Dear Al Franken: Net Neutrality Is Not A Magic Wand You Can Wave At Any Company

from the apples-and-oranges dept

By now, most Techdirt readers are well aware that net neutrality violations are just a symptom of the lack of competition specifically in the broadband industry. If we had lawmakers that were genuinely interested in policies that improve competition, we wouldn't need net neutrality rules protecting consumers from often-unchecked duopoly power. In the absence of said competition -- or lawmakers willing to stand up to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- the FCC's current net neutrality rules, however imperfect, are the next best thing.

And to be clear, net neutrality is something specific to the uncompetitive telecom industry. Yet we've watched for years as people have tried to take the concept and apply it to other, competitive sectors. AT&T, for example, has tried to foist regulations on Google by insisting the company violates "search neutrality." Other folks, like Blackberry CEO John Chen, have similarly tried to push regulation on Google and Apple by trying to insist we need protections for "app neutrality." Usually, these folks are only interested in saddling their own competitors with additional regulation, not actually improving the internet.

These folks consistently ignore the fact that this is an apples to oranges comparison. You don't need search or app store neutrality rules because those markets are actually competitive. While there are certainly some exceptions, users offended by Google or Apple's app store policies, privacy practices, or search engine behaviors have the choice of using a myriad of other services. The same can't be said of the broadband industry, where 75% of the public technically only has one choice for broadband (as defined by the FCC at 25 Mbps). These problems aren't directly comparable.

And while Al Franken has been a welcome and outspoken defender of net neutrality, he too fell into this trap this week during a speech given at the Open Markets Institute, a think tank devoted to fighting monopoly power. While engaged in a well-intentioned rant warning of the perils of unchecked social media power at the likes of Facebook, Franken conflated net neutrality with, well, something else entirely:

As tech giants become a new kind of internet gatekeeper, I believe the same basic principles of net neutrality should apply here: no one company should have the power to pick and choose which content reaches consumers and which doesn’t. And Facebook, Google, and Amazon – like ISPs – should be “neutral” in their treatment of the flow of lawful information and commerce on their platforms.

Following years of hard work and dedication, we found in the Open Internet Order a strong and time-tested framework to protect net neutrality. While we fight to preserve the Order, we must now begin a thorough examination of big tech’s practices in order to secure the free flow of information on the internet.

Again though, net neutrality isn't this universal concept you can just pick up and apply to other markets to try and make a point. And conflating the uncompetitive duopoly shitshow that is the telecom market with more competitive social media markets just doesn't work. Users can and should choose to not visit Facebook if they find the company's ethics troubling. You can use Duck Duck Go if you're understandably wary about Google's schnoz up in your business. There are options. There is competition in these markets.

Net neutrality is about ensuring duopolists can't interfere in the free flow of information. What Franken's proposing here is the advocation of interference, and urging government to dictate "search neutrality" or "website neutrality" could prove to be a muddy free speech rabbit hole, as Wired was quick to point out:

As with much of the backlash against big tech, Franken’s suggestions contain their own contradictions. Applying net neutrality rules to Google or Facebook, for example, could make them obligated to distribute content from political extremists and even foreign propaganda under some circumstances. Unfortunately for Silicon Valley, lack of solutions never stopped a congressional hearing.

Again, it's fine to want to pressure Facebook, Twitter, and Google to better handle disinformation and propaganda (though it's hard to "legislate away" a problem we don't fully understand yet). It's also perfectly reasonable to be concerned about the growing power these companies hold, particularly as it pertains to privacy. But these are very complicated and very different problems that require different solutions and different conversations. Conflating net neutrality here only aids companies like AT&T, which have long wanted to distort the concept of net neutrality to heavily regulate their Silicon Valley nemeses to ill effect.

We went down said rabbit hole once with the fairness doctrine, believing government was competent and incorruptible enough to be trusted to dictate "acceptable" speech. It would be a shame if we used the entirely different fight for net neutrality to justify making that mistake again.

