Isn't the issue regarding the fact that Google may be abusing it's near-monopolistic power in search to promote things like Google+ above competitors like Facebook.
If true, clearly this is concerning, and even if not (currently) true, the possibility of abuse is pretty high. I believe they're looking for a way to ensure that Google doesn't abuse it's search power. They must not feel Google's offer is good enough.
In my opinion, search is such a powerful tool that it needs some oversight to avoid conflicts of interest and abuse. Who watches the watchmen, you know? Search effectively controls access to information for most people, and Google's algorithms aren't transparent. If it were up to me, I'd say Google Search should be separated from Google Services.
Google offered to clearly label results that are sponsored, as well as their own promoted services, using different colors and font weights than the other search results. They also said they would offer links to competing services. Since it's not consumers complaining about the search results but instead Microsoft for the most part with Google even offering to list Bing results too, I don't see what the real issue is.
EDIT: According to this article Mr. Almunia got Google to agree to "label those (Google services) results more clearly to show where they come from, while also giving more prominence to links to rival search engines.
It offers third-party websites an easier opt-out from being used in Google services, such as news searches. Google would also no longer include clauses in its agreements requiring exclusivity in online search nor prevent the same campaign being run on other platforms." I wonder if/when the tables are turned if MS would be willing to promote Google services for them. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e52fd8d0-ad9b-11e2-a2c7-00144feabdc0.html
That's a dangerous view of morals. Beyond religion, most cultures have basic moral codes, such as condemning murder, stealing, etc.
Justifying everything as "morals are subjective" strikes me as sociopathic.
I know your point was an action taken by a business may be viewed as evil by some, and fine by others. But labeling all morals as subjective is a dangerous path.
Yeah, "subjective morals" is probably a misleading term; it is more accurate to say moral judgments applied to actions are subjective. For example: historically, evil people don't go around calling themselves "evil." They believe they are doing the right thing. And they're not saying that to away others: they actually believe it. Just listen to any terrorist argue their moral justification for acts of mass murder. Their judgment is subjective, not the underlying morals.
No doubt, but they already have Google's attention since they're offering concessions. Do you understand what it is the EU doesn't like about what Google is offering to appease them, or what's wrong with the current search results?
At the moment, no, not with enough details to offer an intelligent answer. I'll look into it later.
That's a dangerous view of morals. Beyond religion, most cultures have basic moral codes, such as condemning murder, stealing, etc.
Justifying everything as "morals are subjective" strikes me as sociopathic.
I know your point was an action taken by a business may be viewed as evil by some, and fine by others. But labeling all morals as subjective is a dangerous path.
Taking it way too far. I was discussing morals as they relate to business practices, which generally doesn't include murder unless we're talking about organized crime (which certainly isn't legitimate business), and are mostly in the subjective/grey area of morality. I'd argue that humanitarianism and altruism are more applicable than morality/good/evil when it comes to guiding business practices.
Yeah, "subjective morals" is probably a misleading term; it is more accurate to say moral judgments applied to actions are subjective. For example: historically, evil people don't go around calling themselves "evil." They believe they are doing the right thing. And they're not saying that to away others: they actually believe it. Just listen to any terrorist argue their moral justification for acts of mass murder. Their judgment is subjective, not the underlying morals.
And people of faith who are leaders in corporations which exploit poor labour conditions in developing nations also somehow justify their actions as morally acceptable. Which is why I don't consider morality to be all that relevant in the world of business.
Regardless of your feelings towards Google, are you really that opposed to the free market that you find reason to rejoice in another example of the EU's leftists, protectionist, anti-business practices? You realize they are also going after Apple, right?
Seems pretty clear to me: they want to alleviate concerns that Google is using search results to skew consumer decisions towards other products and services which benefit them. So prove that the logic used to generate search results is purely based on "relevancy to the user" and doesn't factor in things like "who uses Google for advertising".
But go ahead and deploy the army of commenters/bloggers/tweeters with the party line: the EU wants to dictate your search results.
That's been going on forever. If a business wanted to stand out it paid for a big listing in the yellow pages. They were given out free, so what's really the difference?
Regardless of your feelings towards Google, are you really that opposed to the free market that you find reason to rejoice in another example of the EU's leftists, protectionist, anti-business practices? You realize they are also going after Apple, right?
Moron.
Careful, talk like that will get you banned like I was.
That's been going on forever. If a business wanted to stand out it paid for a big listing in the yellow pages. They were given out free, so what's really the difference?
When Google uses its power to promote its own services, then there's a difference.
Google offered to clearly label results that are sponsored, as well as their own promoted services, using different colors and font weights than the other search results. They also said they would offer links to competing services. Since it's not consumers complaining about the search results but instead Microsoft for the most part with Google even offering to list Bing results too, I don't see what the real issue is.
EDIT: According to this article Mr. Almunia got Google to agree to "label those (Google services) results more clearly to show where they come from, while also giving more prominence to links to rival search engines.
