PDA

View Full Version : Search Neutrality?



HappinessNow
December 29th, 2009, 07:06 AM
What are thoughts on this concept? I think such regulation is a bad thing.

reference: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/29/010216/The-Need-For-Search-Neutrality

lykwydchykyn
December 29th, 2009, 07:14 AM
I'd prefer to see some kind of "unbiased search" certification which search engines could voluntarily apply for. It would be a great way for those who want neutrality in searching to find a good engine.

Legislation seems unrealistic, especially when search algorithms are trade secrets.

Exodist
December 29th, 2009, 07:24 AM
What are thoughts on this concept? I think such regulation is a bad thing.

reference: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/29/010216/The-Need-For-Search-Neutrality
Not sure, I mean if you want your information on TV you have to pay for it. Also google doesnt charge nearly as much to have your site as a premier site, compared to 10secs or TV air time. It just list it at the top of the screen just right above the non paid searches.

I am all for Net Neutrality, but search neutrality may be taking it a bit to far. There has to be balance.

HappinessNow
December 29th, 2009, 07:29 AM
I am all for Net Neutrality, but search neutrality may be taking it a bit to far. There has to be balance.Agreed.

Gizenshya
December 29th, 2009, 08:13 AM
^^^ I agree as well.

As long as tey aren't censoring, that is. But they should have free reign to move them around as they wish, as long as they show which are paid and which are based on results.

Google has censored two sites that I know of after a simple suggestions that politicians made about appropriateness. One is wikileaks.org, and the other is liveleak (dot com I think?). They added both back pretty quickly after they were called out on it. But it makes you wonder what other sites they have censored for political reasons.

starcannon
December 29th, 2009, 08:39 AM
I am all for Net Neutrality, but search neutrality may be taking it a bit to far. There has to be balance.
I just ran into this on StumbleUpon; I +1 Exodist, and will post what I reviewed as well:


Write your own search engine. If it is better than what is available, you will become rich. After your making bazillions of dollars, it is up to you to keep your search engine "neutral". I am a FULL ON supporter of Net Neutrality, but this is just stupid; this is definitely an area where free enterprise can fix the problem(if indeed there is one).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html?_r=2

HappinessNow
December 29th, 2009, 08:41 AM
I just ran into this on StumbleUpon; I +1 Exodist, and will post what I reviewed as well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html?_r=2
There seems like there would already be a neutral, perhaps Open Source search engine already out there?

joey-elijah
December 29th, 2009, 04:55 PM
I am all for Net Neutrality, but search neutrality may be taking it a bit to far. There has to be balance.

Search neutrality wouldn't be taking it "too far" at all - how is protecting the right to free-speech and free access of ALL information with no outside influence taking things "too far"?

Surely third-parties bribing search chiefs or Microsoft deciding to remove all Linux results from Bing would be taking things "too far" - and that's what this proposal is about stopping.

Of course, it'll never see the light of day, just like net neutrality won't - because the big corporations can make more money out of restricting access than they can from letting it pass freely.

I'm always reminded of this: -

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/10/500x_netneut_01.jpg

madnessjack
December 29th, 2009, 05:05 PM
I think Google does a good job at getting my results right. It biases them because it knows more than I do what I'm looking for.

alphaniner
December 29th, 2009, 05:13 PM
Search neutrality wouldn't be taking it "too far" at all - how is protecting the right to free-speech and free access of ALL information with no outside influence taking things "too far"?

Search Neutrality has even less to do with free speech than Net Neutrality does. And that's an accomplishment.

doas777
December 29th, 2009, 05:31 PM
I think such regulation is a bad thing.


basically the neutrality arguments boil down to a single question; who will you prefer give your soul/future to: governments or corporations?

personally i would much prefer the FCC create rules that constrain companies, to ensure my freedom as a consumer, than I would have a "hands-off" FCC, that allows corporations to rob me any way they can.


Now, Wikipedia, Exclusively for AT&T Platinum Enhanced Customers (additional fees may apply. Access to Slashdot.org is in violation of Terms of Services).

Oxford English Dictionary, now Exclusively searchable via Microsofts' Bing!

personally i find demographic governments much easier to influence and obtain redress from, than multi-national mega-corps.

Hyporeal
December 29th, 2009, 05:32 PM
I think companies that offer a web search should deliver a web search, not a list of sites that have paid the company. As long as everyone understands which sites are actual search results and which are paid advertisements there shouldn't be a problem. This could easily be accomplished by making a clearly labeled "advertisement" section with links formatted such that they could not possibly be mistaken for actual results.

alphaniner
December 29th, 2009, 05:40 PM
basically the neutrality arguments boil down to a single question; who will you prefer give your soul/future to: governments or corporations?

Why should I fight for the entity who wishes to take my soul? What about a future where I get to keep it? Legislation like this always ends up either being abused by the government, or benefiting the corporations it intends to control, or both.

doas777
December 29th, 2009, 05:49 PM
Why should I fight for the entity who wishes to take my soul? What about a future where I get to keep it? Legislation like this always ends up either being abused by the government, or benefiting the corporations it intends to control, or both.
well that would be anarchy, which is alot like workgroups: it's a good idea, but it just doesn't scale.

alphaniner
December 29th, 2009, 06:10 PM
well that would be anarchy, which is alot like workgroups: it's a good idea, but it just doesn't scale.

I'm not an advocate of anarchy, but of clearly and strictly limited government. And I don't see a basis for Net Neutrality in the document that defines my government.

doas777
December 29th, 2009, 06:19 PM
I'm not an advocate of anarchy, but of clearly and strictly limited government. And I don't see a basis for Net Neutrality in the document that defines my government.
a limited govt results in a vacuum of authority, and history has always shown us that people will struggle to fill that vacuum. in this case it is the megacorps that taken power in the wake of the US lack of financial/business regulation. a limited govt grants increasing power to the strong, and increasing weakness to the weak. not the way I want to live.
Private institutions that can discriminate and otherwise persue their own unenlightened self interest at the expense of the public interest, are a no replacement for public institutions that are answerable to the people.

also after the last 10 years, I've realized that anyone in power that says they want limited government, only wants it when they themselves are not in power. after that, it's all federation, and trumping states rights, until they are back out of power again.

i saw a wallstreeter on TV the other week, claiming that we didn't need financial regulatory reform, because he could give us the names of the 25-35 people that caused the entire global financial meltdown last year. as John Stewart pointed out quite correctly, this guy is saying that 25 folks were able to bring down the global economy, and that is an argument against regulation?!?