loudspeaker - 6:25 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

They created an algorithm that allows people to find websites that contain things they are searching for.

... and introduced a tax on the monetary value of that search so that the bulk of value (if there was any in that person's search) would go to Google. It's essentially a global tax on all commerce levied by one monopolistic entity.

I am not a Google-basher (contrary to what some of my more critical postings would suggest) and I admire their technical skills, math/C.S. pedigree and all. I also don't consider their search engine "nothing". But I do question sometimes the fundamental fairness of this system they are building.

And I certainly get offended when people who dare to disagree with the cheery Google-centric worldview are portrayed - mostly in the tech press - as atavists, idiots, greedy capitalists, control freaks and so on.

First, I think such "criticisms" are incredibly hypocritical (especially the one about greediness). Second, I think the "solutions" proposed (robots.txt etc) are simplistic, not to say idiotic. If we start accepting them as "solutions", so many problems in life should not exist then! The minimum wage? Quit and find another job if you don't like it! Domestic violence? Leave him for somebody else, case closed! Yet we do find it necessary to discuss and regulate many areas of our life where the relationship between two (unequal) parties turns acrimonious.

The fundamental problem in publishers dealing with Google is that they are *not* equals. Think about it, please! NOT EQUALS. Google is a lot more powerful. And therefore, any "reciprocity" in value exchanged (you give us content we give you clicks) is nothing more than an illusion. If you start your own search engine and do something I don't like, I will block *you*. It is fine to use this logic on SMALL THINGS. That's because your search engine is not Google. You can not transplant this logic to gigantic monopolies.