It offers third-party websites an easier opt-out from being used in Google services, such as news searches. Google would also no longer include clauses in its agreements requiring exclusivity in online search nor prevent the same campaign being run on other platforms." I wonder if/when the tables are turned if MS would be willing to promote Google services for them. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e52fd8d0-ad9b-11e2-a2c7-00144feabdc0.html
Your emphasizing that consumers aren't complaining is irrelevant. The danger of a search company's ability to manage, manipulate, and control how and what information is present combined with offering services that benefit from high search rankings is obvious, and something consumers might not be aware of (if done properly).
That's been going on forever. If a business wanted to stand out it paid for a big listing in the yellow pages. They were given out free, so what's really the difference?
Huge difference. In the case of the Yellow Pages, it was solely in the business of providing listings. It's not also in the business of say, plumbing repairs, and using it's dominance in the listing business to influence which plumbing repair company you choose by listing it's own plumbing subsidiaries first.
In the case of Google, it's in the business of internet search, but also in the business of news, shopping, advertising, etc. And it's using it's dominance in search to influence people's decisions in the other businesses they're in (by ranking relevant search results at the top).
Google has always had it so that, if you bought advertising from them, you'd get your company shown in a special box alongside the regular search results (clearly marked as sponsored). However, the search results themselves were always solely based on relevancy to the search criteria. Now, the concern is that the results themselves are being biased to direct you to Google-owned (or friendly) content.
Huge difference. In the case of the Yellow Pages, it was solely in the business of providing listings. It's not also in the business of say, plumbing repairs, and using it's dominance in the listing business to influence which plumbing repair company you choose by listing it's own plumbing subsidiaries first.
In the case of Google, it's in the business of internet search, but also in the business of news, shopping, advertising, etc. And it's using it's dominance in search to influence people's decisions in the other businesses they're in (by ranking relevant search results at the top). That's the very definition of antitrust.
Google has always had it so that, if you bought advertising from them, you'd get your company shown in a special box alongside the regular search results (clearly marked as sponsored). However, the search results themselves were always solely based on relevancy to the search criteria. Now, the concern is that the results themselves are being biased to direct you to Google-owned (or friendly) content.
I was making a joke in regard to the "don't be evil" mantra. The concepts of good and evil are meaningless in the world of free market capitalism. What's "evil" one day is a necessary practice to stay competitive the next. Morality is also subjective based on what religion one practices (in this case, the religion of money).
And people of faith who are leaders in corporations which exploit poor labour conditions in developing nations also somehow justify their actions as morally acceptable. Which is why I don't consider morality to be all that relevant in the world of business.
It's relevant, they are just hypocrites, like Google.
Don't be obtuse, it was clear what he was referring to. Google offering a social networking service in competition with Facebook is akin to the Yellow Pages operating a plumbing service in competition with Roto Rooter. In both cases, there'd be a conflict of interest, and it would be wrong if either used their control of the results to promote their own services in a less than transparent way.
Don't be obtuse, it was clear what he was referring to. Google offering a social networking service in competition with Facebook is akin to the Yellow Pages operating a plumbing service in competition with Roto Rooter. In both cases, there'd be a conflict of interest, and it would be wrong if either used their control of the results to promote their own services in a less than transparent way.
The OP used a bad example but even with the yellow pages there were always companies that competed with some of the services that the telcos did, and the telcos always promoted their services prominently in the first few pages while their competition was way back under T.
The OP used a bad example but even with the yellow pages there were always companies that competed with some of the services that the telcos did, and the telcos always promoted their services prominently in the first few pages while their competition was way back under T.
Did anyone of them basically control the market?
Did they clearly identify that try we're advertising their own products?
Did their advertisements look like ads or regular listings?
Considering listings are typically alphabetical, it would be hard for them to secretly manipulate the listings. Not so with Google.
[quote name="notstayinglong" url="/t/158523/eu-regulators-not-satisfied-by-googles-proposed-antitrust-concessions#post_2363284"] Regardless of your feelings towards Google, are you really that opposed to the free market that you find reason to rejoice in another example of the EU's leftists, protectionist, anti-business practices? You realize they are also going after Apple, right?[/QUOTE]
I'll respond by saying that anything bad that happens to Google is a good thing. "Free market". That's a hoot.
You're right that you won't be staying long if you think you can spew that nonsense, by the way.
Comments
Google offered to clearly label results that are sponsored, as well as their own promoted services, using different colors and font weights than the other search results. They also said they would offer links to competing services. Since it's not consumers complaining about the search results but instead Microsoft for the most part with Google even offering to list Bing results too, I don't see what the real issue is.
EDIT: According to this article Mr. Almunia got Google to agree to "label those (Google services) results more clearly to show where they come from, while also giving more prominence to links to rival search engines.