Filed Under: al franken, net neutrality, platform neutrality, search neutrality
Companies: amazon, facebook, google

Forget EU's Toothless Vote To 'Break Up' Google; Be Worried About Nonsensical 'Unbiased Search' Proposal

from the that's-where-the-real-threat-is dept

As was widely expected after leaking out a few days earlier, last week the EU Parliament "voted" on its proposal to support the breakup of Google. And yet, that might not really be as important as a second part of the EU's vote, concerning a bizarre and nonsensical requirement for "unbiased" search results. As discussed earlier, the headlined proposal for breaking up Google is both completely toothless and kind of stupid. On the toothless part, not only can the EU Parliament not actually do anything about this, if the EU Commission wanted to break up Google, it would need to go through a long and involved process, that would likely fail. As Vox notes:

For Google to actually get broken up, the European Commission would first need to take Google to court alleging violation of European competition laws. The EC would then have to win the case and convince the courts that a breakup was the appropriate remedy.

"I can't believe that would happen," [antitrust expert Mark] Patterson told me on Monday. "I don't think there have been cases of anyone being broken up in years."

Patterson says that "there's never been a smoking gun" showing that Google has abused its dominance in the search or advertising markets to harm competitors

But still, here's what the EU Parliament approved [pdf] by a 384 to 174 vote:

Notes that the online search market is of particular importance in ensuring competitive conditions within the digital single market, given the potential development of search engines into gatekeepers and the possibility they have of commercialising secondary exploitation of information obtained; calls, therefore, on the Commission to enforce EU competition rules decisively, based on input from all relevant stakeholders and taking into account the entire structure of the digital single market in order to ensure remedies that truly benefit consumers, internet users and online businesses; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to consider proposals aimed at unbundling search engines from other commercial services as one potential long-term means of achieving the aforementioned aims;

As for why this is stupid, the Economist has a rather good explanation:

Google is clearly dominant, then; but whether it abuses that dominance is another matter. It stands accused of favouring its own services in search results, making it hard for advertisers to manage campaigns across several online platforms, and presenting answers on some search pages directly rather than referring users to other websites. But its behaviour is not in the same class as Microsoft’s systematic campaign against the Netscape browser in the late 1990s: there are no e-mails talking about “cutting off” competitors’ “air supply”. What’s more, some of the features that hurt Google’s competitors benefit its consumers. Giving people flight details, dictionary definitions or a map right away saves them time. And while advertisers often pay hefty rates for clicks, users get Google’s service for nothing—rather as plumbers and florists fork out to be listed in Yellow Pages which are given to readers gratis, and nightclubs charge men steep entry prices but let women in free.

Furthermore, the Economist points out that, not only does this move appear to be anti-consumer, but it's also just blatantly protectionist for companies unwilling to innovate:

Instead of attacking successful American companies, Europe’s leaders should ask themselves why their continent has not produced a Google or a Facebook. Opening up the EU’s digital services market would do more to create one than protecting local incumbents.

But within the proposal, a few lines down, there was something that might be even more concerning, and more ridiculous, even if it generated fewer (actually, almost no) headlines. And it's that, beyond "breaking up" search engines, the resolution also included this bit of nonsense, saying that search engines need to be "unbiased":

Stresses that, when operating search engines for users, the search process and results should be unbiased in order to keep internet searches non-discriminatory, to ensure more competition and choice for users and consumers and to maintain the diversity of sources of information; notes, therefore, that indexation, evaluation, presentation and ranking by search engines must be unbiased and transparent; calls on the Commission to prevent any abuse in the marketing of interlinked services by search engine operators;

But what does that even mean? Search is inherently biased. That's the point of search. You want the best results for what you're searching for, and the job of the search engine is to rank results by what it thinks is the best. An "unbiased" search engine isn't a search engine at all. It just returns stuff randomly.

