As India Goes After Google, A Simple Question: Do You Really Want Governments Deciding Search Results?
from the just-asking dept
Earlier this year, European antitrust authorities went after Google (hours after EU officials announced plans to harm American internet companies to "help" local internet companies). Google just last week responded to the initial claims, saying that "improving quality isn't anti-competitive." Of course, the more detailed response is still private, so we don't know the full extent of what's being discussed. And, now, it appears that India is going after Google based on similar charges, claiming that it somehow leverages its own position in rigging either search results or putting its own services ahead of competitors above the search results.Based on the responses from 30 businesses spanning search, social networks, ecommerce, travel and content sites, the CCI director-general last week filed a report that accuses Google of abusing its dominant position to rig search outcomes, both the actual search result as well as sponsored links. This marks the first case globally where an antitrust body is formally raising such charges against Google.It's a bit surprising to see Facebook apparently take part in this effort, because it can't be long until it's receiving similar scrutiny around the globe for its position in the social networking space. The article is a bit confusing, but from it, there seems to be a mishmash of different accusations, some of which are more nutty than others. The key one -- which is at the heart of the claims in the US and in Europe -- is that for certain searchers, Google puts its own services first, before the "organic" search results. So, for example, if you do a search on something local, it would show you Google's local information (built on top of Zagat's info) rather than a competing rating service. Or, it may highlight Google Maps over some competitor.
At least one company, Flipkart, appears to claim that its own "organic" search results depend on how much the company spends on buying ads on the site. Companies make this claim all the time and there has never been the slightest bit of evidence to support those claims. If any such evidence comes out, then that would be a serious issue, and Google should have to answer for it. However, given how frequently it's been shown to be baseless, it seems unlikely that Google is actually polluting its organic search results based on a company's advertising plans (in fact, Google has made it pretty clear that the folks who handle the search algorithm have absolutely no insight into the advertising side of the business).
The claims about Google promoting its own services (maps, local, flights, finance, etc.) over competitors still seems like a weird one. Promoting those so-called "one box" results, is (as the company has claimed) providing more useful services. You can see why other companies may get upset about it, but is there any actual consumer harm? That seems a lot harder to find.
The only argument I've seen that makes any sense at all in all of these accusations is that Google could present better results in its onebox area if it made use of its own internal algorithm (which conceivably could determine that another company's services rank better than Google's). But as we've said in the past about that exact suggestion: even if Google should make that change, it is really the government's job to determine what is "the best" way to present search results?
I have a lot of difficulty believing that bureaucrats in either Brussels or Mumbai are somehow going to have a better idea how to provide the best possible search results for consumers, than the folks at Google who spend all their time working on these issues. Instead, this seems like companies who are upset that they don't rank well enough in Google complaining, because Google is big. If Google is actually shown to be doing something that actively harms consumers, that's one thing. But all of these complaints still seem to rest on companies (not consumers) bitching that they don't like how high they rank in Google. Well guess what? I don't like how Techdirt ranks in Google either, but I don't go running to the government to complain about it.
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, india, regulators, search, search engines
Companies: facebook, flipkart, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wish it were true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What's wrong with governments deciding search results?
Seeing how government works, Google could get a jump and allow lobbyists to directly pay Google for search results. Oh, but that would deprive poor, underpaid, downtrodden government officials of that money going into their pockets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
Oh, and just note what corporation is being defended! You don't see that more than every day here.
To everyone besides corporatists like Mitt Romney and Masnick, BOTH governments AND corporations are entirely NOT TO BE TRUSTED AN INCH BEYOND NECESSARY FOR BENEFITTING THE PUBLIC. Neither governments nor corporations have ANY other reason for being, but are known hazards CERTAIN to become dangers if not limited.
Tired of slow page loads? You're waiting on unnecessary javascripts! And tired of not seeing comments the fanboys have censored?
Get rid of both with the new Techdirt Lite! See Techdirt the way YOU want!
https://www.techdirt.com/?_format=lite
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's wrong with governments deciding search results?
Form a global government?
Decide search results based on the highest paying lobbyist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
After all, if I don't like Brand A, I can choose Brand B. Or C.
But if I don't like what Government decides, then what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
Censorship is when a point of view is being suppressed. Having one is a prerequisite in order for it to be censored.
Ignorance, Lies, Name Calling, and Trolling do NOT qualify as a 'point of view'.
Please do not try to elevate it to such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lets see, with newspapers the size and placement of the advert depends on how much money the advertisers spends, as does which billboards they can get an advert on. With TV, it costs more to get adverts aired during prime time. Wherever you look, money determines who get the best exposure of their adverts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
Google is being defended because stupid governments are as fixated on Google, as if it were the only search engine, as much as TechDirt Trolls and Hollywood Dinosaurs are fixated on Google, as if it were the only search engine.
Does that clear anything up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's try it. Google should ask the Indian government for the approved list of search results and then display that as the result for all queries originating in India. Just do it. Turn it on one day and get on with normal business. Job done. India happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Government's
Plural rather than possessive.
Governments decide
It's a Government's decision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's wrong with governments deciding search results?
"Let us run your government for you; we've gotta be able to do a better job than you're doing."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Government's
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
inherent conflict of interest?
By using its immense leverage sparingly, Google is just playing it smart, being wise not to fall into the same hot water that Microsoft got itself into in the 1990s, when Microsoft was able to defeat numerous market-dominant software products by ruthlessly employing bundling strategies with its own competing products. Google seems to prefer the "boiling frog" strategy -- which in the long term is probably much more effective.
