d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Google
Prev134567Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 1,697
Joined: Mar 16 2009
Gold: 0.00
Oct 21 2020 12:52pm
It's true that people can just switch to other search engines for alternative results, however you'll find as you try other search engines that they don't anywhere close to the amount of webpages that google has indexed, and so there is a real monopoly here. I personally think these companies would need to break down at some point because they are more of a public utility now than anything else.
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Oct 21 2020 12:55pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 21 2020 02:15pm)
in any case studying based on 1 word phrases is pretty junk, who just types "abortion" into google? a 12 year old?


Maybe in alabama they do 🤔
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Oct 21 2020 01:54pm
Quote (GodSmiter @ Oct 21 2020 01:52pm)
It's true that people can just switch to other search engines for alternative results, however you'll find as you try other search engines that they don't anywhere close to the amount of webpages that google has indexed, and so there is a real monopoly here. I personally think these companies would need to break down at some point because they are more of a public utility now than anything else.


Google is the best so 90% of the searches are on google.

That's just being better.




One of the things I find hilarious about this is the right is clambering to break up the tech giants but at the same time are appointing big business friendly judges like Barrett. Do you guys think conservatives are going to break these companies up? Fuck no. Modern conservatism in America is big business and fuck everybody else.
Member
Posts: 51,144
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,400.67
Oct 21 2020 03:44pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ 21 Oct 2020 21:54)
Google is the best so 90% of the searches are on google.

That's just being better.


Which goes back to what I have been saying repeatedly: big tech has an inherent tendency toward monopolies.

When Coca Cola increases its market share at the expense of Pepsi, this doesnt make their coke any better, or Pepsi coke any worse. Likewise, if Apple's market share increases, this doesnt make iPhones better, or Samsung products worse. By contrast, when it comes to businesses like Google or Facebook, a higher market share almost automatically makes for a superior product. It's really not hard to see why the market for such services gravitates toward a (near-)monopoly.

The free market paradigma obviously fails on markets which will inevitably break down to a non-competitive state if left alone. Since web searches and social media play an ever increasing role in our daily lives and the way we inform ourselves about the world, this is a fundamental problem for society for which we need to find a solution. I dont really know one either, but we have to at least acknowledge the existence of this fundamental issue.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 21 2020 03:45pm
Member
Posts: 25,855
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Gold: 381.00
Trader: Trusted
Oct 21 2020 07:39pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 21 2020 03:54pm)
Google is the best so 90% of the searches are on google.

That's just being better.




One of the things I find hilarious about this is the right is clambering to break up the tech giants but at the same time are appointing big business friendly judges like Barrett. Do you guys think conservatives are going to break these companies up? Fuck no. Modern conservatism in America is big business and fuck everybody else.

google is a completely different issue than others like FB/twitter, which there are also issues. i don't want these companies "broken-up". although i would not be sad at all to see their stock plummit.
i would advocate not using FB or twitter because of their practices, there are alternatives "AND" everyone has a choice to leave the platform. problem solved, seriously, you're right here 100%.

the issue with both FB/twitter is that they use 47 U.S. Code § 230 to prevent lawsuits. these protections are designed to give platforms the ability to remove "offensive" materials

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Quote
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Quote
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

FB/Twitter is hiding under section 230. they have broken the boundaries of being a "platform", and moved into "publisher" territory. removing things from the platforms based on political view-point, has theoretically removed the liability "protections" in section 230, that these companies use against lawsuits. especially as section 230 is written like this...
Quote
(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

i'll follow this with just 1 example. NYPost

Alphabet Inc. (google)... is a different issue than FB/twitter. it's "not only" over 90% of american searches, that is just one branch of a very large tree.
the DoJ is comparing them to AT&T, Microsoft and Standard Oil.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws
Quote
“As with its historic antitrust actions against AT&T in 1974 and Microsoft in 1998, the Department is again enforcing the Sherman Act to restore the role of competition and open the door to the next wave of innovation—this time in vital digital markets,” said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen.

Quote
The antitrust laws protect our free market economy and forbid monopolists from engaging in anticompetitive practices. They also empower the Department of Justice to bring cases like this one to remedy violations and restore competition, as it has done for over a century in notable cases involving monopolists over other critical industries undergirding the American economy like Standard Oil and the AT&T telephone monopoly. Decades ago the Department’s case against Microsoft recognized that the antitrust laws forbid anticompetitive agreements by high-technology monopolists to require preinstalled default status, to shut off distribution channels to rivals, and to make software undeletable. The Complaint alleges that Google is using similar agreements itself to maintain and extend its own dominance.


https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-announcement-civil-antitrust-lawsuit-filed-against-google
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Oct 21 2020 07:46pm
Quote (tagged4nothing @ Oct 21 2020 08:39pm)
google is a completely different issue than others like FB/twitter, which there are also issues. i don't want these companies "broken-up". although i would not be sad at all to see their stock plummit.
i would advocate not using FB or twitter because of their practices, there are alternatives "AND" everyone has a choice to leave the platform. problem solved, seriously, you're right here 100%.
the issue with both FB/twitter is that they use 47 U.S. Code § 230 to prevent lawsuits. these protections are designed to give platforms the ability to remove "offensive" materials
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
FB/Twitter is hiding under section 230. they have broken the boundaries of being a "platform", and moved into "publisher" territory. removing things from the platforms based on political view-point, has theoretically removed the liability "protections" in section 230, that these companies use against lawsuits. especially as section 230 is written like this...
i'll follow this with just 1 example. NYPost
Alphabet Inc. (google)... is a different issue than FB/twitter. it's "not only" over 90% of american searches, that is just one branch of a very large tree.
the DoJ is comparing them to AT&T, Microsoft and Standard Oil.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-announcement-civil-antitrust-lawsuit-filed-against-google


