Google reportedly bankrolls and enlists members of US Congress to fight EU antitrust case - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49338788]Alternatives can always spring up in that scenario. Google provides the best service hands down. Thats why its the best. Ads are marked as Ads (here at least) so this should be fine.[/QUOTE] No they are not. Ads are marked as ads here as well. But the problem is in google also ranking their non ads search results according to alliance with said company and worth of advertising deals with said company's. AKA: Comany's that advertise on google are also higher up in their non ads ranking. Yes also in the USA.

I personally don't see the problem with google promoting its own content, google is not a public service run by a government, they are a business. I could see where it would be a problem if they were the [I]only[/I] search engine, though.

IIRC, this time is actually a perfectly legal lawsuit because of Google secretly promoting it's own things without having a "promoted" tag, is a no no in EU's rulebook

[QUOTE=taipan;49338548]I guess you like being fucked over by company's like comcast and AT&T with their obvious cartel deals then? [/quote] These are two separate things because of their very nature. Right now I could say "I'm done with Google Search, I'm going to use one of their competitors" and there is absolutely nothing stopping me from doing that. Right now I have no option to switch to a different ISP because no others are available in my area. So long as net neutrality exists, I can use any service I want. If Google turns evil or whatever and ruins their search in some way, competitors will appear and I can freely select one of them. ISPs need to be regulated because consumers end up not having a choice. So long as the Internet remain unregulated, anyone can compete. Google has a distinct advantage because of the brand, but if they went to shit tomorrow they wouldn't last long because they can't prevent people from just using a different service. [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=OmniConsUme;49340860]IIRC, this time is actually a perfectly legal lawsuit because of Google secretly promoting it's own things without having a "promoted" tag, is a no no in EU's rulebook[/QUOTE] If that's really all it is, I don't know why they don't just add a promoted tag and be done with it instead of wasting so much money and effort fighting.

[QUOTE=taipan;49338723]Read before you post. Not being informed is how Trump voters get born. EU does not want to ban ads, they want to ban Google from quietly ranking search results from allied and paying companies higher in the NON ADS search results. Just like news sites here are banned from displaying paid news reports (ads) as news. [editline]17th December 2015[/editline] Great explaination.[/QUOTE] Put the ad links on page 5, advertisers will love that. I know what the EU is complaining about and its stupid. If I search for pop and coke pays to be the top spot the search engine did its job because coke is pop and thats what I was looking for.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49340910]These are two separate things because of their very nature. Right now I could say "I'm done with Google Search, I'm going to use one of their competitors" and there is absolutely nothing stopping me from doing that. [/QUOTE] Yes there is something stopping you and everybody else, as there is no competitor that is as good and google has a 75+% market share. You could use Bing or whatever, but in practise nobody does. [QUOTE=I Am A Rock;49341232]Put the ad links on page 5, advertisers will love that. I know what the EU is complaining about and its stupid. If I search for pop and coke pays to be the top spot the search engine did its job because coke is pop and thats what I was looking for.[/QUOTE] They can fill the whole first page with ads for all the EU cares. As long as they are marked as ads. The problem is with their ranking not marked as ads also being ads. So you dont know what the EU is complaining about. Ok so the entire first page can be coke and maybe the second page about Pepsi and the rest is startups and smaller brands. You know as well as I do that people almost never watch page 2 in google so the only thing people will hear is coke coke coke. So coke makes all the money and keeps paying google, while Pepsi and the rest die a slow and horrible death. And startups never get a chance. Now all consumers can only drink coke since its the only pop around. This is an extreme example, but im sure you see that the consumers dont come out ahead here.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49340910] If that's really all it is, I don't know why they don't just add a promoted tag and be done with it instead of wasting so much money and effort fighting.[/QUOTE] Because if the allegations are true (again, this is a case to determine whether they are actually involved in such practices) they are trying to promote content without letting the consumer know. Actually putting the word promoted defeats the whole purpose of what they are doing. They already have sponsored ads and links that pop up after you search for something, which is completely within the law.

