Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Internet Policy] - Restricting the series of tubes

2456761

Posts

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Oh come on, there is no provision for AWP camping in those laws.

    Mostly what I object to is Hedgie saying that you have to build on centuries of established precedent.

    Not every bloody time. Maybe it is best this time, but it rankles as a statement of generalized principle.

    spool32 wrote:
    he pops this cobalt blue tetrahedron like he's thought of something. I'm like son, you know that's just a reskinned fireball, right?
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Oh come on, there is no provision for AWP camping in those laws.

    Mostly what I object to is Hedgie saying that you have to build on centuries of established precedent.

    Not every bloody time. Maybe it is best this time, but it rankles as a statement of generalized principle.

    Why?

    We've tried it your way, and what winds up happening is that you get a free for all that winds up benefiting the powerful and well positioned. For example, we would be a lot better off vis a vis privacy if we had just extended existing principles of property law online instead of trying to create new norms.

    Again, as I said before, in the most technical of senses, you don't have to build on existing precedent. It's just that when you do, you tend to be on much more solid ground.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    AiouaCorehealerJeep-EepzagdrobElvenshae
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Dac wrote: »
    That seems to be what telecom corporations would like to do, if they could. But I'm not entirely sure they would be able to get away with it.

    If they seriously tried I imagine Google would just say "fuck it" and run parallel wires everywhere and put them out of business, probably with government subsidies.

    It'd be a shitty 20 years while that happened, though.

    sig.png
    Elvenshae
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx And I said, hol up Registered User regular
    Because Google being in charge of the Internet is totally not going to be a bad idea.

    Make. Time.
    AngelHedgieTL DRCururuJeep-EepshrykeKnight_PLADoctorArchDacSkeithzagdrobCorehealerCaulk Bite 6Man in the MistsNiceguyeddie616JusticeforPlutoElvenshaeLord_Asmodeuskaorti
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Honestly what I think needs to happen is regulation of Internet carriers, landline and wireless, as common carriers, then also have a repeat of what happened to Bell

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Honestly what I think needs to happen is regulation of Internet carriers, landline and wireless, as common carriers, then also have a repeat of what happened to Bell

    So...do give it all to Google?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Honestly what I think needs to happen is regulation of Internet carriers, landline and wireless, as common carriers, then also have a repeat of what happened to Bell

    The Bell breakup was a bad idea. We were better off treating telephony as a tightly regulated natural monopoly.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    shrykezagdrobSpoit
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Well, it was better than letting Bell run roughshod.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Well, it was better than letting Bell run roughshod.

    The courts had already begun to rein them in by the 80s. I think it's telling that the company that precipitated the breakup ultimately collapsed in a flaming wreckage of corruption.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • XixXix Miami/LosAngeles/MoscowRegistered User regular
    edited January 2014
    Google's mission is to organize all the worlds data.

    If Google ran its own wires, does that mean someday, Google could become the internet, and ultimately organize all data? Would this be the climax of Google as a company? Would ISPs shut down for good?

    Would this be dystopian?

    Xix on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Xix wrote: »
    Google's mission is to organize all the worlds data.

    If Google ran its own wires, does that mean someday, Google could become the internet, and ultimately organize all data? Would this be the climax of Google as a company? Would ISPs shut down for good?

    Would this be dystopian?

    Yes. Very. This is basically The Plot To Every Cyberpunk Story Ever.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • jeffinvajeffinva Koogler coming this summerRegistered User regular
    What's up with our courts being whores to corporate interests lately anyways.

    STEAM_0:1:18117820, Twitch: puulse, PSN: Jeff_en-la-boca, Nintendo: jeffinva
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    jeffinva wrote: »
    What's up with our courts being whores to corporate interests lately anyways.

    And how were the courts doing that? The FCC created a blatantly flawed regulation regime, the courts struck it down because of those flaws.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Elvenshae
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx And I said, hol up Registered User regular
    Did anyone post the video of Shep Smith calling the anti net neutrality guy a corporate shill?

    Oh its glorious.

    Make. Time.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Net Neutrality is good. It's just that the Net Neutrality supporters (which are funded by ISPs) tapped into a very good way of selling their schtick by characterizing it as the government intervening in the internet, when the reality is it would be the government intervening to keep things the way they are.

    There was a weird period where basically they were painting net neutrality as like, an internet version of the fairness doctrine.

    It made no sense, had nothing to do with the actual issue and seems to have faded from public discourse.