What this really is, is a way for the EU to try to insert itself into being able to edit search results. They're trying to insert themselves into the algorithm to determine which search results it thinks should be up top, rather than whatever the algorithms find. This is very worrisome -- in part because it demonstrates how little the EU politicians who voted for this understand. Years ago, James Grimmelmann (no friend of Google -- as he's actively fought against Google on a number of issues), explained why this concept (sometimes called "search neutrality") makes no sense at all, and actually sets up a conflicting set of requirements where the "ends and means don't match." He concludes that the very idea of unbiased search is "incoherent." In fact, he notes that an attempt towards "unbiased search" almost certainly leads to not just worse results for users, but a more likely situation in which users get pushed to the kinds of sites policy makers think they're going to demote.

Requiring search engines to behave “neutrally” will not produce the desired goal of neutral search results. The web is a place where site owners compete fiercely, sometimes viciously, for viewers and users turn to intermediaries to defend them from the sometimes-abusive tactics of information providers. Taking the search engine out of the equation leaves users vulnerable to precisely the sorts of manipulation search neutrality aims to protect them from. Whether it ranks sites by popularity, by personalization, or even by the idiosyncratic whims of its operator, a search engine provides an alternative to the Hobbesian world of the unmediated Internet, in which the richest voices are the loudest, and the greatest authority on any subject is the spammer with the fastest server. Search neutrality is cynical about the Internet—but perhaps not cynical enough.

Meanwhile, the sole Pirate Party member of the European Parliament, Julia Reda, has a bit more detail about how this bogus claim of "unbiased search" is really just an attempt to prop up publishers who failed to innovate via so-called "ancillary rights," like the attempt to force Google to pay newspaper publishers for sending them traffic. As Reda notes:

Here, it is demanded that search algorithms and results should be impartial to keep internet searches “nondiscrimatory” and to “secure competition and freedom of choice for users and consumers”. Consequently, indexing, weighting, display and ordering of search engines should be impartial and transparent.

This wording is explosive. I am led to suspect that its aim is to prepare a European ancillary copyright for press publishers. The attempt to cross-finance big publishers through Google most recently spectacularly backfired in Germany. Is this resolution an attempt to create the puzzle piece that had been missing in Germany?

In October, Günther Oettinger, the EU Commissioner for the Digital Economy and Society, provoked a debate on an EU-wide ancillary copyright law for press publishers before even taking office. Not a month later, the next move is made in that direction – this time in the parliament.

As you may recall, when German publishers demanded payments for the traffic, Google removed their snippets, and the publishers claimed it was "blackmail." As Reda notes, the whole "neutrality" or "unbiased" language in the resolution suggests a plan in which Google would be forced to (1) continue providing the snippets and traffic and then, later, (2) pay the publishers for sending them the traffic. In short, the idea is to force Google to "violate" the (made up) rights of publishers in order to give them a way to force Google to give them money.

Reda, along with Michel Reimon, put forth amendments that would block this possible interpretation of the resolution... and had those amendments rejected.

It's clear that Europe, for whatever reason, has decided to go to war against American internet companies, with Google being the main target. As we noted last week, it's not clear what the reasons are other than that Google is big and American. It's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about potential abuse, and to vigilantly watch to make sure no such abuse occurs, but that's not what's happening here. It appears that these moves are just designed to punish not only Google, but the very users of the service in Europe, pressuring the company to deliver a lesser product... just to benefit a few companies and industries that have failed to innovate.

It is difficult to see how such an effort could possibly be good for the people of Europe.

Filed Under: antitrust, eu, eu commission, eu parliament, julia reda, search neutrality, unbiased search
Companies: google

As Expected, FTC Announces Close Of Google Investigation With No Antitrust Charges, But Minor Tweaks To Biz Practices

from the no-surprise dept

It appears that the rumors from last month were entirely accurate. The FTC more or less has admitted that it can't find any real antitrust problems with Google, but did get Google to agree to a few minor tweaks in how it operates -- which lets the FTC declare victory. On the big question of antitrust, however, which Microsoft and other sites led the charge on, the FTC came up completely empty, noting that the goal Google's practices was, in fact, to offer a better consumer experience, rather than to be anti-competitive.