[QUOTE=Fetret;49342294]Because if the allegations are true (again, this is a case to determine whether they are actually involved in such practices) they are trying to promote content without letting the consumer know. Actually putting the word promoted defeats the whole purpose of what they are doing. They already have sponsored ads and links that pop up after you search for something, which is completely within the law.[/QUOTE] The EU wants all the sponsored links and ads to be clearly labeled as such if I understood correct.

[QUOTE=Van-man;49342864]The EU wants all the sponsored links and ads to be clearly labeled as such if I understood correct.[/QUOTE] That's pretty much what I figured too, and it is an entirely reasonable request. Especially at the level of dominance Google has.

[QUOTE=taipan;49342261]Yes there is something stopping you and everybody else, as there is no competitor that is as good and google has a 75+% market share. You could use Bing or whatever, but in practise nobody does.[/QUOTE] Key point here: "there is no competitor that is as good" (which is subjective of course) My ISP is awful but I have no choice in the matter (sans even worse satellite internet) and thus my ISP has no need or reason to work on improving themselves or the services they offer to my area because Internet is effectively as necessary to modern (western) life as electricity so going without isn't a reasonable option. Google has a number of competitors (such as Bing) who everyone could switch to at any moment, and thus Google needs to continue to work to improve their search engine, or its' competitors will overtake it. It would be a very slow process if Google's search service didn't degrade, but it would none the less happen. None the less, if this is about Google artificially boosting certain services and products in their search results without clear indication, I agree with this case. Though it seems a bit daunting to determine if that is what's happening or if it's just what their algorithm is naturally doing because that is what it determined people are looking for given the search term.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49344787]Google has a number of competitors (such as Bing) who everyone could switch to at any moment[/QUOTE] If you think Yahoo or Bing even comes close to both Google's recognisability or search engine 'quality' then you'd be sorely mistaken and also taken for a fool. They're both honestly shit, except for cases where idiots are too lazy to type in the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains#Original_top-level_domains"]TLD[/URL] I really wish there was some real competition to Google's search engine, but there's only half-assed attempts at-best.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49344787]Key point here: "there is no competitor that is as good" (which is subjective of course) My ISP is awful but I have no choice in the matter (sans even worse satellite internet) and thus my ISP has no need or reason to work on improving themselves or the services they offer to my area because Internet is effectively as necessary to modern (western) life as electricity so going without isn't a reasonable option. Google has a number of competitors (such as Bing) who everyone could switch to at any moment, and thus Google needs to continue to work to improve their search engine, or its' competitors will overtake it. It would be a very slow process if Google's search service didn't degrade, but it would none the less happen. None the less, if this is about Google artificially boosting certain services and products in their search results without clear indication, I agree with this case. Though it seems a bit daunting to determine if that is what's happening or if it's just what their algorithm is naturally doing because that is what it determined people are looking for given the search term.[/QUOTE] They actually can't, since a lot of sites are designed to be more easily trawled with Google bots, rather than competitors. Google also has bigger server farms. As such the business is very hard to be competitive in. Not unlike ISPs.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49344787] Though it seems a bit daunting to determine if that is what's happening or if it's just what their algorithm is naturally doing because that is what it determined people are looking for given the search term.[/QUOTE] Well apparently proof of google manually doing this has been found else this would not be an issue.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49337616]that doesn't change what i'm saying at all i'm not saying that in that case it wasn't justified, it was to demonstrate the power of google[/QUOTE] Sounds less like the power of Google and more like "see what happens when you can't cheat the system anymore".

[QUOTE=lxmach1;49350246]Sounds less like the power of Google and more like "see what happens when you can't cheat the system anymore".[/QUOTE] Google's search engine have too much power when it's considered THE system

Noone realizes how other companies do this. The EU has consistently been slamming Google for bullshit reasons. Look at Amazon for example. The largest online retailer.. and yet, they -ALWAYS- push their products to the top of everything( AND they make a much more considerable profit than Google does pushing its products) But don't worry, this is Google and they're bad!