    [also if you want I made a Internet Policy/Net Neutrality thread a couple days ago where we're talking about the recent court ruling and FCC stuff :o ]

    Pretty much this. The net neutrality folks haven't had a really consistent argument. It also doesn't help that they've been easily punked by companies trying to use them as useful idiots - the whole Level 3/Netflix fiasco is a good example of that.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Hedge are we talking abuot teh same Net Neutrality "folks"?

    Because the ones [supporters of Net Neutrality] I'm thinking of have always been fairly consistent regarding what Net Neutrality means [the inability of ISPs to block or discriminate against access to legal content on the internet, typically with the goal of promoting their own services or increasing profits by charging extra fees]

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Elvenshae
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Hedge are we talking abuot teh same Net Neutrality "folks"?

    Because the ones [supporters of Net Neutrality] I'm thinking of have always been fairly consistent regarding what Net Neutrality means [the inability of ISPs to block or discriminate against access to legal content on the internet, typically with the goal of promoting their own services or increasing profits by charging extra fees]

    Yes, because I remember getting absolutely exasperated over their trying to tie the Level 3 gooseshit into their arguments. While they might be consistent about the overarching goal, they aren't so good at the details.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    Why don't you remind us of the "Level 3 gooseshit" that you're speaking of.

    Last "internet freedomz!" thing I remember was when Wikipedia, et. al. went "dark" for a day because of SOPA/PIPA which seemed to go pretty well, but is not what you're talking about.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Why don't you remind us of the "Level 3 gooseshit" that you're speaking of.

    Last "internet freedomz!" thing I remember was when Wikipedia, et. al. went "dark" for a day because of SOPA/PIPA which seemed to go pretty well, but is not what you're talking about.

    Basically, Level 3 was abusing peering arrangements to break into the CDN market, and then using the net neutrality folks to forestall the other Tier 1 providers from enforcing their reprocity clauses.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • XixXix Miami/LosAngeles/MoscowRegistered User regular
    Xix wrote: »
    Google's mission is to organize all the worlds data.

    If Google ran its own wires, does that mean someday, Google could become the internet, and ultimately organize all data? Would this be the climax of Google as a company? Would ISPs shut down for good?

    Would this be dystopian?

    Yes. Very. This is basically The Plot To Every Cyberpunk Story Ever.

    Fuck Google!!!!

  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    That is not very constructive.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Xix wrote: »
    Xix wrote: »
    Google's mission is to organize all the worlds data.

    If Google ran its own wires, does that mean someday, Google could become the internet, and ultimately organize all data? Would this be the climax of Google as a company? Would ISPs shut down for good?

    Would this be dystopian?

    Yes. Very. This is basically The Plot To Every Cyberpunk Story Ever.

    Fuck Google!!!!

    It's worth remembering, especially in light of the point that access to smaller, less known websites is threatened by no net neutrality, that about a month ago, Google demonstrated that they can effectively wipe a website off the face of the internet all by themselves.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Xix wrote: »
    Xix wrote: »
    Google's mission is to organize all the worlds data.

    If Google ran its own wires, does that mean someday, Google could become the internet, and ultimately organize all data? Would this be the climax of Google as a company? Would ISPs shut down for good?

    Would this be dystopian?

    Yes. Very. This is basically The Plot To Every Cyberpunk Story Ever.

    Fuck Google!!!!

    It's worth remembering, especially in light of the point that access to smaller, less known websites is threatened by no net neutrality, that about a month ago, Google demonstrated that they can effectively wipe a website off the face of the internet all by themselves.

    I missed that. What did they do?

    sig.gif
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Xix wrote: »
    Xix wrote: »
    Google's mission is to organize all the worlds data.

    If Google ran its own wires, does that mean someday, Google could become the internet, and ultimately organize all data? Would this be the climax of Google as a company? Would ISPs shut down for good?

    Would this be dystopian?

    Yes. Very. This is basically The Plot To Every Cyberpunk Story Ever.

    Fuck Google!!!!

    It's worth remembering, especially in light of the point that access to smaller, less known websites is threatened by no net neutrality, that about a month ago, Google demonstrated that they can effectively wipe a website off the face of the internet all by themselves.

    I missed that. What did they do?

    Demoted Rap Genius in PageRank due to SEO. The traffic report for them shows it all:

    k-medium.png

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Xix wrote: »
    Xix wrote: »
    Google's mission is to organize all the worlds data.

