[arrosenberg]

It allows Google to access data that is denied to competitors. It’s a clear example of Google using its market power to suppress competition.

[8organicbits]

Hmm, the robots.txt, IP blocking, and user agent blocking are all policies chosen by the web server hosting the data. If web admins choose to block Google competitors, I'm not sure that's on Google. Can you clarify?

[GreenWatermelon]

A nice example is the recent reddit-google deal which gives google' crawler exclusive access to reddit's data. This just serves to give google a competitive advantage over other search engine.

[not2b]

Well yes, the Reddit-Google deal might be found to violate antitrust. Probably will, because it is so blatantly anticompetitive. But if a publication decides to give special access to search engines so they can enforce their paywall but still be findable by search, I don't think the regulators would worry about that, provided that there's a way for competing search engines to get the same access.

[arrosenberg]

Which is it? Regulators shouldn’t worry, or we need regulations to ensure equal access to the market?

[immibis]

regulators wouldn't worry if all search engines had equal access, even if you didn't because you're not a search engine

[arrosenberg]

And if I had wheels, I would be a car. Theres no equal access without regulation.

[sroussey]

Nope. That deal was for AI not search.

[dns_snek]

This is false, the deal cuts all other search engines off from accessing Reddit. Go to Bing and search for "news site:reddit.com" and filter results by date from the past week - 0 results.

https://www.404media.co/google-is-the-only-search-engine-tha...

[darkwater]

Antitrust kicks in exactly in cases like this: using your moat in one market (search) to win another market (AI)

[wahnfrieden]

What do you think search is

[paulddraper]

It's not anticompetitive behavior by Google for a website to restrict their content.

Whether by IP, user account, user agent, whatever

[arrosenberg]

It kind of is. If Google divested search and the new company provided utility style access to that data feed, I would agree with you. Webmasters allow a limited number of crawlers based on who had market share in a specific window of time, which serves to lock in the dominance of a small number of competitors.

It may not be the kind of explicit anticompetitive behavior we normally see, but it needs to be regulated on the same grounds.

[paulddraper]

Google's action is to declare its identity.

The website operator can do with that identity as they wish.

They could block it, accept it, accept it but only on Tuesday afternoon.

---

"Anticompetitive" would be some action by Google to suppress competitors. Offering identification is not that.

[arrosenberg]

Regardless of whether Google has broken the law, the arrangement is clearly anticompetitive. It is not dissimilar to owning the telephone or power wires 100 years ago. Building operators were not willing to install redundant connections for the same service for each operator, and webmasters are not willing to allow unlimited numbers of crawlers on their sites. If we continue to believe in competitive and robust markets, we can't allow a monopolistic corporation to act as a private regulator of a key service that powers the modern economy.

The law may need more time to catch up, but search indexing will eventually be made a utility.

[immibis]

Google is paying the website to restrict their content.

[paulddraper]

In a specific case (Reddit) yes.

And that has an argument.

But in the general case no.

[victorbjorklund]

Which sites that allows Google to index their content blocks Bing and other search engines (not other bots just scraping for other purposes)?

[bdd8f1df777b]

If you can prove a deal made by Google and the website then you may have a case. Otherwise it is difficult to prove anything.