Do We Really Want EU Bureaucrats Deciding What Google Search Results 'Should' Look Like?
from the this-won't-end-well dept
After a 20 month investigation, the FTC -- whose boss made it clear he absolutely wanted to bring down Google if he could -- couldn't find any evidence that Google's search results were somehow anticompetitive. All of the evidence pointed to the same basic thing: what Google did was for the benefit of its users. While some competitors were upset about it, antitrust should not be about propping up competitors who can't compete, especially if consumers are not being harmed. Besides, if you actually look at the "competitors" who complained the loudest, many of them are doing quite well these days.Of course, those competitors who spent so much effort pushing to force Google through the antitrust gantlet were pretty upset about the end result. However, they knew what was coming next and warned that Europe would come out with an answer that was more to their liking. And the latest on the EU antitrust investigation suggests that, indeed, European bureaucrats somehow believe that they know better than Google what its search results should look like, and they're planning to force Google to change its results to the bureaucrats' liking.
[Europe's antitrust chief Joaquin] Almunia said in the interview: "We are still investigating, but my conviction is [Google] are diverting traffic," adding: "They are monetising this kind of business, the strong position they have in the general search market and this is not only a dominant position, I think -- I fear -- there is an abuse of this dominant position."I'm not quite sure how one "diverts" traffic if the solution being provided is reasonably deemed to be better for the consumer. You can only show so many things on a search page, and Google spends a lot of effort figuring out which way seems to get the best results. No matter what, it's going to "divert" traffic from those it doesn't pick to those it does. But that's the business. The better it diverts traffic to help consumers, the better off the public is. And I'm not sure how the user is made "better off" by European politicians determining where Google needs to point people with its results.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, bureaucrats, eu, search
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comming Soon to Google.EU
*Helps Protect the Children
*Filters out Hate
*Shows only the truth about the great work the EU is doing
*Provides the things that need to be known exclusively
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
When that is said, Almunia has set a deadline this month for Google to present changes to satisfy the EU commission. In the case of "diverting traffic" it is a very worrying statement, seemingly siding with the newspapers (which is unadulterated insanity). The rest can easily be seen as a kick in the crutch of its advertising service, which from what I have heard from a lot of sources has a more than a bit problematic way to deal with search-results, exclusivity deals and other abusive behaviour (Google has been very fast to close access to sites using competing advertisers if some trojan crap has gone through their filter and extremely slow to open access again when sites are clean and try to get permission)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
China begs to disagree!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy!
Easy! Because these politicians use Google, they are "Users." Because they are Users, and don't like the way Google diverts results to them, the Users are harmed until Google diverts results to them in a manner that the politicians prefer, which makes the Users "Better off."
Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's really pretty damn disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The only really potentially problematic thing for private users without a homepage will be the potential changes to their search algorithm and/or crawlers/adsense/analytics etc. And it will likely only be for the better with regards to crawlers (unless they go for the nuclear methods like opt in instead of opt out regarding crawler.).
The rest will likely only have a limited effect if any on normal users.
I am not saying it isn't going to be bad, but I really do not see it as anything close to exclusively bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a search engine doesn't provide the results that a user wants or likes, they search again using different keywords and operators or they use a different search engine. This, moreso than almost any other technology, is the most susceptible to user preferences driving the market.
I think they're missing the fact that people using Google is the benefit. Google's not getting artificially inflated use from some misleading practice. People are choosing to use Google's search engine and they're not being forced to do so.
It would be the equivalent of arguing that Coca-Cola is being unfair because they don't serve Pepsi products out of their vending machines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only problem with going for Google on those points is that it is Firefox and Chrome choosing it and it is therefore not a problem with Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Firefox also makes it easy to add search engines to the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deja vu?
Of course this assume the EU politicians are actually interested in what is rather than what they want it to be, and if they've already made up their minds, and are willing to overlook any reports or cases that present evidence to the contrary, then yeah, Google could be in for a rough time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet for dummies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilty until competitors are "convinced"
Google: "Gee Microsoft, what would it take to convince you that we compete fairly?"
Microsoft: "Die! Google! Die!"
EU: "You didn't 'play fair' and die, Google, it looks like we'll have to sanction you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guilty until competitors are "convinced"
So if google fails to convince their competitors that they are 'playing fair', they'll face sanctions and penalties, making things drastically better off for said competitors.