    If Google ran its own wires, does that mean someday, Google could become the internet, and ultimately organize all data? Would this be the climax of Google as a company? Would ISPs shut down for good?

    Would this be dystopian?

    Yes. Very. This is basically The Plot To Every Cyberpunk Story Ever.

    Fuck Google!!!!

    It's worth remembering, especially in light of the point that access to smaller, less known websites is threatened by no net neutrality, that about a month ago, Google demonstrated that they can effectively wipe a website off the face of the internet all by themselves.

    I missed that. What did they do?

    Demoted Rap Genius in PageRank due to SEO. The traffic report for them shows it all:

    k-medium.png

    Luckily they reversed it though. After rapgenius spoke to them and deleted all the fake links and Google put them back up. It is by far the best site in it's category.

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2014
    In that case though rap genius was perpetrating page ranking shenanigans, and hand correcting the algorithim is about the only tool in google's box to do something about that.

    Edit: And at any rate, google pretty much used that power effectively to get RG attention.

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    In that case though rap genius was perpetrating page ranking shenanigans, and hand correcting the algorithim is about the only tool in google's box to do something about that.

    Edit: And at any rate, google pretty much used that power effectively to get RG attention.

    And that should make me feel comfortable...why, exactly? A lot of the defense of Google's actions boils down to:

    1. PageRank is their baby to do with as they please, and
    2. Trust Google (even though they refuse to disclose any details of how they make these evaluations).

    I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable with that.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Are there any search engines which don't do that?

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    Elvenshae
  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    edited January 2014
    In that case though rap genius was perpetrating page ranking shenanigans, and hand correcting the algorithim is about the only tool in google's box to do something about that.

    Edit: And at any rate, google pretty much used that power effectively to get RG attention.

    And that should make me feel comfortable...why, exactly? A lot of the defense of Google's actions boils down to:

    1. PageRank is their baby to do with as they please, and
    2. Trust Google (even though they refuse to disclose any details of how they make these evaluations).

    I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable with that.

    And what is your solution? Google should be forced to not be able to manage their own site/results?

    They own PageRank, it's their site. If someone is abusing their algorithm, should they not have recourse against that party?

    And even then, it's not as if they specifically removed the site from the internet (removed its DNS entries or blocked resolution at the IP level). They essentially stopped printing them in their phone book, there are still other phone books out there.

    Roz on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Roz wrote: »
    In that case though rap genius was perpetrating page ranking shenanigans, and hand correcting the algorithim is about the only tool in google's box to do something about that.

    Edit: And at any rate, google pretty much used that power effectively to get RG attention.

    And that should make me feel comfortable...why, exactly? A lot of the defense of Google's actions boils down to:

    1. PageRank is their baby to do with as they please, and
    2. Trust Google (even though they refuse to disclose any details of how they make these evaluations).

    I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable with that.

    And what is your solution? Google should be forced to not be able to manage their own site/results?

    They own PageRank, it's their site. If someone is abusing their algorithm, should they not have recourse against that party?

    And even then, it's not as if they specifically removed the site from the internet (removed its DNS entries or blocked resolution at the IP level). They essentially stopped printing them in their phone book, there are still other phone books out there.

    And what is your solution? Verizon should not be allowed to manage their own network?

    They own the physical wires, it's their network. If someone is abusing their systems, should they not have recourse against that party?

    And even then, it's not as if they specifically removed the site from the internet (removed its DNS entries or blocked resolution at the IP level). They essentially stopped giving them preference on their network, there are still other networks out there.

    None of you would accept that as a legitimate argument for Verizon (or any other ISP) manipulating their network traffic as they see fit.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited January 2014
    The difference is that you can easily use another search engine. Trvially, just change the default search engine for your browser and bam the magic search boxes go elsewhere. Or just not use it at all and go directly to the site. Which you can't if your ISP is making it too slow to be useful. And switching ISPs is not easy, if it's even possible

    Also, infrastructure vs service

    Phyphor on
    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    SurfpossumJuliusSummaryJudgmentLostNinjaCaulk Bite 6Man in the MistsSkeithTubularLuggageShadowhopeApothe0sisJusticeforPlutoKamarDelphinidaesElvenshaeshoeboxjeddyLord_Asmodeus
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Roz wrote: »
    In that case though rap genius was perpetrating page ranking shenanigans, and hand correcting the algorithim is about the only tool in google's box to do something about that.

    Edit: And at any rate, google pretty much used that power effectively to get RG attention.