The biggest "change" to Google's business practices is really from an issue they inherited: the handling of Motorola's standards essential patents. We were among those confused by Google's decision a year ago to continue Motorola's more aggressive practices with its standards essential patents, basically trying to get injunctions to block competitors who don't license at the (way too high) rates that Motorola was offering. This made no sense to us at the time, given Google's previous statements about the problems of the patent system. Here was a case where they had a chance to put their words into further action, and they didn't. And that became the biggest part of the FTC settlement. Seems like Google could have avoided a headache just by backing down initially. Either way, even the "settlement" aspect here is really small. Google has agreed that before seeking an injunction, it'll go to arbitration to determine what is a "fair and reasonable" royalty on those patents. To be honest, this seems like the kind of thing that Google was probably perfectly happy to "cave" on -- and it almost makes you wonder if they kept up Motorola's practices just to give the FTC some "red meat" to make FTC boss Jon Liebowitz happy.

There were a few other small changes, such as allowing sites to opt out of just Google News if they don't like traffic. In the past, sites had to opt out of all Google search if they didn't want to appear in Google News -- and some incredibly shortsighted news publications didn't like that. So, basically, now Google is giving them the ability to hurt their own traffic from Google News if they so choose. Also, Google will allow companies to more easily manage ad campaigns across multiple platforms, rather than effectively making them repeat the process for multiple platforms.

The end result here, even as the FTC declares victory, has to be seen as a big victory for Google. It made a few tweaks to its business practices -- most of which it probably should have done anyway (and some of which I think it should go even further on). And on the big question of "antitrust" and "search bias" the FTC came up totally empty -- even as FTC boss Liebowitz made it clear that he would have loved it if breaking up Google's monopoly was his legacy. As the FTC announcement notes, try as hard as they could, they just couldn't make the claim stick. I love the begrudging language they use here:

The FTC conducted an extensive investigation into allegations that Google had manipulated its search algorithms to harm vertical websites and unfairly promote its own competing vertical properties, a practice commonly known as “search bias.” In particular, the FTC evaluated Google’s introduction of “Universal Search” – a product that prominently displays targeted Google properties in response to specific categories of searches, such as shopping and local – to determine whether Google used that product to reduce or eliminate a nascent competitive threat. Similarly, the investigation focused on the allegation that Google altered its search algorithms to demote certain vertical websites in an effort to reduce or eliminate a nascent competitive threat. According to the Commission statement, however, the FTC concluded that the introduction of Universal Search, as well as additional changes made to Google’s search algorithms – even those that may have had the effect of harming individual competitors – could be plausibly justified as innovations that improved Google’s product and the experience of its users. It therefore has chosen to close the investigation.

In the end, this seems like a massive waste of taxpayer money and the FTC's time and resources. While the announcement claims they got Google to agree to "significant" changes in its business practices, that's a laughable claim when you look at the details.

Filed Under: antitrust, bias, ftc, injunctions, jon liebowitz, patents, search, search bias, search neutrality, standards essential patents
Companies: google

Antitrust Complaints Against Google Still Don't Make Any Sense

from the think-this-through dept

There's been plenty of buzz about the EU Commission basically admitting that it's going to go after Google on antitrust grounds if Google doesn't change certain practices. However, as we've seen with past claims of antitrust issues with Google, when you begin to unpack the complaints, they don't seem to hold up to much scrutiny. There is no argument that Google is a big player, and could be abusive -- but there is little, if any, evidence of actual abuse. And, most of all, there seems to be no evidence that Google's actions harm consumers.

With perfect timing, the Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog held a blog symposium concerning antitrust issues related to Google and there are a bunch of worthwhile reads in there. Much of the focus of the discussion (and some of the EU's complaints) have to do with the nonsensical concept of "search neutrality" -- a made up concept that was designed originally to mock Google for supporting "net neutrality." But just because you add "neutrality" to the end of each phrase doesn't mean that the two have anything in common. Most people supporting the concept of "search neutrality" talk about how it's somehow "unfair" if Google pushes down a website. In fact, that's been the crux of most of the complaints from companies -- that Google doesn't rank them high enough, or somehow favors its own services above their own. But if their services suck and consumers find them annoying or spammy, shouldn't we want Google to demote them? And so far no one has explained why Google should support other search engines.