It offers third-party websites an easier opt-out from being used in Google services, such as news searches. Google would also no longer include clauses in its agreements requiring exclusivity in online search nor prevent the same campaign being run on other platforms." I wonder if/when the tables are turned if MS would be willing to promote Google services for them.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e52fd8d0-ad9b-11e2-a2c7-00144feabdc0.html
Yeah, "subjective morals" is probably a misleading term; it is more accurate to say moral judgments applied to actions are subjective. For example: historically, evil people don't go around calling themselves "evil." They believe they are doing the right thing. And they're not saying that to away others: they actually believe it. Just listen to any terrorist argue their moral justification for acts of mass murder. Their judgment is subjective, not the underlying morals.
Sorry to get off topic.
At the moment, no, not with enough details to offer an intelligent answer. I'll look into it later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
That's a dangerous view of morals. Beyond religion, most cultures have basic moral codes, such as condemning murder, stealing, etc.
Justifying everything as "morals are subjective" strikes me as sociopathic.
I know your point was an action taken by a business may be viewed as evil by some, and fine by others. But labeling all morals as subjective is a dangerous path.
Taking it way too far. I was discussing morals as they relate to business practices, which generally doesn't include murder unless we're talking about organized crime (which certainly isn't legitimate business), and are mostly in the subjective/grey area of morality. I'd argue that humanitarianism and altruism are more applicable than morality/good/evil when it comes to guiding business practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Yeah, "subjective morals" is probably a misleading term; it is more accurate to say moral judgments applied to actions are subjective. For example: historically, evil people don't go around calling themselves "evil." They believe they are doing the right thing. And they're not saying that to away others: they actually believe it. Just listen to any terrorist argue their moral justification for acts of mass murder. Their judgment is subjective, not the underlying morals.
And people of faith who are leaders in corporations which exploit poor labour conditions in developing nations also somehow justify their actions as morally acceptable. Which is why I don't consider morality to be all that relevant in the world of business.
Regardless of your feelings towards Google, are you really that opposed to the free market that you find reason to rejoice in another example of the EU's leftists, protectionist, anti-business practices? You realize they are also going after Apple, right?
Moron.
That's been going on forever. If a business wanted to stand out it paid for a big listing in the yellow pages. They were given out free, so what's really the difference?
Careful, talk like that will get you banned like I was.
When Google uses its power to promote its own services, then there's a difference.
Your emphasizing that consumers aren't complaining is irrelevant. The danger of a search company's ability to manage, manipulate, and control how and what information is present combined with offering services that benefit from high search rankings is obvious, and something consumers might not be aware of (if done properly).
Last I checked every telco promoted it's own services in the yellow pages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That's been going on forever. If a business wanted to stand out it paid for a big listing in the yellow pages. They were given out free, so what's really the difference?
Huge difference. In the case of the Yellow Pages, it was solely in the business of providing listings. It's not also in the business of say, plumbing repairs, and using it's dominance in the listing business to influence which plumbing repair company you choose by listing it's own plumbing subsidiaries first.
In the case of Google, it's in the business of internet search, but also in the business of news, shopping, advertising, etc. And it's using it's dominance in search to influence people's decisions in the other businesses they're in (by ranking relevant search results at the top).
Google has always had it so that, if you bought advertising from them, you'd get your company shown in a special box alongside the regular search results (clearly marked as sponsored). However, the search results themselves were always solely based on relevancy to the search criteria. Now, the concern is that the results themselves are being biased to direct you to Google-owned (or friendly) content.
Since when has Google been in plumbing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
I was making a joke in regard to the "don't be evil" mantra. The concepts of good and evil are meaningless in the world of free market capitalism. What's "evil" one day is a necessary practice to stay competitive the next. Morality is also subjective based on what religion one practices (in this case, the religion of money).
I disagree with you on all points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
And people of faith who are leaders in corporations which exploit poor labour conditions in developing nations also somehow justify their actions as morally acceptable. Which is why I don't consider morality to be all that relevant in the world of business.
It's relevant, they are just hypocrites, like Google.
You haven't seen the sh1t they've pulled out?
Don't be obtuse, it was clear what he was referring to. Google offering a social networking service in competition with Facebook is akin to the Yellow Pages operating a plumbing service in competition with Roto Rooter. In both cases, there'd be a conflict of interest, and it would be wrong if either used their control of the results to promote their own services in a less than transparent way.
The OP used a bad example but even with the yellow pages there were always companies that competed with some of the services that the telcos did, and the telcos always promoted their services prominently in the first few pages while their competition was way back under T.
Did anyone of them basically control the market?
Did they clearly identify that try we're advertising their own products?
Did their advertisements look like ads or regular listings?
Considering listings are typically alphabetical, it would be hard for them to secretly manipulate the listings. Not so with Google.
Regardless of your feelings towards Google, are you really that opposed to the free market that you find reason to rejoice in another example of the EU's leftists, protectionist, anti-business practices? You realize they are also going after Apple, right?[/QUOTE]
I'll respond by saying that anything bad that happens to Google is a good thing. "Free market". That's a hoot.
You're right that you won't be staying long if you think you can spew that nonsense, by the way.