• Google paid 25 000$ to FTC chairman during FTC antitrust inquiry
    13 replies, posted
.
"Dont be evil"
[quote]Google unfairly disadvantaged competing websites by favoring its own services in search results.[/quote] That's not really surprising that seems like something any company would do
[QUOTE=Soldier32;39760192]That's not really surprising that seems like something any company would do[/QUOTE] I was just about to post this... Is it a violation of "anti-trust" if you own a second business and anytime someone talks about it you recommend it with a bias? it's not like an internet search engine is a service or utility like water, power etc so if a search engine is biased does it really matter? [editline]1st March 2013[/editline] the bribing is fucked up though
[QUOTE=Soldier32;39760192]That's not really surprising that seems like something any company would do[/QUOTE] Yeah, I don't see a problem there. Of course they're gonna favor their own company.
[QUOTE=Soldier32;39760192]That's not really surprising that seems like something any company would do[/QUOTE] When you have a near-monopoly on search, it's anti-competitive. It's precisely the same as back with Windows 95/95 whatever where Microsoft put IE on them all - they used their monopoly in one market, to get monopoly over another.
In the real world this would readily count as bribery but since US politics is a playground for corporations this'll just breeze through
That's one hell of a cheap politician if you ask me. $25000, I wouldn't risk my job for that.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39760607]That's one hell of a cheap politician if you ask me. $25000, I wouldn't risk my job for that.[/QUOTE] It wasn't a direct payment from Google, the title is misleading. Google donated money to some award that was handed to him. They had a "middle man" so to speak.
[QUOTE=Penguiin;39760243]it's not like an internet search engine is a service or utility like water, power etc so if a search engine is biased does it really matter?[/QUOTE] Access to information is indeed a utility service. In the same way that public libraries are. So, when you have the gatekeepers peddling a service that impedes the functioning role to look for information, you are well and truly shooting yourself in the foot. If Wikipedia had ads plastered over it since the day of its inception, I doubt it would still be around, or used as extensively.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;39760773]Access to information is indeed a utility service. In the same way that public libraries are. So, when you have the gatekeepers peddling a service that impedes the functioning role to look for information, you are well and truly shooting yourself in the foot. If Wikipedia had ads plastered over it since the day of its inception, I doubt it would still be around, or used as extensively.[/QUOTE] google is primarily an ad network, wikipedia is not. Google has had ads plastered over it since day one. Google's ads are not intrusive and don't block search results, all they do is (allegedly) put links to their own services higher than those of competitors like when you search for mail, gmail would be higher than hotmail. This might seem unfair or artificial but I'm not so sure it is. Gmail is a superior service after all.
If google wants to keep it's reputation, pulling shit like this isn't helping.
Hold on a second. What's stopping people from, I don't know, typing Bing into their URL bar and using that? Furthermore, what if the results were actually influenced by page hits or searches? Would you not see the same sort of thing, because Google services are fairly popular? If someone searches "Free email" in Google, it would make sense that they would get "Gmail" as a result, as it's the most widely used free email service. Is this anticompetitive behavior, or merely a system that appears that way by statistical probability? Furthermore, would deliberately altering these results to advertise a competitor's product not only be self-detrimental, but also dishonest on a platform that claims unedited results? Furthermore, people know these other search engines are out there. People have a choice, and they choose Google. Why? Because they want to, or because they don't want to use another service. Is this, then, when competition exists in abundance, still a monopoly? Does that not go against the dictionarial definition of a monopoly? What, then, is a monopoly if competition exists in the system? While Google did give money to wave the lawsuit, realistically, they shouldn't have to. The alternatives are there, they are known, and as Google does not control every iota of US search traffic, they cannot be classed as a true monopoly in any form. What we're seeing here, then, is a product so well-liked and received that they are required to intentionally sabotage their product because it is, perhaps, too good. There's something wrong with all of this... On all sides, including Google's. I can understand the "Help the little guy" mentality, but if the little guy cannot be competitive in a market space that requires an acute competition, then perhaps the little guy should improve his product to the standards of the competitors, or face the consequences of offering an inferior product.
[QUOTE=woolio1;39761461] then perhaps the little guy should improve his product to the standards of the competitors, or face the consequences of offering an inferior product.[/QUOTE] lmao do you know how business works
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.