In that online symposium, Frank Pasquale makes the case for why Google should be subject to having others review its algorithmic choices to keep such searches "neutral." But, in one of the more compelling statements, law professor James Grimmelman points out that for all this talk of "search neutrality," no one can explain how it makes any sense:

The problem is that one cannot define "manipulation" without some principled conception of the baseline from which it is a deviation. To punish Google for being non-neutral, one must first define "neutral," and this is a surprisingly difficult task.

In the first place, search engines exist to make distinctions among websites, so equality of outcome is the wrong goal. Nor is it possible to say, except in extremely rare cases (such as, perhaps, "4263 feet in meters") what the objectively correct best search results are. The entire basis of search is that different users have different goals, and the entire basis of competition in search is that different search engines have different ways of identifying relevant content. Courts and regulators who attempt to substitute their own judgments of quality for a search engine's are likely to do worse by its users.

Neutrality, then, must be a process value: even-handed treatment of all websites, whether they be the search engine's friends or foes. Call this idea "impartiality." Tarleton Gillespie suggested the term to me in conversation.) The challenge for impartiality is that search engines are in the business of making distinctions among websites (Google alone makes hundreds of changes a year).

You can't just say that you're going to force Google to be "neutral," because there is nothing neutral about what a search engine does. By definition it's picking winners and losers. If it does a bad job of it, people switch to other search engines (and, for what it's worth, a lot of people have been complaining about search quality lately -- and I've certainly found myself using DuckDuckGo and Blekko more frequently as Google doesn't find stuff it should be able to find).

But, as Grimmelman notes, even if you can argue that Google shouldn't be allowed to favor its own offerings, that leads to a difficult question: is the purpose of anti-trust law to benefit consumers or to benefit competitors? Some may argue that with greater competition, consumers are automatically better off, but that's slightly misleading. That's true of greater competition in the overall world (and it's why I can choose those competing search engines). But does it make sense to have that same sort of competition within Google by forcing it to change its algorithms? That's a much, much harder case. Again, Grimmelman highlights the problems:

Here, however, it confronts one of the most difficult problems of high-technology antitrust: weighing pro-competitive justifications and anti-competitive harms in the design of complicated and rapidly changing products. Many self-serving innovations in search also have obvious user benefits.

One example is Google's treatment of product-search sites like Foundem and Ciao. Google has admitted that it applies algorithmic penalties to price-comparison sites. This may sound like naked retaliation against competitors, but the sad truth is that most of these "competitors" are threats only to Google's users, not to Google itself. There are some high-quality product-search sites, but also hundreds of me-too sites with interchangeable functionality and questionable graphic design. When users search for a product by its name, these me-too sites are trying to reintermediate a transaction that has very little need of them. Ranking penalties directed at this category share some of the pro-consumer justification of Google's recent moves against webspam.

In other words, it seems pretty clear that some of the sites complaining loudest for antitrust action against Google were crappy sites that users didn't want cluttering up their Google search results. Why should Google be punished just because those sites couldn't compete and offer a good service? That seems backwards.

There is no doubt that we should be cautious around companies that get to be "too big," to make sure they're not doing things that hurt the public. But, so much of the focus on Google is about (a) just how big Google is and (b) how it harms some competitors within Google. Of course, plenty of Google competitors thrive within (and outside) Google as well. It really only seems to be the flailing ones who are complaining the loudest (with the possible exception of Yelp, whose complaints still don't make any sense to me).