You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of 230. There is no distinction between publisher and platform. A publisher can operate a platform and vice versa. What 230 does is say you will only be held liable for what you personally post to platforms, and the platform itself will not be. This is totally independent of if the platform also posts content. For instance, an online newspaper with a comments section is both a publisher and a platform, but since the news paper doesn't post the comments themselves they aren't held liable. For the story they are a publisher and can be held liable for what is posted, but when it comes to comments they are merely a platform. Additionally, the same section gives them the right to police content for virtually any reason, giving only the very low bar that they have to find it personally offensive in some way, so they don't enter into "publisher status" by moderating.

I think Amazon is very likely behaving in an anti-competitive manner since they are using their Amazon.com profits to let other parts of their business sell at a loss and drive competitors out of business.

We'll have to see how the litigation turns out, but I haven't seen a good reason to think that Google is operating in a similar fashion. They dump huge amounts of money in to stay competitive, they don't charge huge ad rates, and they pay out a substantial sum to content creators. Let's see what real arguments they come up with because this issue is going to rely on a deep technical analysis and not just "big company bad".
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Oct 21 2020 07:47pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Oct 21 2020 04:44pm)
Which goes back to what I have been saying repeatedly: big tech has an inherent tendency toward monopolies.

When Coca Cola increases its market share at the expense of Pepsi, this doesnt make their coke any better, or Pepsi coke any worse. Likewise, if Apple's market share increases, this doesnt make iPhones better, or Samsung products worse. By contrast, when it comes to businesses like Google or Facebook, a higher market share almost automatically makes for a superior product. It's really not hard to see why the market for such services gravitates toward a (near-)monopoly.

The free market paradigma obviously fails on markets which will inevitably break down to a non-competitive state if left alone. Since web searches and social media play an ever increasing role in our daily lives and the way we inform ourselves about the world, this is a fundamental problem for society for which we need to find a solution. I dont really know one either, but we have to at least acknowledge the existence of this fundamental issue.


So government should buy Google.

Couldn't agree more!
Member
Posts: 25,855
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Gold: 381.00
Trader: Trusted
Oct 21 2020 08:14pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 21 2020 09:46pm)
You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of 230. There is no distinction between publisher and platform. A publisher can operate a platform and vice versa. What 230 does is say you will only be held liable for what you personally post to platforms, and the platform itself will not be. This is totally independent of if the platform also posts content. For instance, an online newspaper with a comments section is both a publisher and a platform, but since the news paper doesn't post the comments themselves they aren't held liable. For the story they are a publisher and can be held liable for what is posted, but when it comes to comments they are merely a platform. Additionally, the same section gives them the right to police content for virtually any reason, giving only the very low bar that they have to find it personally offensive in some way, so they don't enter into "publisher status" by moderating.

I think Amazon is very likely behaving in an anti-competitive manner since they are using their Amazon.com profits to let other parts of their business sell at a loss and drive competitors out of business.

We'll have to see how the litigation turns out, but I haven't seen a good reason to think that Google is operating in a similar fashion. They dump huge amounts of money in to stay competitive, they don't charge huge ad rates, and they pay out a substantial sum to content creators. Let's see what real arguments they come up with because this issue is going to rely on a deep technical analysis and not just "big company bad".

again i'm going to make the distinction between FB/twitter and google.
for FB/twitter, i think the resolution is reforming section 230. not destroying the companies or holding them accountable for anything from this. the law needs to change(expand) is what i'm saying.

google may use the same protections, but it's a larger issue, and not the only issue. the DoJ are making these accusations:
Quote
In particular, the Complaint alleges that Google has unlawfully maintained monopolies in search and search advertising by:

*Entering into exclusivity agreements that forbid preinstallation of any competing search service.
*Entering into tying and other arrangements that force preinstallation of its search applications in prime locations on mobile devices and make them undeletable, regardless of consumer preference.
*Entering into long-term agreements with Apple that require Google to be the default – and de facto exclusive – general search engine on Apple’s popular Safari browser and other Apple search tools.
*Generally using monopoly profits to buy preferential treatment for its search engine on devices, web browsers, and other search access points, creating a continuous and self-reinforcing cycle of monopolization.

"the substantial sum to content creators" has been slowly sifting away from 1 side, due to vague rules that seem to be decided politically and hypocritically.

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Oct 21 2020 08:15pm
Member
Posts: 48,749
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 356.93
Oct 21 2020 08:16pm
And what stops google packing up and moving their servers to kazakstan?
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Oct 21 2020 08:27pm
Quote (Plaguefear @ Oct 21 2020 09:16pm)
And what stops google packing up and moving their servers to kazakstan?


They wouldn't really be able to hire in America anymore, and would lose out on a lot of talent and silicon valley as talent pools.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev134567Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll