[learc83]

>If it's bad then people won't use it.

It doesn't have to be that bad to be uncompetitive. They can steer people towards their properties in a way that won't bother most people, but will do tremendous harm to their competitors.

> And why is it illegal for search to be biased.

It wouldn't be if Google didn't have 95% of the market share. Google got this market share by being better than everyone else no doubt, but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have.

Right now Google has the power to effectively remove anyone or any company from the internet. So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator, left unchecked the eventually will.

[currysausage]

> but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have

Competition law doesn't punish market power. Punishing success would be insane. The abuse of market power is what is illegal. And abuse needs to be proven.

Yes, Google Maps is the first result if you search for "maps" on Google. Search for "maps" on Bing and the first result is... also Google Maps. So maybe, Google Maps is just the leading mapping service on the Web?

> So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator

So far we've seen no evidence that the defendant has indeed killed anyone, but can we be sure that he hasn't? No, but: In dubio pro reo.

[learc83]

>Competition law doesn't punish market power, that would be insane. The abuse of market power is what is illegal. And abuse needs to be proven.

Regulation doesn't require proof of illegal behavior. Yes to punish Google executives criminally would require proof of illegal behavior.

But congress could easily pass a law that said search engine companies are subject to government search algorithm audits, with no proof of illegal activity required.

>So far we've seen no evidence that the defendant has indeed killed anyone, but...

This is a regulatory issue, not a criminal trial. I'm not suggesting that any Google executives be punished for anything.

I'm suggesting that the potential for Google to do harm is too large not to examine the possibility of regulation. We don't allow private citizens to make weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is too great. In my opinion we also shouldn't allow private citizens to control the internet.

[currysausage]

> Regulation doesn't require proof of illegal behavior.

Sanctions under competition law do require proof of abuse of market power.

ISP-like regulation, which is a different beast, is usually being justified by the fact that ISPs are natural monopolies. [1]

> In my opinion we also shouldn't allow private citizens to control the internet.

What makes a search engine useful? The relevance of results. In my opinion, private companies (Google in particular) do a fairly good job at providing relevant results. I prefer that over a government-approved "neutral" algorithm, whatever that would even mean.

If you feel that Google's results aren't relevant, give a competitor a try. Nothing stops you. Do you run a web site that was blocked by Google without justification? Go ahead, complain. The mere possibility of abuse doesn't justify tight regulation.

> We don't allow private citizens to make weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is too great.

Yeah, should Google ever choose to sell WMD to my neighbor, switching to Bing wouldn't really help me.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400975

[learc83]

>Sanctions under competition law do require proof of abuse of market power.

And I'm not promoting sanctions. The only thing I've proposed is some kind of transparency, like 3rd party auditing.

>If you feel that Google's results aren't relevant, give a competitor a try. Nothing stops you.

That won't do a thing to mitigate the harm I'm talking about. If 1 company controls every news organization in the country except for a few college newspapers, would you tell me that me personally reading the college newspaper would help the situation?

>The mere possibility of abuse doesn't justify tight regulation.

Publicly traded companies and financial institutions deal with plenty of tight regulation because of the possibility of abuse. We already force publicly traded companies to require independent financial auditing, why not require the gateway to the internet to undergo independent search auditing.

[coliveira]

Monopolies need to be regulated. Period. If Google got to that position for their own qualities, it doesn't change the outcome in any way. In a democratic society, whenever a business institution achieves a monopoly position it is time to move on to curtail the possible results of the power it has achieved over the market.

[Fando]

I understand that with so much market share Google has a bigger responsibility to practice good ethics. Which it seems to be doing. No? I'm sure if Google were to actually begin going astray, people would notice websites disappearing. Until clear evidence of this is found, it is unfair to scrutinize them to reveal their competative advantage. In fact doing so suggests malice more than anything. Sure Google may have the power to 'remove' content from the internet, but since when is that justification for accusations of malicious intent? If France was truly benevolent and actually concerned with improving Google equality, threatening a lawsuit is an odd way to address the problem. A good course of action would be to raise the issue with Google in a trustworthy way. Yes, in general, given enough power corruption emerges, but I'm not sure it applies in this case. Power could be wielded without corruption. Large market share does not imply corruption. Perhaps what is ought to be done by Google is to somehow address the issue of transparency without compromising their algorithm. I may be wrong but I feel confident that Google isn't corrupt. However, the people behind this legislation certainly appear to be up to something.

[learc83]

> Which it seems to be doing. No?

Who knows? I don't really support the requirement that they make their algorithm public. But I would support requiring that they expose it to government auditors. Or maybe some kind of 3rd party testing that proves their results aren't biased without actually seeing the algorithm.

> Power could be wielded without corruption.

Yes that is possible. But I think a government is certainly within their rights to demand that with a certain level of power a company must prove that they are wielding that power responsibly.

