1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Google concludes that search results are protected by First Amendment

By Shawn Knight ยท 9 replies
May 11, 2012
Post New Reply
  1. Google has come to the conclusion that results obtained through search engines are within the provider's First Amendment rights. The proclamation is in response to those that have complained that...

    Read the whole story
  2. insect

    insect TS Evangelist Posts: 349   +132

    "What if Google were to put Zagat reviews, Motorola products and YouTube videos ahead of more relevant results simply because they own those companies?"

    So what if they do? Just means you need to keep in mind the bias when you use the product just as you would when reading a magazine, or even Techspot.

    Google is a for-profit company. It is in their best interest to both put their products first but also not lose customers. If Google stops displaying the "best" results because they want to favor their products (I.e., listing only Zagat rated restaurants in the search results even though there are better restaurants in the search area) then people will catch on and stop using Google in favor of search engines that do give the best results.

    Customers drive decisions. Always. Many people seem to have forgotten this though in various monopoly or anti-trust lawsuits. Rarely is there a monopoly in this day and age (many many companies offer the same products - there is a lot of redundancy in the system), however because "everyone" uses the best people think there is a monopoly. Also, people are lazy and hate to actually look for alternatives (I.e., learning how to use Linux over Windows).
  3. treeski

    treeski TS Evangelist Posts: 1,006   +249

    I would be wary of a non-profit influenced by its sponsors too ;)
  4. gwailo247

    gwailo247 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,007   +18

    You're right in that regard. Pre-Google, everyone had their own favorite search engine. After Google blew up, pretty much everyone used Google and for good reason, their searches were far superior to anything the competition had. Bing basically bought their way into the rankings because so far there is no better mousetrap.
  5. TorturedChaos

    TorturedChaos TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 821   +29

    I agree 100%. People see to forget that all the cooperation do it for one reason: TO MAKE MONEY! They aren't here to be your friend. Only reason they are nice to you is because you pay them money. If they are jerks to you, you will spend your money other places.
    And I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
  6. and you forget that there might not be any "other places" if google has it's way, competition is great for consumers but monopolies and market abuse are not. What if google starts to delete search results so that they work better with their financiel interests. If they are now allowed to prioritize th their liking whos going to stop them from going all the way and start removing links they don't like. The search engine is the key to internet, it decides what you can find and what you can't. Google should not be allowed to prioritize according to their finacial interests because it opens the door to manipulation and later to censorship
  7. Wagan8r

    Wagan8r TS Evangelist Posts: 605   +67

    I totally agree. A company can do with its products what it see fit. If you don't like what they have to offer, go somewhere else.
  8. TJGeezer

    TJGeezer TS Enthusiast Posts: 385   +10

    What if? indeed. Seems to me the real question here is whether Google's search engine is a public utility (I.e. legislated monopoly), from which even-handed treatment for all might reasonably be required, or a private company providing a service competitively. IANAL but seems to me the answer would also have a bearing on whether Google can/should be required to disclose privately held data like a user's search history or email. Not that such basic constitutional questions have much to do with what the government does to its citizens in the U.S. these days. But the current U.S. Corporate Supremes might have something to say about it. Eventually. Maybe.
  9. Ranger12

    Ranger12 TS Evangelist Posts: 620   +122

    Seems to me that the alternative to Google displaying its preferred search results is the Government telling it what it can and can't show. I believe the informed consumer in a free market has more power to effect change than the informed voter can effect governmental change. So I would side with Google on this one. Screw up and I'm ditching you for a better search engine.
  10. MilwaukeeMike

    MilwaukeeMike TS Evangelist Posts: 3,152   +1,411

    Well... you should know that Google's lobbying budget is about $5 million. It's far and away the biggest out there for tech companies. The govt does what google wants, don't kid yourself.

    Here's a good example... We all remember SOPA and the outrage it caused. Web blackouts etc. Google opposed it and the entire internet community followed and it wasn't even voted on. Then CISPA comes along and it makes it easier for companies to share users info. Well google likes that and so we have no blackouts, no protests, and it IS voted on and it PASSES through the house.

    Here's the whole story if you're interested. Explains how google pushes their weight around. http://www.fastcompany.com/1836709/why-no-web-blackout-for-cispa-google-it?partner=gnews\

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...