EU Votes To Split Up Google's Services

[nonstop]

---

System: The following 3 messages were cut out of thread at: http://www.webmasterworld.com/goog/4717759.htm [webmasterworld.com] by engine - 2:45 pm on Nov 27, 2014 (utc 0)

---

the EU is the largest economy in the world

[en.wikipedia.org...]

and the EU have just voted to break up Google

[bbc.co.uk...]

the EU are applying their panda update... there maybe turbulent results now for Google.

like the web spammers, google have tried to game the tax system and over advertise their own services, this was bad for users, An algo refresh is needed

[edited by: nonstop at 2:06 pm (utc) on Nov 27, 2014]

[Wilburforce]

I hope you're not selling widgets because tomorrow google will be selling widgets

"Reductio ad absurdum" arguments don't necessarily work here (and, paradoxically, governments would probably be less concerned if it was that flagrant): if all Google displays is Google products, the public will desert them. At the moment I think it is more a case of what they can get away with without making it too obvious to the searcher, which is one reason why governments - properly in my view, and not just in Europe - are looking at the question more closely.

[heisje]

Reductio ad absurdum

Hocus pocus paparocus . . . . :)

.

[Samizdata]

So all of this boils down to whether or not the government should control search.

Ah, the Chinese model. Imagine it in a democracy.

When the BigEndians were in power, the SERPs would naturally contain no criticism of them at all. And when the LittleEndians got elected, the position would immediately be reversed.

Factor in the "Right to be Forgotten" - which would allow politicians to airbrush history on an industrial scale - and the people of Europe would soon be heading for the overseas versions en masse to get uncensored results.

Until the Great Firewall of Europe was implemented, of course.

I would rather the politicians devoted their energies to extracting a reasonable amount of tax out of the global corporations and used it to benefit the people they supposedly represent.

But I don't really expect that to happen, either.

...

[heisje]

Ah, the Chinese model

It would be useful and more productive in this discussion if people tried to distinguish and could see the difference between the policies of a third-world dictatorship and those of a coalition of 28 European democracies. Elementary knowledge, I believe.

.

[Samizdata]

Elementary knowledge, I believe.

Indeed.

But it's not me who is advocating government control of search, is it?

...

[heisje]

The future of indexing & searching the "web" should not be viewed in absolute terms of black or white, i.e. either total "regulation" (control, China) or total "Far West" (kill them all, U.S.A.). Europe feels a more "european" approach of nuanced regulation (like in other EU sectors) is more appropriate for the protection of the citizen, consumer and small business, as well as innovation & quality - meaning shades of gray rather than black or white, as is evident from the kind of language used in the EU Parliament's resolution addressed to the EU Commission.

Most Europeans do not believe in sacrificing liberties and democracy to innovation. A balanced approach between the two, allowing both to flourish, has mostly been the norm.

.

[edited by: heisje at 10:26 pm (utc) on Dec 2, 2014]

[londrum]

i would quite like to see a search engine that forgets about "rankings". It could just spider all of the sites, and then let users filter them according to stuff like size, age, backlinks, traffic, location, ads on the page, images on the page, shared server, etc... things that can be directly measured. And bring back keywords too -- proper keyword measurement. Let people filter sites by which words are actually on the page.

There would be no attempt by the search engine to rank sites according to their own criteria. They would just let the users do it all by themselves, by letting them filter their search. It would be like a searchable database of websites.

Trying to say which site is better for someone is pretty impossible anyway, when you think about it... given peoples differing tastes and needs.

I want a search engine that is much more like a telephone directory. A totally unbiased and plain list of websites

[heisje]

i would quite like to see a search engine that forgets about "rankings"

This approach while desirable is utopian. The main investment at a SE goes to "indexing & storing" data. This, to be viable and innovative, needs the stages of "retrieval & display", where advertising may be sold and support financially, in its turn, the whole operation, including R&D (innovation).

I believe, if split, a SE will not be allowed to keep any activities other than search and advertising, under mild regulation.

.

[brotherhood of LAN]

It's a nice idea londrum, you could crowdsource elements of 'your' algo too, if it's entirely subjective then it may as well be your choice of whose opinion it'll be.

Precision and recall are the basic metrics that the index needs to worry about. It seems we'd even be hard pushed to get mutual agreement on what words you're querying for, due to the mish-mash of synonyms that are returned currently.

[Samizdata]

utopian

There is no more Utopian concept than an unbiased and non-invasive government-controlled search engine.

The potential for surveillance, censorship and propaganda would be irresistible to politicians.

Forget Thomas More, try George Orwell.

Or Edward Snowden.

...

[seoskunk]

Or Edward Snowden

Did you actually read what he said Samizdata?

If so wouldn't you agree surveillance, censorship and propaganda has already proved too irresistible for politicians?

The National Security Agency paid millions of dollars to cover the costs of major internet companies involved in the Prism surveillance program after a court ruled that some of the agency's activities were unconstitutional, according to top-secret material passed to the Guardian.