If there are legitimate antitrust concerns, they should be discussed, but so far, all of the concerns raised seem to be because some companies just don't like how they rank in Google. And it's not at all clear we need a massive antitrust lawsuit to deal with that issue. It's not at all clear it's an issue to begin with.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, eu commission, frank pasquale, search neutrality
Companies: google

Journalism Neutrality Now! Why The Government Needs To Oversee The NY Times' Editorial Neutrality

from the bizarro-world dept

We've tried debunking the ridiculous concept of "search neutrality" a few times now. It's an invention by a few telcos who were upset that Google was supporting net neutrality rules (something I don't support). So they came up with this concept of "search neutrality" to get back at Google. But, of course, the situations are entirely different. The reason why people believe in net neutrality is because your ISP controls what you can do online. You don't have a choice. When it comes to search, not only do you have the ability to make an instant choice, but the whole point of a search engine is to "rank" results based on what it thinks is best. You can't be "neutral" because a "neutral" search is just a unranked list of links that may or may not have anything to do with what you're searching for.

But, it appears the editorial folks over at the NY Times have gotten confused by all of this, and are saying that the government should step in and ensure that Google's algorithm is "fair":

Still, the potential impact of Google's algorithm on the Internet economy is such that it is worth exploring ways to ensure that the editorial policy guiding Google's tweaks is solely intended to improve the quality of the results and not to help Google's other businesses.

Some early suggestions for how to accomplish this include having Google explain with some specified level of detail the editorial policy that guides its tweaks. Another would be to give some government commission the power to look at those tweaks.

It's difficult to think of anything more ridiculous than a news publication calling for the government to step in and review the editorial guidelines of another company. So, just as the the telcos did with Google, why not flip this around, and make the same point about the NY Times. Here's my attempt:

The potential impact of the NY Times' coverage on the world/economy/war/etc. is such that it is worth exploring ways to ensure that the editorial policy guiding the NY Times' coverage choices is solely intended to improve the quality of the world, and not to help the NY Times' or other businesses.

Some early suggestions for how to accomplish this include having the NY Times explain with some specified level of detail the editorial policy that guides its front page choices. Another would be to give some government commission the power to look at those guidelines.

How would the NY Times (or pretty much any journalist) react to that? My guess is not too kindly.

Danny Sullivan, it appears, had a similar idea and rewrote the entire NY Times article as if it were talking about the NY Times (rather than just the two paragraphs I did here). He then goes into detail on why the whole thing is bunk.

Search engines are very similar to newspapers. They have unpaid "organic" listings, where usually (though not always), a computer algorithm decides which pages should rank tops. The exact method isn't important. What's important is that those unpaid listed are the search engines' editorial content, content it has solely decided should appear based on its editorial judgment.

Search engine also have paid listings, advertisements, which aren't supposed to influence what happens on the editorial side of the house. We even have FTC guidelines ensuring proper labeling of ads and intended to protect against "advertorials" in search results.

It's a church-and-state divide with good search engines, just as it is with good newspapers.

What the New York Times has suggested is that the government should oversee the editorial judgment of a search engine. Suffice to say, the editorial staff of the New York Times would scream bloody murder if anyone suggested government oversight of its own editorial process. First it would yell that it has no bias, so oversight is unnecessary. Next it would yell even more loudly that the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects it from such US government interference.

He also points out why Google is significantly more transparent than the NY Times about its own editorial policy:

Still, shouldn't Google share more about how it creates its algorithm? Compared to the New York Times, Google's a model of transparency. Consider:

• Google will list EVERY site that applies for "coverage" unlike the New York Times, which regularly ignores potential stories
• If Google blocks a site for violating its guidelines, it alerts many of them. The New York Times alerts no one
• Google provides an entire Google Webmaster Central area with tools and tips to encourage people to show up better in Google; the New York Times offers nothing even remotely similar
• Google constantly speaks at search marketing and other events to answer questions about how they list sites and how to improve coverage; I'm pretty sure the New York Times devotes far less effort in this area
• Google is constantly giving interviews about its algorithm, such as this one in February, along with providing regular videos about its process (here's one from April) or blogging about important changes, such as when site speed was introduced as a factor earlier this year.

There's a lot more in Sullivan's piece that basically debunks pretty much every myth that people (beyond just the NY Times) are making out to be an issue about Google's "neutrality" in search. Hopefully this silly concept goes away, but I fear there are too many lobbying dollars invested in it, that folks like Sullivan are going to have plenty of opportunities to re-debunk this concept in the future.