[QUOTE=Map in a box;49354253]Noone realizes how other companies do this. The EU has consistently been slamming Google for bullshit reasons. Look at Amazon for example. The largest online retailer.. and yet, they -ALWAYS- push their products to the top of everything( AND they make a much more considerable profit than Google does pushing its products) But don't worry, this is Google and they're bad![/QUOTE] Don't forget they removed Chromecasts and Apple TVs from their store as well as banning third parties from selling them. Why? It's definitely not because it sells the competing Fire TV Stick - it's because the other two don't support Prime video - which could end up confusing customers! (Even though Amazon easily could add support for both.) [url]http://www.wired.com/2015/10/amazon-apple-tv-chromecast/[/url]

[QUOTE=Map in a box;49354253]Noone realizes how other companies do this. The EU has consistently been slamming Google for bullshit reasons. Look at Amazon for example. The largest online retailer.. and yet, they -ALWAYS- push their products to the top of everything( AND they make a much more considerable profit than Google does pushing its products) But don't worry, this is Google and they're bad![/QUOTE] In that case they should be investigated too. Start a petition, get some movement going if you truly believe Amazon is also involved in unfair trade practices or trust like actions. Obviously there are certain differences, like physical retailers being a direct competition to Amazon etc... But you are absolutely right, if there is something fishy about Amazon it should be investigated too. I don't get your mentality of they are letting other fish pass so Google shouldn't be bothered too.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;49354253]Noone realizes how other companies do this. The EU has consistently been slamming Google for bullshit reasons. Look at Amazon for example. The largest online retailer.. and yet, they -ALWAYS- push their products to the top of everything( AND they make a much more considerable profit than Google does pushing its products) But don't worry, this is Google and they're bad![/QUOTE] Amazon is still really small in the EU. So that is still a non issue here.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;49354253]Noone realizes how other companies do this. The EU has consistently been slamming Google for bullshit reasons. Look at Amazon for example. The largest online retailer.. and yet, they -ALWAYS- push their products to the top of everything( AND they make a much more considerable profit than Google does pushing its products) But don't worry, this is Google and they're bad![/QUOTE] Unsurprisingly Amazon doesn't have much of a footprint in EU (Britain and Germany primarily), also it makes sense to set a example of the biggest and most powerful player in hopes of the other companies straighten their shit without being directly told so. But if they don't, then they're next.

I think the nature of the internet promotes monopolies. Google is a superior search engine; bing is okay and yahoo sucks, and duckduckgo is for people with tinfoil hats. People use Google because it's the best, not because it's the only option. [editline]20th December 2015[/editline] There's nothing preventing competition except that Google is the best at what they do

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49356340]I think the nature of the internet promotes monopolies. Google is a superior search engine; bing is okay and yahoo sucks, and duckduckgo is for people with tinfoil hats. People use Google because it's the best, not because it's the only option. [editline]20th December 2015[/editline] There's nothing preventing competition except that Google is the best at what they do[/QUOTE] And that's why Google is facing such scrutiny, the best also gotta follow the rules better than those who writes them, because in the end that'll either give a better experience when using Google, or evening out the competition.

First the EU made that bullshit "remove links you don't like" on google without even going to any of the other search engines, now they want to fine Google exorbitant amounts of money for placing their products at the top of THEIR searches(which more than likely is due to search optimization anyway given that their products are more popular for a reason) This is sets in stone a scary precedent and who knows what else they'll do citing this and the other cases as precedent?