The technology companies, which the NSA says includes Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook...

Source: [theguardian.com...]

[heisje]

There is no more Utopian concept than an unbiased and non-invasive government-controlled search engine. The potential for surveillance, censorship and propaganda would be irresistible to politicians.

Remember : the EU is not the USA, China or Iran. The European Union is comprised of 28 very diverse countries, with democratically elected governments, each one possessing veto power, none of which has by itself any significant power over Europe as a whole. The EU Commission can only act, on anything at all, only by consent and approval of all 28 country Parliaments and Governments. This apparent "straightjacket", while slowing down pace of action, is consciously built to safeguard against any remote chance of abuse - such as "the potential for surveillance, censorship and propaganda". This is why none such thing has happened in the 60 years since its inception, neither is it ever going to happen.

.

[Samizdata]

Did you actually read what he said Samizdata?

I did, but in case you didn't, here it is again:

If the choice, in Europe, is between:

1.- Search regulated by Google (and Bing)
2.- Search regulated by the consensus of the 28 European countries (such as UK, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Czech Rep., Luxemburg, and so forth)

Read my lips : bye Google

Tech companies harvest data to target advertising at you, but you can ignore the ads (or use a blocker).

Governments harvest data for other reasons, and there is no opt out.

wouldn't you agree surveillance, censorship and propaganda has already proved too irresistible for politicians?

I not only agree, it was the very point I was making.

...

[seoskunk]

Ah ok I meant Snowden when I asked if you read what he said.

Putin thinks the whole #*$! internet is a CIA project. I think I agree with him, no point changing internet search to governments, they already have control.

That's why Google was blocked from buying Yandex (Russian Search Engine) and Badiu is protected by China.

Maybe EU want their own search so they don't have to pay American SE's to snoop?

[Samizdata]

built to safeguard against any remote chance of abuse - such as "the potential for surveillance, censorship and propaganda". This is why none such thing has happened in the 60 years since its inception, neither is it ever going to happen.

You might wish to acquaint yourself with GCHQ's Tempora system, amongst others.

Jan Philipp Albrecht, German Member of the European Parliament and spokesperson for Justice and Home Affairs of the Greens/EFA parliamentary group, called for an infringement procedure against the United Kingdom for having violated its obligations relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data under Article 16 of the Treaties of the European Union.

Nothing will happen, of course, because other EU governments do much the same.

"Mother, should I trust the government?"

...

[seoskunk]

Remember : the EU is not the USA, China or Iran. The European Union is comprised of 28 very diverse countries, with democratically elected governments, each one possessing veto power, none of which has by itself any significant power over Europe as a whole. The EU Commission can only act, on anything at all, only by consent and approval of all 28 country Parliaments and Governments. This apparent "straightjacket", while slowing down pace of action, is consciously built to safeguard against any remote chance of abuse - such as "the potential for surveillance, censorship and propaganda". This is why none such thing has happened in the 60 years since its inception, neither is it ever going to happen.

The EU is run by a block vote of international members sharing the same ideological delusion with dubious claims of democratic election, they are a thoroughly corrupt and inane organisation.

[IanKelley]

is consciously built to safeguard against any remote chance of abuse - such as "the potential for surveillance, censorship and propaganda". This is why none such thing has happened in the 60 years since its inception, neither is it ever going to happen.

What am I missing here? Do you sincerely believe that for the last 60 years there has been no digital surveillance in the EU?

[heisje]

It is disappointing (to say the least) how very little people outside the EU know abut the EU - even so they are so opinionated about what is happening in Europe. Regrettably, seems they have not even a remote conception of the real diversity that exists in the 28 countries comprising Europe, their governments, and the EU Commission - with all 24 official languages of the EU being accepted as working languages! And how anti-monolithic the EU is compared to other countries.

A good comprehension of what the EU actually is (it's history, structure and culture) is needed to comprehend the resolution of the EU Parliament on internet search.


.

[Samizdata]

I meant Snowden when I asked if you read what he said.

Well I didn't read it all, but this quote is surely pertinent:

"It's not just a U.S. problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight...They [GCHQ] are worse than the U.S."

The UK was (still) in the EU, last time I checked. And while I am no fan of tech corporations, I don't see them as willing partners in this skullduggery (they only care about money, not thought crime).

The companies are forbidden to reveal the existence of warrants compelling them to allow GCHQ access to the cables. If the companies fail to comply they can be compelled to do so.

Sourced from Wikipedia.

...

[seoskunk]

A good comprehension of what the EU actually is (it's history, structure and culture) is needed to comprehend the resolution of the EU Parliament on internet search.

I have said what they are, a corrupt inept dubiously elected bunch of ... that block vote based on a shared misguided ideology.


On surveillance there a happy exchange between Europe and US, Europe(UK mainly) does all the illegal surveillance for the US and the US does the illegal surveillance for Europe

[Wilburforce]

I'm not sure why anyone should believe that "state control" will turn search engines into some sort of Orwellian propaganda machine, or make internet use any more of a surveillance opportunity than it is already.

