Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
[edited by: Andy_Langton at 9:33 pm (utc) on May 11, 2016]
[edit reason] Add source [/edit]
More than anything, this is an election year in the USA and the FTC (two Dems and one Rep) will have to face a new administration. If the new one is Dem, then business as usual and no major changes, except for those that fit the social engineering agenda and "free internet" (under govt control, of course).
But let me ask all of you this: If you were the FTC, what would you suggest changing in Google's serps to be more fair?
One simple thing that the FTC could do would be to have Google act like a kind of common carrier with its SERPs and stop it from displaying adverts on the SERPs.
One simple thing that the FTC could do would be to have Google act like a kind of common carrier with its SERPs and stop it from displaying adverts on the SERPs. That "knowlege" graph/Wikipedia scraper and its reframing of website's data as "answers" is clearly and attempt to Yahooicise the SERPs and keep users on the Google properties for as long as possible.
On the buyers side of things, the dominance of the major players (Amazon/Ebay etc), may be leading to a Walled Garden effect of the type that started with Wikipedia.
Google's own properties appearing so high in the SERPs and the crowding out of actual SERPs in favour of adverts should also be investigated.
Do you think labeling Google's properties or their financial interests in other companies would be sufficient to allow consumers to make educated decisions about the search results Google produces by identifying Google's bias in those results? The FTC appears to be fine with labeling ads as ads, and maybe the labeling needs to be expanded.It all depends on how that possible 3 billion Euro fine (approximately US $3.4 billion) works out. By having the European Commission do the dirty work, it would make it a lot easier for the FTC to move against Google as it would already have been charged and fined for this activity. What Google is effectively doing with crowding out the organic SERPs is turning the front page of some SERPs into a rigged Pay For Position search engine. Attacking on this point might be a lot easier for the FTC and since organic SERPs are effectively been crowded out, the whole First Amendment protection (a highly dubious position given that advertising is involved) is a lot more difficult to use as a defence. Highlighting business connections or making these connections visible in SERPs may not work for Google.
One method, not likely to happen, is to break g into geo-specific companies, ie, US, UK, De, Fr, etc.For the EU? Part of the problem is that revenue is being booked through some of Google's companies in these countries but not being taxed at the normal rates in order to avoid paying US corporation tax rates.
By having the European Commission do the dirty work, it would make it a lot easier for the FTC to move against Google as it would already have been charged and fined for this activity.
the whole First Amendment protection (a highly dubious position given that advertising is involved)
When the scales tip, then the FTC might have no choice.If that EU fine goes ahead, the FTC has about 3.4 billion reasons to reopen the investigation. Google already has form with being nailed for a US $500 million settlement for drug dealing.
The only people who are okay with the Google practices are those who are still profiting in their web ventures.
A project examining White House visitor logs shows the Obama administration has extended an open door to Google.
Johanna Shelton, Google’s director of public policy — in effect, the company’s top lobbyist — has visited White House officials 128 times since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.
To put that in perspective, senior lobbyists for other companies in the telecommunications and cable industry — including Comcast, Facebook, Amazon, Oracle and Verizon — have visited the White House a combined 124 times in the same span. (That data goes through October 2015.)
To be clear, what has happened here is that the Florida trial court has allowed the plaintiff’s case to survive Google’s motion to dismiss at the beginning of the case.