[QUOTE=Map in a box;49358175]First the EU made that bullshit "remove links you don't like" on google without even going to any of the other search engines, now they want to fine Google exorbitant amounts of money for placing their products at the top of THEIR searches(which more than likely is due to search optimization anyway given that their products are more popular for a reason) This is sets in stone a scary precedent and who knows what else they'll do citing this and the other cases as precedent?[/QUOTE] Because those with pretty much a monopoly due to a combination of service quality and 'branding' should never be challenged legally to act like a shining example? Remember, they also forced Microsoft to educate users about other browsers back when Internet Explorer were especially horrible. They're doing it so tech illiterate people have to put effort into being idiots while without affecting prosumers. And that's honestly something even Google needs to learn with Android, since they always end up gimping it for prosumers when they try to coddle the tech illiterate.

[QUOTE=Van-man;49358505]Because those with pretty much a monopoly due to a combination of service quality and 'branding' should never be challenged legally to act like a shining example? Remember, they also forced Microsoft to educate users about other browsers back when Internet Explorer were especially horrible.[/QUOTE] "Making an example" of someone or something isn't something a government should ever do. The browser thing with Microsoft is a perfect example. Either every single operating system sold in the EU or whatever should have been required to provide a browser chooser within the guidelines laid out by the EU, or none. The EU seems try and artificially handicap whoever is on top in an effort to increase competition, when instead it should simply be making sure the pathways for competition are clear. Not to say I disagree with this case in particular, but just more generally. [QUOTE=Van-man;49356841] the best also gotta follow the rules better than those who writes them[/QUOTE] Everyone should be held to the same standard, period.

[QUOTE=Van-man;49358505]Because those with pretty much a monopoly due to a combination of service quality and 'branding' should never be challenged legally to act like a shining example? Remember, they also forced Microsoft to educate users about other browsers back when Internet Explorer were especially horrible. They're doing it so tech illiterate people have to put effort into being idiots while without affecting prosumers. And that's honestly something even Google needs to learn with Android, since they always end up gimping it for prosumers when they try to coddle the tech illiterate.[/QUOTE] First off, Google isn't a monopoly. They're not preventing other companies from showing up in their results let alone keeping them from working at all. If your product is shit, don't be surprised if people don't use it. You can't mount "google has good products but that shouldnt mean more people use it" as a defense.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;49354253]Noone realizes how other companies do this. The EU has consistently been slamming Google for bullshit reasons. Look at Amazon for example. The largest online retailer.. and yet, they -ALWAYS- push their products to the top of everything( AND they make a much more considerable profit than Google does pushing its products) But don't worry, this is Google and they're bad![/QUOTE] As others have pointed out, Amazon does not dominate a market in Europe the way Google does. But more importantly, Amazon does not claim to be giving you 'unbiased' information. Amazon's business is selling you stuff, so they put their stuff first and foremost. Nobody goes to Amazon thinking it will show them shopping from all over the Internet, they go to Amazon expecting to buy from Amazon. Nobody goes to Google thinking it will return them results from companies that paid Google, they go to Google expecting to get the most relevant answers on a topic. By forcing companies that want to be competitive to pay for advertising, they are encroaching on industries [I]other than their own[/I]. The way Amazon ranks their results has no impact on, say, a dental practice. But the way Google ranks its results could mean the difference between a dental practice succeeding and failing. That's why Google is being targeted by an anti-trust suit, because the amount of power they wield over business is incredible, and presenting paid advertisements as unbiased content is something that the EU has been wanting to crack down on for a while now.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;49358175]First the EU made that bullshit "remove links you don't like" on google without even going to any of the other search engines, now they want to fine Google exorbitant amounts of money for placing their products at the top of THEIR searches(which more than likely is due to search optimization anyway given that their products are more popular for a reason) This is sets in stone a scary precedent and who knows what else they'll do citing this and the other cases as precedent?[/QUOTE] You're misunderstanding the problem. Google isn't pushing their products, they're letting other companies pay to be ranked up higher in the list. Essentially, advertising the companies while not letting the consumer know that those are ads. Google is a search engine, it's supposed to give you the most relevant results to your request, which is what they claim to do. Yet in those cases it's pushing companies that have paid them, which is not to the benefit of the user who is none the wiser.