There are already statutory provisions in most nation states and the EU as a whole governing not only the nature (NOT the explicit content) of what you can and can't say in advertisements, but almost every area of commercial and private activity. The vote was not to place search provision in the hands of the state, but to look at ways of bringing search engines into line with existing EU competition law. Google's current position is in breach of that law, and that might have gone on being overlooked if there were not mounting concerns - why would a lawyer representing EU publishers not be among those concerned? - that Google had been abusing its market dominance.

From almost any perspective, having a single supplier controlling 90% of any market is undesirable, and I still haven't seen any argument here to counter that view. It really doesn't matter how good they are: if nobody looks anywhere else, I cannot advertise anywhere else; if nobody advertises anywhere else, I cannot find what I need anywhere else. The argument, surely, should be about why this should be allowed to continue, not about what is wrong with a democtratic legislative body wishing to prevent it.

[Jack_Hughes]

A search engine as conceived by @londrum would be a brilliant idea. Think of the inovation that could happen as people were able to curate ranking factors for their own niche building a really targetted search engine.

[Samizdata]

The vote was not to place search provision in the hands of the state

Correct, but we have been countering posts which advocate doing exactly that.

having a single supplier controlling 90% of any market is undesirable

WebmasterWorld members have been agreeing for years that Google needs competition.

Microsoft has massive resources and advantages, and MSN/Bing predates Google.

The trouble is that consumers, especially in Europe, don't want to use it.

How do you propose legislating for that?

...

[heisje]

@Wilburforce : finally some sense here, like a breath of fresh air, after so much . . . . . . .

.

[Wilburforce]

The trouble is that consumers, especially in Europe, don't want to use it.

How do you propose legislating for that?

Although legislation has a long way to go to catch up with the legal and social implications of the internet, I think, rather, it is a case of how we implement the existing competition legislation that applies here.

That, on its own, isn't an easy task: as you point out, you can't force searchers to look elsewhere; however, you can at least make it easier, and make the hidden costs (Google's monetisation) more transparent and less intrusive.

As a start, forcibly unbundling some of Google's various products might at least lessen their predominance. Practical and enforceable measures might include:

1. Banning product bundling in Android, Chrome, etc. (this approach was applied by the EU against Microsoft);

2. Separating the search engine from revenue-generating business (e.g. by banning direct or PPC advertising in organic results pages, so that "see advertised results" took you to a separate page, or by requiring an advertisement-free option to be made readily available).

I think measures like this are probably not, in the medium term, all that unlikely.

[nonstop]

more bad news for Google, the UK has just announced a "google tax" of 25% for any activity in the UK. This will stop Google from sending sales to Ireland where they pay only 12.5% (or less) tax.

this will also apply to Amazon, Apple etc...

[theverge.com...]

[superclown2]

Separating the search engine from revenue-generating business (e.g. by banning direct or PPC advertising in organic results pages, so that "see advertised results" took you to a separate page, or by requiring an advertisement-free option to be made readily available).

Wow.

We'd all make a fortune, until Google went bust.

We'd then have to start all over again, with another greedy search engine running the show.

I wonder how many people on here remember the pre-Google days? Overture ads dominating the SERPs, not marked as ads. Yahoo demanding 300 bucks just to consider listing your site. Looksmart charging for every click. Battling to get your site seen amongst a deluge of spam sites. Optimising it for a dozen different search engines with a dozen different algos. Pleading with dmoz editors to please, please take a look at the site that you've submitted six times already. Then a couple of guys came along who didn't charge us anything and worked hard at filtering out the garbage.

I really hope that no-one in the European Parliament really wants to wreck Google. Stop their abusive practices, make them pay a fair amount of tax, and enforce our existing privacy laws? Yes please. Any more than that and we could face chaos.

[nomis5]

Many consumers simply don't know how to change to anything else, many don't know there is an alternative to G. And G is making full use of that ignorance. In my opinion that is a very dangerous situation for consumers to be in.

[londrum]

I was watching my mother on the computer the other day ordering christmas presents. She knew she wanted to go to amazon but instead of just typing "amazon" she typed "google" instead, and then typed amazon into google.
The only way that she knows to visit sites is to go via google. I'm sure a lot of people think the same way

[nonstop]

Then a couple of guys came along who didn't charge us anything and worked hard at filtering out the garbage.

lol it took just 2 guys to fix it?

don't worry the precious 'do no evil' google won't go bust, goldman sachs won't allow it... well unless something better comes along that they can make money from.

by the way... Google has just overtaken goldman sachs in political donations.

Google has surpassed Goldman Sachs as a US political donor in a sign of Silicon Valley’s increasingly assertive efforts to shape policy and counter critical scrutiny in Washington.

source: ft.com

I don't think Google is the company most people think they are. They don't care one bit about you, your jobs, your families or the countries that they operate in. They only care about making more and more money, its time google started living up to it's social responsibilities.