No one wants government meddling, but the expected alternative is the evolution of an "ecosystem" of nominally independent companies that work together as one. We've already seen this take place in the merging of news and entertainment companies. For instance, having a controversial celebrity like Tom Cruise, while promoting a Viacom-funded movie, being given softball interviews -by normally hard-hitting journalists- on TV networks owned by Viacom, while shunning networks not owned (or otherwise controlled) by Viacom. (and even Bill Cosby would have been given the same cushy treatment if some movie studio had just invested hundreds of millions of dollars in him) This is the sort of thing that tends to happen whenever company branches out into multiple industry segments -- an incestuous conflict of interest that puts consumers at the losing end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What's wrong with governments deciding search results?
Considering the current situation in the US, I'm not entirely opposed to that idea.
Bet the trains will run on time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Thanks for feeding the troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheeeesh - wtf???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The is:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You keep answering your own questions in the stupidest ways imaginable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
That's just your hyperactive imagination; Mike did not suggest or imply that that corporations don't need to be regulated or watched. And you know who watches them best? The consumers who are currently NOT complaining about Google being anti-competitive or over-dominant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EU vs US companies
First of all yes, the EU parliament does seem to have something against Google for whatever reason.
On 2nd note, the EU is correct in arguing against US companies from a EU point of view. Currently or for years there has been a discussion about personal data security. First the EU said companies can't give away personal data to other countires, then they gave in to US pressure (of course the US military bases and nuclear weapons in the EU had nothing to do with it) and stopped th low. Now the law is back again and companies argue that the law would be unfair because they had to violate US law in the EU.
Just to give you the scope of that: Would you as US citizen accept if the EU told your Gov to pass an anti gun law? Read EU law in the US.
That's why the EU has problems with big US companies: the whole spy on everyone thing. And yes, the NSA is now officialy allowed to spy on US citizens too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's either they've forgotten that techdirt has been critical of a lot of bullshit google has pulled or that they believe not putting out constant hitpieces on google makes you a google shill
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In a word, Yes.
1) There is no relation between the subject and the actual content.
2) Writing a long list of claims without any kind documentation to the claims made.
The European Commission claims to have proof that Goole doctored the search results in order to promote its own products rather that provide you with a search result matching your REAL search criteria.
Whether this proof will hold up in a court of law (European Court of Justice) still needs to be determined. If it does, Google may be fined up 10% of its global turnover for operating a business in the EU in violation of the EU fair competition laws.
In short, I thing you should:
a) Alter the title of your opinion piece.
b) Provide proof for the claims made.
or alternately, delete it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And meaning fail.
"it is really the government's job to determine what is "the best" way to present search results"
freudian slip?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: EU vs US companies
No. It's actually the EU Commission. That body which is supposed to be the executive, isn't elected, and meddles in the legislative's (the parliaments) territory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What's wrong with governments deciding search results?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
Actually there is a problem with corporations determining search results when they reach the size of Google/Microsoft. At that point they start to use monopolist tactice to maintain their status. Before Google there was a reasonable market in search. Then Google arrived and took over (by doing a better job). AltaVista, Yahoo etc were more or less wiped out. Subsequent competition has come from Microsoft - who have spoiled their case by trying to leverage their own monopoly in other areas- and from other smaller players who so far have failed to make a real impression.
The truth is that free market competition works well when there are a number of relatively equal competitors but fails when one gets big enough to use its size as a weapon. In reality most companies spend a lot of effort trying to become what they often profess to hate - a monopolist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because they don't even fully understand that it IS an algorithm. (or what an algorithm is)
They think of it as like a news organisation with lots of employees toeing the editorial line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BBC
Most in the UK would agree that the BBC structure has produced an ideal compromise between the twin evils of government interference and corporate self interest.
Unfortunately the creation of the BBC was something of an accident of history that is almost impossible to re-create deliberately.
Of course it would mean that each country would have its own search engine - but what is wrong with that? At present I am frequently annoyed by US pollution of search results when I am looking for something local.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In a word, Yes.
I thing you should improve your reading comprehension, and not be so damn pompous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No - there are enough political motives that this can be a serious problem.
Do I want those same search results decided by a private business like Google, who has a profit motive and even less transparency about how they operate? They have just as many reasons to manipulate results as a government.
Of course, there is a popular opinion that a "free market" will fix any problems if we keep things in the hands of private businesses. Do you see much competition in the "search market"? In the real world, it is a balance between "free market" and "government regulation" that produces the best results. When each side is conflict, they keep each other honest and better solutions are found. Unfortunately, as we've been seeing recently, when business and industry start to be on the same side, there is no incentive to stay honest and society tends towards fascism.
What we should be recognizing is that services such as "search" is quickly becoming a necessary utility. There are various ways to run a utility, but they all need to operate transparently and under heavy regulation. Failure to do so will only give more power in the long run to the people that control the search service. The power to manipulate results is bad enough, but let's not forget that there is also power in being able to data mine the search queries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: EU vs US companies
Probably. I mean, why did the EU citizens accept it? I'm guessing (as I have no knowledge of this particular law) that the EU politicians who sunk the law never ever admitted that it was because of US pressure. Plausible deniability.
Still, your overall point is correct: the EU can pass laws that control what US companies do in their territory. Whether it's in their interests to do so is another matter. The European search market is so incredibly lopsided that I feel like Europe simply can't produce its own search company, or they'd have done it already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]