[PrairieFire]

Whether or not this specific author’s blog was de-indexed or de-prioritized, the issue this surfaces is real and genuine.

The real issue at hand here is that it’s difficult to impossible to discover why, or raise an effective appeal, when one runs afoul of Google, or suspects they have.

I shudder to use this word as I do think in some contexts it’s being overused, I think it’s the best word to use here though: the issue is really that Google is a Gatekeeper.

As the search engine with the largest global market share, whether or not Google has a commercial relationship with a site is irrelevant. Google has decided to let their product become a Utility. As a Utility, Google has a responsibility to provide effective tools and effective support for situations like this. Yes it will absolutely add cost for Google. It’s a cost of doing business as a Gatekeeper, as a Utility.

My second shudder in this comment - regulation is not always the answer. Maybe even it’s rarely the answer. But I do think when it comes to enterprises that have products that intentionally or unintentionally become Gatekeepers and/or Utilities, there should be a regulated mandate that they provide an acceptable level of support and access to the marketplaces they serve. The absence of that is what enables and causes this to perpetuate, and it will continue to do so until an entity with leverage over them can put them in check.

[_heimdall]

The situation reads more like a monopoly issue rather than a gatekeeper issue. Because google owns the indexer and the search tool most used, they're really only gate keeping their own sandbox.

[ethbr1]

It's entirely possible to have utility-importance non-monopoly gatekeepers, which is part of the legal issue.

The US regulates monopolies.

The US regulates utilities, defined by ~1910 industries.

It doesn't generally regulate non-monopoly companies that are gatekeepers.

Hence, Apple/Google/Facebook et al. have been able to avoid regulation by avoiding being classed as monopolies.

Imho, the EU is taking the right approach: also classify sub-monopoly entities with large market shares, and apply regulatory requirements on them.

I'd expect the US to use a lighter touch, and I'm fine with that, but regulations need to more than 'no touch'. It'd also be nice if they were bucketed and scaled (e.g. minimal requirements for 10-20%, more for 21-50%, max for 50%+).

[_heimdall]

Sure, we agree there though I'd add that while the US regulates monopolies we don't always enforce that, we also allow state-sponsored monopolies for many regional utilities.

With Google and SEO I see it more in the monopoly camp though. The existence of other big tech companies doesn't break the monopoly Google has by owning search, ads, analytics, et al under the same umbrella.

[ethbr1]

The nice thing about regulatory bucketing by market share is that it's harder to evade.

We've seen the legal gymnastics around market definition for monopoly purposes.

But it's harder for Google to make the case that it doesn't own at least a big chunk of {mobile OS} or {mobile app store} market share.

They can argue +/- a few percent over methods, but "We don't have a substantial market share" won't fly.

[_heimdall]

No argument there either, I do agree sometimes market monopolies need to be felt with though the bar is high in my opinion. If it were me I'd want to see proof of collusion, its easy for a market with only a few actors to independently make similar choices based on similar market incentives and data.

In this case though, it still seems like a more simple monopoly only with google. You don't need to consider other companies when the issue is related to the black box of search rankings.

[ethbr1]

That's part of my preference though: I'd rather government regulation of larger market share companies be a gradient rather than a binary.

If a few actors control the bulk of a market... wouldn't the same redresses be appropriate whether or not they're colluding?

We should make companies want to stay at a competitive market share instead of taking over their markets.

[dangus]

I’m really hoping the pendulum swings back to sanity in the US rather than becoming a Russia-like mafia business state.

It’s possible the only hope is a painful one: a major market crash caused by greed and excessive consolidation, the kind of crash that would trigger a 21st century new deal.

[_heimdall]

I wouldn't personally put much hope in a new deal approach.

The consolidation of power in the US government is the root of many of our problems, I don't expect that same government to solve it by grabbing even more power a la the new deal.

[esbranson]

I think the standard hyperbole is supposed to imply the US is fascist, not is becoming. Mention of mafias and post-soviet Russia is also non-standard.

[hirako2000]

If they considered having some ethical responsibility they would at least tame the bidding war that turned a well paid ads for an existing, unrelated business show before the legitimate link, or limit it so that the search result to show the legitimate link on the first page.

For certain popular sites, it doesn't. Those businesses got to pay the shelf tax if they want their published piece to ever be - not just seen, but reasonably - found when looking specifically for it.