[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.)