For instance if I build a nuclear power plant, the government will of course require me to prove that it is safe. They won't wait until they have evidence that it is unsafe because the potential harm is too great.

[minot]

> It wouldn't be if Google didn't have 95% of the market share.

I thought you didn't need a huge market share to be anticompetitive. Apple didn't have a huge market share in ebooks when it colluded with the publishers.

> but at some point you have to admit that's too much power for one company to have.

I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal?

> Right now Google has the power to effectively remove anyone or any company from the internet. So far we've seen no evidence that they've done anything like this, but if history is any indicator, left unchecked the eventually will.

Why would they expose themselves to such scrutiny? What is it that they can do ten years from now that they can't already do? You don't think their market share could get any larger, do you?

[learc83]

>I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal?

It doesn't matter if they did something illegal. Under the interstate commerce act the Federal Government most definitely has the constitutional authority to regulate internet search if they choose to.

The government recently exercised that power to regulate ISPs. The FCC didn't accuse those companies of acting illegally.

>Why would they expose themselves to such scrutiny?

To make more money. If they think they can get away with it, of course they will abuse their monopoly. Show me a monopoly that hasn't done this.

>I thought you didn't need a huge market share to be anticompetitive. Apple didn't have a huge market share in ebooks when it colluded with the publishers.

Their isn't a magical market share that allows anticompetiveness. The key is to look at the potential harm that Google's monopoly allows. As a society we do it all the time. The constitution says we have a right to bear arms, but we still regulate weapons of mass destruction because the potential for harm is so great.

[currysausage]

> The government recently exercised that power to regulate ISPs.

ISPs are natural monopolies. Duplicating the subscriber line network would (usually) be economically inefficient and pointless. "A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which it is most efficient (...) for production to be permanently concentrated in a single firm rather than contested competitively." (Wikipedia)

This is not at all the case with search engines. Develop a superior algorithm and you're in the game. That's how Google once overtook Yahoo, Ask, etc.

[learc83]

I know what a natural monopoly is and I'm not arguing that Google search is a natural monopoly. Government regulation is not aimed only at natural monopolies. The authority for the government to regulate interstate commerce isn't based on whether a natural monopoly exists or not.

There are natural monopolies that aren't strictly regulated. And there are industries that aren't natural monopolies that are strictly regulated.

The key is to examine the potential harm and the desired outcomes.

>Develop a superior algorithm and you're in the game.

That is entirely possible (or it might not be [1]). It doesn't change the fact that right now and for the foreseeable future, Google is the gatekeeper to the internet.

Right now Google directly controls the destiny of millions of people. One minor algorithm change can (and has) wiped out the fortunes of thousands of companies.

[1]Android market share could easily become high enough that Google could retain their monopoly even with inferior search technology.

[davidcgl]

  One minor algorithm change can (and has) wiped out the fortunes of thousands of companies.

For every winner, there's a loser. While you rally behind websites that are penalized (often with good reasons), you forget about the economic surplus that favors other businesses and regular users. It's hard to measure if an algorithmic tweak is good for users, but Google has no incentives to do otherwise.

[learc83]

>For every winner, there's a loser. While you rally behind websites that are penalized (often with good reasons), you forget about the economic surplus that favors other businesses and regular users.

This is true, but I don't think one company should have the power to affect so many people.

>It's hard to measure if an algorithmic tweak is good for users, but Google has no incentives to do otherwise.

Google has plenty of incentives to make algorithmic tweaks that aren't good for their users. Left to their own devices, with no fear of regulation, do you think they would ever display a link to Bing Maps even if Bing Maps offered a better service?

Google is a search provider and a content provider, there is an inherent conflict of interest.

[currysausage]

> And there are industries that aren't natural monopolies that are strictly regulated.

Like pharmaceutical companies? Like those WMD manufacturers that you mention quite often? Lifes are at stake there. That's another good justification for regulation.

> Android market share could easily become high enough that Google could retain their monopoly even with inferior search technology.

You may not be able to switch the search provider of your Android phone's default home screen (but you can install a different home screen). The European Commission is investigating a potential abuse of market power re Android right now, but that's a different battleground.

As long as there is no indication of abuse concerning Google's algorithm, which is what we were talking about, I believe said algorithm isn't any government's business.

[learc83]

>Lifes are at stake there. That's another good justification for regulation.

Banks, and publicly traded companies are also heavily regulated.

90% of people will only ever use Google search. To them Google is the internet. Google has just as much power to harm just as many people as a bank does. We regulate the bank to avoid potential financial harm, why can't we regulate Google?

>As long as there is no indication of abuse concerning Google's algorithm, which is what we were talking about, I believe said algorithm isn't any government's business.

That's the point, without any way to audit Google, there is no way to know they aren't abusing their position in ways that are difficult to detect.

When a company has amassed as much power as Google has, I think it's perfectly acceptable to shift the burden of proof to them instead of taking them at their word--force a bit of transparency (without requiring them to release trade secrets to their competitors.)