Filed Under: editorial, journalism neutrality, neutrality, oversight, search neutrality
Companies: google, ny times

A Recommendation Is Not The Same As Corruption

from the a-mind-is-a-terrible-thing-to-waste dept

I recently wrote about what a joke the concept of "search neutrality" is, because, by their very nature, search results are supposed to be a ranking of what the site thinks the user wants most. It appears that the folks who are paid handsomely to push this "search neutrality" meme aren't too happy that someone has called them out for making something out of nothing. Scott Cleland, who is famously paid to blog anything that will make Google look bad, took issue with my statements, and sought to debunk what I had to say. To those pushing search "search neutrality," I would suggest coming up with better arguments (or finding someone who can actually argue logically), because Cleland's points don't cut it. Basically, he pretended I said something I didn't say and then ran with it.

Specifically, he pretends that when I say that search is inherently non-neutral, I mean that it's okay for Google to give higher ranking results to advertisers. I neither said nor implied any such thing. What I said (I thought clearly, but it's easier for Cleland to knock over a strawman) was that there's no such thing as "neutrality" in search, because any ranking is biased by what the search engine thinks is best. A "neutral" search engine doesn't exist, because it could never recommend any links. A recommendation is bias, but that's not the same as corruption or undue influence. It just means bias towards recommending what the search engine thinks is best.

However, Cleland jumps off on that to point out that even Google has said that paid search can impact quality. But Cleland is (in his usual manner) taking things totally out of context. The quotes he's discussing were about sites that mix paid search in their organic listings. To date, no one has shown convincing proof that Google has actually done this. If there were proof, then it would suggest that Google was doing something misleading, which would be an issue for the FTC to look at (as it has with other paid search listings in the past). However, that's hardly a call for "search neutrality." Mixing ads into the organic listings is one thing, but that's not what we were discussing. It's just the strawman Cleland tossed out there since he can't let that "search neutrality" thing die.

Second, he quotes Google saying that it doesn't "manipulate rankings to put partners higher," as proof that I'm wrong that the "whole point of search is to be biased." Again, he is arguing something I did not say. I said (again, clearly, though Cleland ignores it) that the bias is to put the results that it feels make the most sense out there. Saying that "the whole point of search is biased" does not mean "it's okay to mix paid search in organic results without telling people" as Cleland seems to think. It's almost as if Cleland doesn't even understand how search works.

Finally, Cleland links to a series of recent antitrust lawsuits against Google, which all seem to be based on the same ridiculous misinterpretations of how search engines work, and claims these are "documented charges of fraud, mis-representation, anti-competitive behavior." Except, they are no such thing. They are claims from a few small companies, bankrolled by Google's competitors, to misrepresent what Google is doing -- sort of like Cleland himself. None of those lawsuits have been decided, but I would be amazed if any of them came out with Google on the losing side. And, finally, on that, I never said that those lawsuits shouldn't move forward (as Cleland implies). I just pointed out that the claim of "search neutrality" being an issue is bogus. But none of these lawsuits are actually about "search neutrality." They're about claims that Google somehow took anti-competitive actions against these sites.

Most importantly, however, the reason people ask for "net neutrality" is because when you have an ISP, you have to go through that ISP to get anywhere. So if it's not "neutral" you can get locked into an experience you don't want. That's not the case with search. If you don't like your search experience, and if you find that the search engine of your choice has polluted its links with paid partners, then you can immediately go elsewhere. That's the key point, but it's never one that Cleland will address. Because he can't.

Filed Under: advertising, bias, scott cleland, search, search neutrality

There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best

from the can-we-kill-this-myth? dept

It seems that various anti-Google organizations have picked up on this bizarre and misguided notion of "search neutrality" as a key stick with which to attack. The idea is, obviously, a play on the concept of "net neutrality." It's been pushed mainly by AT&T and various anti-Google think tankers, but now it appears that Microsoft is getting into the game, suggesting that "search neutrality" is a problem and pointing a finger directly at Google.

