that at some
> point.
> 
> Educating the user needs to be done even if there is regulation 
> because they will need to understand what the regulation covers.
> 
> Personally my take on the original article is that the search rankings 
> were correct, they had no valid new / original content, just a
> collection of links. The links might have been ordered or edited  
> specially but they were moving me one step or more further away from  
> the information that I would be looking for. The cynical might say it  
> was sour grapes on the writer's part, I would put it down to a  
> misunderstanding of what I as a user want :-)
> 
> The other thing that seems to be missing from this debate is that we 
> are not Google's customers, we are users and we can use something else
> if we choose to, probably because the search doesn't work well enough  
> for us. Whilst I am sure that Google could repurpose their  
> infrastructure into something else and continue as an entity if a  
> better algorithm comes along from an upstart, the market is still wide  
> open for a better engine to be as disruptive as they were. It will  
> probably not come from the USA, the newer emerging markets will bring  
> their own giants of the network world.
> 
> 	f
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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

____________________________________________________________
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