Yelp's Newest Campaign: Asking Google To Do The Right Thing

from the don't-be-evil,-guys dept

Back in 2014, we wrote about a campaign by Yelp which it called "Focus on the User," in which it made a very compelling argument that Google was treating Yelp (and TripAdvisor) content unfairly. Without going into all of the details, Yelp's main complaint was that while Google uses its famed relevance algorithm to determine which content to point you to in its main search results, when it came to the top "One Box" on Google's site, it only used Google's own content. Four years ago, the Focus on the User site presented compelling evidence that users of Google actually had a better overall experience if the answers for things like local content (such as retailer/restaurant reviews) in the One Box were ranked according to Google's algorithm, rather than just using Google's own "Local" content (or whatever they call it these days).

As we noted at the time, this argument was pretty compelling, but we worried about Yelp using the site to ask the EU to then force Google to change how its site functioned. As we wrote at the time:

... the results are compelling. Using Google's own algorithm to rank all possible reviews seems like a pretty smart way of doing things, and likely to give better results than just using Google's (much more limited) database of reviews. But here's the thing: while I completely agree that this is how Google should offer up reviews in response to "opinion" type questions, I still am troubled by the idea that this should be dictated by government bureaucrats. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised this isn't the way Google operates, and it's a bit disappointing that the company doesn't just jump on this as a solution voluntarily, rather than dragging it out and having the bureaucrats force it upon them.

So while the site is fascinating, and the case is compelling, it still has this problem of getting into a very touchy territory where we're expecting government's to design the results of search engines. It seems like Yelp, TripAdvisor and others can make the case to Google and the public directly that this is a better way to do things, rather than having the government try to order Google to use it.

It took four years, but it looks like Yelp is at least taking some of my advice. The company has relaunched the "Focus on the User" site, but positioned it more towards convincing Google employees to change how the site handles One Box content, rather than just asking the government for it. This is a good step, and I'm still flabbergasted that Google hasn't just done this already. Not only would it give users better overall results, but it would undercut many of the antitrust arguments being flung at Google these days (mainly in the EU). It's a simple solution, and Google should seriously consider it.

That said, while Yelp has shifted the focus of that particular site, it certainly has not not given up on asking the government to punish Google. Just as it was relaunching the site, it was also filing a new antitrust complaint in the EU and again, I'm still concerned about this approach. It's one thing to argue that Google should handle aspects of how its website works in a better way. It's another to have the government force the company to do it that way. The latter approach creates all sorts of potential consequences -- intended or unintended -- that could have far reaching reverberations on the internet, perhaps even the kind that would boomerang around and hurt Yelp as well.

Yelp makes a strong argument for why Google's approach to the One Box is bad and not the best overall results for its users. I'm glad that it's repurposed its site to appeal to Google employees, and am disappointed that Google hasn't made this entire issue go away by actually revamping how the One Box works. But calling on the government to step in and determine how Google should design its site is still a worrisome approach.

Filed Under: algorithm, answers, antitrust, competition, eu, local content, one box
Companies: google, yelp

New TISA Leak: US On Collision Course With EU Over Global Data Flows

from the would-be-fun-to-watch-if-only-it-weren't-secret dept

Although most attention has been given to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA), also known as TTIP, it's important to remember that a third set of global trade negotiations are underway -- those for the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which involves more countries than either of the other two. Like TPP and TAFTA/TTIP, TISA is being negotiated in strict secrecy, but earlier this year the financial services annex leaked, giving us the first glimpse of the kind of bad ideas that were being worked on. Now, another leak has surfaced, which reveals the US's proposals to free up data flows online.

For the European Union, that's a hugely sensitive issue. Under data protection laws there, personal data cannot be sent outside the EU unless companies sign up to the self-certification scheme known as the Safe Harbor framework. However, in the wake of Snowden's revelations about NSA spying in Europe, the European Parliament has called for the Safe Harbor scheme to be suspended. If that happens, the only way that US Internet companies could comply with the EU Data Protection Directive would be to hold personal information about EU citizens on servers physically located in Europe. But it is precisely that kind of requirement the leaked TISA position seeks to forbid:

Article X.2: Local Content

l. Subject to any conditions, limitations and qualifications set out in its Schedule, no Party may, in connection with the supply of a service by a service supplier, impose or enforce any requirement; enforce any commitment or undertaking; or, in connection with the supply of a service through commercial presence, condition the receipt or continued receipt of an advantage on compliance with any requirement:

(a) to purchase, use or accord a preference to:

...

(iii) computing facilities located in its territory or computer processing or storage services supplied from within its territory;

Another section would stop countries from imposing any restrictions on data flows:

Article X.4: Movement of Information

No Party may prevent a service supplier of another Party from transferring, accessing, processing or storing information, including personal information, within or outside the Party's territory, where such activity is carried out in connection with the conduct of the service supplier's business.

It comes as no surprise that the US is pushing for the unhindered cross-border flow of all data, including personal data: it's what both the USTR and US companies have been demanding for a while. But it's going to be hard to get the European Union to agree to such a direct attack on its privacy framework. The European Commission has publicly stated that TISA will not undermine the EU's data protection laws. Moreover, just a few hours after the TISA leak was published, the EU politician with responsibility for TISA in the European Parliament, Viviane Reding, tweeted as follows:

As @EP_Trade Rapporteur on #TiSA, I'll oppose any provision undermining right to data privacy: competition by the rules, not for the rules!

With such entrenched positions on both sides, it's hard to see how any kind of compromise will be possible. The imminent battle between the US and the EU on this key issue in TISA will doubtless be fun to watch; what a pity it will happen in secret, behind closed doors.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: data, data protection, data storage, eu, local content, privacy, safe harbors, tisa