I think someone needs to check both the brain activity, and the bank account of the person who suggested that as a 'good' idea, as I get the feeling the first is probably flat-lined, and/or the second recently made a rather large spike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guilty until competitors are "convinced"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Guilty until competitors are "convinced"
and they would not have to release their "dirty little secrets" to the world or make it public knowledge they would have to make it available to the Governing body on the basis that it would remain a secret (at least to the public).
It is clear if they are doing nothing wrong, they would have NO issue with providing proof of that fact.
just as the Government and Governing bodies have been given access to Windows source code, yet it is not public information nor is it generally publicly available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Guilty until competitors are "convinced"
With Google they can enter searches and see the results, and do the same with their competitors. If Googles competitors give worse results then that is the competitors problem, not Googles.
Complaints about Googles share of the search market is a bit Like Pepsi complaining about Coke, and requiring that Coke give them their recipe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Guilty until competitors are "convinced"
If you have "nothing to hide", why are you posting anonymously? LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The definition of "Unfair Competition"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The definition of "Unfair Competition"
If that is the reason why you lose it is unfair, if everyone is playing under the same rules then it is fair.
If you go to a football match, one side wins and one loses, but both sides played by the same rules therefore even if you lose you lost fairly.
Also If you do win and you have not played by the same rules you win is unfair. See lance Armstrong, for example, he won, but he cheated so even though he won it was unfair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The definition of "Unfair Competition"
How is Professional NFL vs High School football team a fair competition? They're playing by the same rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The definition of "Unfair Competition"
Like me going to Wall street with 50 dollars and at the end of the day cursing everyone there who had won more money then me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The definition of "Unfair Competition"
the fact they want to keep their search methods secret should rile Masnick as that is not they way to be open in a competitive market
Why is this ok for Google when according to Masnick it is NOT ok for everyone else ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The definition of "Unfair Competition"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO!
Further more the changes that google has made I don't care for either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a person googles 'Cola' and google returns a list of only Pepsi websites and not cocacola, then it is unfair on cocacola
Similarly, Pepsi could theoretically pay Google a good amount to do so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ad hoc
Big monopolies tend to create scenarios in which they maintain their monopoly. (Just ask Adam Smith.) At the early chaos which was the internet there were easy places to fit into - for the spaces in the food chain (Darwin) had not been successfully filled.
Even those early fullfillers were vulnerable to relatively cheap challenges, simply because the cash supporting the incumbents was insufficient to allow them to create a monopoly.
I am not saying that Google is a monopoly. However as the biggest player by far in the search engine market there are certain requirements as understood by both the USA and Europe which insist on them not abusing their particular position to allow them to create a monopoly.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you need is to make an automated system, where every search submitted by someone in the EU generates a phonecall to one of the bureaucrats in question (from a list at random, or rotating). Then, these Bureaucrats are informed that for Google to provide the best service possible, they have to choose which of the search results they should present. Then the Google Master Brain presents them with a menu.
"If you want to present users with www.techdirt.com, press 1"
"If you want to present users with www.gardentech.com, press 2"
"If you want to show users the page 'EU Bureaucrats are Douchebags', press 3"
"To repeat this list, press 5"
And so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I search for Cat Videos, I don't want to go through 12 pages of Dog Videos before I get to the cats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we all know we can trust Google to do the right thing !!!! (yea right).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The European Union is a higher form of government (The government of the whole European Nation), as it tells other governments what they should do, what their laws should be like and their economy etc. So saying the EU is the government is not such a wrong analogy.
Also i rather have some greedy profit whore then a body who is after controlling the internet. The internet must be free and no government body or agent or w/e should try to control it. They may set codes of conduct, but till a degree, as long as it does not conflict the human rights and such (freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
strategery
It has everything to do with controlling what the serfs can see. This is just step one, get their hooks into the search engines, the rest of the steps are information control for political and social engineering reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: strategery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given the theory that the EU is supposed to serve me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there are eu officials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let 'em go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The EU should start their own search engine
That's how Google became popular. Google was late to the party. There were other entrenched search engines. Google gave better results. People switched.
That's the beauty of search engines. There is no monopoly. People are not locked in. They can leave to a competitor any time they want.
If the EU thinks they know better than Google than they should put their money where their mouth is. Start a new search engine and make a fortune!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]