[SCHiM]

>I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal?

This really, _really_ depends on your philosophy, the way you view companies. In your opinion are they basically structures by which a larger group of people can collaborate on a shared vision/product, another way to serve the community while making a _little_ money on the side? Or are companies inherently self-serving in your opinion, do they exist only to make money regardless of how good increased usage/sales are for society? Is this structure owned by many people, or are founders the only true, and exclusive, owners of a company (not talking about stock here).

I'm not really good at expressing my view on this, so maybe a personal example is more helpful:

I'm all in favour of google being broken up and/or regulated more as a public utility and less as a private company. The reason is that because of the ubiquitousness of 'google' and it's traces in everything related to tech it is more of a public utility than a privately owned company, and should be regulated and restricted as such.

So to explain that in the previous narrative: I think google's importance to society outweighs the rights of the founders/stock holders in regards to who should decide what direction the company should be going in.

Also if you can forgive the snark, there's something more to point out about that sentence:

>I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because we think they're too big. What did they do? Did they do something illegal?

>I don't think we can just get rid of Google or break them up just because [society decided they are too big]. What did they do? Did they do something [society thinks is wrong]?

Yes, they grew to big.

[Fando]

Breaking up Google because its influence on the internet is largest? Absurd. Reasoning like a doomsday prophet is silly. So is jumping to solutions without understanding the problem. The problem is potential for abuse of power. But, so far no indications of such behavior were found, indeed the opposite is true, Google is quite respectable. Accusing them with this in mind seems malicious and raises the real question - why would someone do that? The reason of course is that Google quality is hard to complete with which prompts many shady parties to resort dirty tactics. This isn't about equality for all, it's about reducing Google's competitive advantage. Coca cola is the most valuable brand, and it's nearly impossible for new beverage companies to complete. Surely you would not think that restricting coke's areas of operation, breaking it up, or making it reveal its secret recipe is justifiable. Yet, this is precisely what France is advocating.

[SCHiM]

>Breaking up Google because its influence on the internet is largest

Not the internet, the whole western world would be closer. I don't know anyone who uses the internet and doesn't use a search engine. And the very large majority use google.

Like I said, it's really how you approach the issue, even determining if there's an issue in the first place.

To me it's not about the company, they come and go. It's about the people, the structures the social aspects of it. No matter if it's Google, Apple or Coca Cola. They're just names and I think people should feel no great sense of loyalty to a company aren't working for or who's ideals they don't believe in.

>This isn't about equality for all

You're right, but you must have missed something. Because, indeed, I don't advocate equality too/for companies and especially not for Google (search). Comprehend for a moment the huge influence a subtle change in search results _could_ have. I don't want that power/chance to lay in the hands of stockholders and/or founders, until such a time that google's usage is down or google is better regulated. Because I feel that they are barely regulated right now. They appear to be able to do whatever they want with their search results. I don't say we should steal google, but they should be prohibited to manipulate current events for example.

Also the reason I'm not too concerned about Coca cola is because there's already rigorous testing and regulation for the foods that you can sell.

Furthermore I don't care about which soda is the most popular, I really, _really_ couldn't care less. I _do_ care about what the most popular search engine is. Because, and it's been said before, the person who controls education controls the future. And Google undeniably has a share in the metaphorical control pie.

[jplahn]

This is such a slippery slope it makes me sad anyone would even suggest breaking up a company based off their 'importance to society.' If the founders don't have the right to decide which direction the company should go, who gets to decide and what gives them more of a right than the founders? I don't know who would decide what the threshold is whereby your company is now too beneficial to society and you must relinquish control. And to what fields to we extend this policy? If Khan Academy is found to be ubiquitous with homeschooling and providing an immense benefit to students, should we strip the leadership of powers lest they teach something we don't think is correct? It's such a slippery slope.

As others have commented, if Google had been shown to be malicious with regards to their search results, then I'd say some regulation is in order. But to espouse that we should take control of the direction of their company due to the quality of their product (and the adoption of it, as a result) is, in my opinion, incredibly asinine.

Likewise, if we do break up the company, how would you propose to do that? Because what I think you're going to argue in favor of is treating some of the new pieces as a public utility and leaving other pieces as private corporations.

[learc83]

>This is such a slippery slope

Is all regulation a slippery slope? Did breaking up AT&T create a chain of events that led to a breakdown of corporate America?

>If Khan Academy is found to be ubiquitous with homeschooling and providing an immense benefit to students, should we strip the leadership of powers lest they teach something we don't think is correct?

If Khan Academy became so popular that nearly all schools closed down and 90% of students were educated solely through Khan Academy, then yes I think Khan Academy should be subject to some pretty tough regulation.

Let's say Disney becomes so popular that they take over every TV channel, every movie studio, and every newspaper. Are you OK with letting them have that kind of power because we are afraid of infringing on the rights of the owners?