Google Critics Continue Campaign Against 'Search Bias'
The Federal Trade Commission said this week that it had cleared Google of violating antitrust laws by promoting its own services in the search results. That decision makes a huge amount of sense from a practical point of view, if only because no one needs government officials trying to regulate the proper placement of search engine results.
Just imagine what would happen if regulators required Google to return "relevant" results based on supposedly objective criteria. The very prospect raises a litany of absurd questions -- including how regulators would ever begin to evaluate relevance. Would they come up with a formula based on traffic? Click-throughs? Would they look at landing pages and rank them for keywords? And why would their judgment about relevance be superior to Google's anyway, given that Google is the one that stands to lose the most if Web users don't like its results?
Besides, the notion that search engines should be objective is questionable at best. As New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann argued: "Search is inherently subjective: it always involves guessing the diverse and unknown intentions of users."
He added: "A search for ‘apple’ could be looking for information about Fiji apples, Apple computers, or Fiona Apple... Different people will have different intentions in mind; even the same person will have different intentions at different times."
But Google's critics aren't willing to admit defeat on this issue. Several hours after the FTC decision, Microsoft vice president Dave Heiner blasted the agency on the company's blog. "Google has long said that it merely aims to offer customers the most relevant answer to their query, and the FTC Commissioners accepted that view," Heiner wrote. "Yet we know that Google routinely and systematically heavily promotes its own services in search results. Is Google+ really more relevant than Facebook? Are Google’s travel results better than those offered by Expedia, Kayak and others?
Heiner might think the answers to those questions are self-evident. In fact, they're anything but.
Recent Daily Online Examiner Articles
-
Appeals Court Turns Away Twitter's Challenge To Subpoena May 17, 4:55 p.m.
An appellate court in New York has dismissed Twitter's appeal of a ruling requiring it to ...
-
Apple: No 'Direct Evidence' Of Ebook Price-Fixing May 16, 5:10 p.m.
Did Apple conspire with book publishers to end Amazon's $9.99-per-ebook price? That's the question at the ...
-
AT&T Stirs Controversy With Data-Cap Plans May 15, 5 p.m.
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson reportedly confirmed today that the carrier plans to let content companies pay ...
-
Pandora User Seeks To Revive Privacy Lawsuit May 14, 4:48 p.m.
In 2010, music service Pandora was one of the first companies to partner with Facebook for ...
-
New Bill Legalizes Cell-Phone Unlocking, DVD Ripping May 13, 5:05 p.m.
Consumers could once again have the right to unlock their cell phones, if a new law ...
-
Data-Cap Exemption For ESPN Raises Neutrality Concerns May 10, 6:40 p.m.
The sports network ESPN reportedly is talking with a major wireless carrier about a deal to ...
-
Righthaven Loses Bid To Revive Lawsuits May 9, 6:20 p.m.
Several years ago, attorney Steven Gibson and the publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal cooked up ...
-
Appellate Judge Says Google Books Offers 'Enormous' Benefits May 8, 4:59 p.m.
The Authors Guild's odds of winning its long-running lawsuit against Google appear to be dwindling, at ...
-
FTC Tells Data Brokers To Follow Consumer Protection Laws May 7, 6:30 p.m.
In its latest move against data brokers, the Federal Trade Commission has warned 10 companies that ...
-
FTC Rejects Request To Delay New Children's Privacy Rules May 6, 7:43 p.m.
The Federal Trade Commission has unanimously turned down a request by industry groups to push back ...


3 comments on "Google Critics Continue Campaign Against 'Search Bias'".
Leave a Comment