This is ridiculous on so many levels that it's difficult to know where to begin. First, "search neutrality" is not a problem because "search neutrality" makes no sense. The whole point of search is to be biased. The whole point of search is to recommend which sites fit your query best. "Search neutrality" isn't search at all. It's a list of unsorted and totally useless links.

Second, Microsoft should know better than to complain about Google's actions and suggest they're in some way anti-competitive. Remember that, even if the actual penalties (penalties? what penalties?) made the ruling meaningless, Microsoft was a convicted monopolist. Having big competitors point fingers at each other screaming about "anti-competitive" behavior is just silly.

Finally, Microsoft's Brad Smith apparently is claiming that "the biggest lack of competition" is in the search space. Really? Well, let's compare, shall we? According to some recent research, Google has 85% of the market in search. That is a lot, granted. But... what about the operating system? Oh, look. The same research firm shows that Microsoft has 91% of the market. What's next? Operating system neutrality?

Filed Under: neutrality, search neutrality
Companies: google, microsoft

Google Might Stop Violating 'Search Neutrality' If Anybody Knew What That Actually Meant

from the now-you're-just-making-things-up dept

Given Google's position on network neutrality, white space spectrum, competition and other topics, it's not too surprising that they've drawn the ire of the larger telecom operators like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. All three companies have massive lobbying operations, and have been busily engaged in pressuring Uncle Sam to investigate Google on every front -- be it Google's acquisition of AdMob, or AT&T's claim that Google Voice is being used to unfairly block nuns. While companies like AT&T complain ceaselessly about how any and all government regulation is unnecessary, they're unsurprisingly trying to get more regulation applied to Google. Since at least 2007, carriers and their various policy tendrils have been trying to argue that Google should be regulated for violations of "search neutrality," though it's amusing to notice that it's now 2010, and nobody seems to know what the term even means:

"AT&T went so far as to tell the FCC that nothing it could possible do would be as worrisome as what Google was up to. "And more than any physical network provider, search engines pose concerns that the [rulemaking] identifies as a potential basis for government intervention: They 'determine the information ... that customers access online' through algorithms that highlight some information, favor certain websites, and even omit some sites altogether. As a result, they can 'deter market entry in areas that would benefit consumers and damage[e] potential entrants.' Just as search engines dominate the selection of winners and losers on the Internet, one search engine in particular -- Google's -- dominates the search engine market."

"Search neutrality" is an absurd notion, given that search algorithms by their very nature aren't neutral, and the entire purpose of search is to discriminate and point the user toward more pertinent results. Meanwhile, Google became a market leader by being good at what they do. Users have other options available if they feel that isn't the case, or if they find that Google is suddenly discriminating in terms of search results -- so Google can very quickly be punished should they begin to engage in ranking skulduggery. A company like AT&T, meanwhile, holds a physical monopoly in many markets -- leaving consumers with little to no option should AT&T choose to engage in anti-competitive behavior.

Search neutrality at its core is a term created by companies eager to bog Google down in bad regulation -- the same kind of bad regulation companies like AT&T believe Google is foisting upon them in the network neutrality debate. The difference, again, is that Google's customers can vote with their wallet, while most broadband customers have few if any alternatives (which is why we argue that tackling competition should take priority). Meanwhile, ISPs repeatedly insist that network neutrality rules aren't necessary because there's no evidence of ISP foul play -- yet here they are -- pushing for nebulous regulations without providing evidence of Google abuse (aside from a few people whining late last year that they weren't ranked high enough for their liking).

All of this simply highlights how the entire network neutrality debate has been so polluted by lobbyist, lawyer and think tank nonsense and hypocrisy (on all sides) -- that it has just completely degraded into incoherent rhetoric. Whatever you think of the need for neutrality regulation, it's important to remember the network neutrality debate truly took off in 2005, with AT&T telling Google they wanted to charge content companies already paying for bandwidth an extra toll -- just because. AT&T was loudly and clearly told by Internet users that this was idiotic idea -- though the conversation seems to have gone completely downhill from there in terms of actually making sense.

Filed Under: search, search neutrality
Companies: at&t, google