    And that should make me feel comfortable...why, exactly? A lot of the defense of Google's actions boils down to:

    1. PageRank is their baby to do with as they please, and
    2. Trust Google (even though they refuse to disclose any details of how they make these evaluations).

    I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable with that.

    And what is your solution? Google should be forced to not be able to manage their own site/results?

    They own PageRank, it's their site. If someone is abusing their algorithm, should they not have recourse against that party?

    And even then, it's not as if they specifically removed the site from the internet (removed its DNS entries or blocked resolution at the IP level). They essentially stopped printing them in their phone book, there are still other phone books out there.

    And what is your solution? Verizon should not be allowed to manage their own network?

    They own the physical wires, it's their network. If someone is abusing their systems, should they not have recourse against that party?

    And even then, it's not as if they specifically removed the site from the internet (removed its DNS entries or blocked resolution at the IP level). They essentially stopped giving them preference on their network, there are still other networks out there.

    None of you would accept that as a legitimate argument for Verizon (or any other ISP) manipulating their network traffic as they see fit.

    The fact that only Verizon has a wire into my home kind of explodes this argument.

    The discriminating nature of the search results against SEO is part of the value add that Google is about for users.

    If I couldn't type in a bing.com and search you might have a point with this line of argument. This is different than the line of argument about Google having an overbearing market share that controls such an enormous level of power.

    RozPLAApothe0sisElvenshaeLord_Asmodeus
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    What I'm understanding from the admittedly brief information presented in the thread is that Rap Genius was abusing Google, by committing some kind of PageRank shenanigans to boost their results, so Google punished them by manually removing them from the results (presumably after warning them to stop and being ignored?) and once Rap Genius straightened up and flew right they got put back in. Is that about right?

    Honestly, that's not evil or scary or anything. In fact it sounds like a pretty fair system to me.

    But more importantly in the context of this thread, it's very much different from what Verizon wants to do.

    Verizon is not planning to go after sites that exploit some kind of flaw in their network. They are planning to go after all sites for money. They plan on selling preferred traffic treatment to sites that pay them to or earn them money somehow, and curb traffic to sites that don't pay as much. The only "abuse" they are going after is the "abuse" of not giving them enough money.

    Verizon is not eliminating Net Neutrality because they want to punish abuse. They want to become the abusers.

    sig.gif
    Apothe0sisJuliusLostNinjaCaulk Bite 6Man in the MistsSkeithSpoitCalicaElvenshaeshoeboxjeddyLord_Asmodeus
  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    edited January 2014
    Roz wrote: »
    In that case though rap genius was perpetrating page ranking shenanigans, and hand correcting the algorithim is about the only tool in google's box to do something about that.

    Edit: And at any rate, google pretty much used that power effectively to get RG attention.

    And that should make me feel comfortable...why, exactly? A lot of the defense of Google's actions boils down to:

    1. PageRank is their baby to do with as they please, and
    2. Trust Google (even though they refuse to disclose any details of how they make these evaluations).

    I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable with that.

    And what is your solution? Google should be forced to not be able to manage their own site/results?

    They own PageRank, it's their site. If someone is abusing their algorithm, should they not have recourse against that party?

    And even then, it's not as if they specifically removed the site from the internet (removed its DNS entries or blocked resolution at the IP level). They essentially stopped printing them in their phone book, there are still other phone books out there.

    And what is your solution? Verizon should not be allowed to manage their own network?

    They own the physical wires, it's their network. If someone is abusing their systems, should they not have recourse against that party?

    And even then, it's not as if they specifically removed the site from the internet (removed its DNS entries or blocked resolution at the IP level). They essentially stopped giving them preference on their network, there are still other networks out there.

    None of you would accept that as a legitimate argument for Verizon (or any other ISP) manipulating their network traffic as they see fit.

    This is a bad conflation of two very different things.

    Q) And what is your solution? Verizon should not be allowed to manage their own network?
    A) You regulate Verizon as a common carrier. They should be allowed to manage their own network - to an extent. As a monopoly in certain areas (alongside Comcast, other ISPs) they should fall under the rules that govern what monopolies can and cannot do. In some cases we may need to update the law to address new issues that arise from these carriers.

    Q)They own the physical wires, it's their network. If someone is abusing their systems, should they not have recourse against that party?

    A) Their wires that they built with significant government assistance. And if someone is abusing their systems they absolutely have recourse against that party. And they should.
    And even then, it's not as if they specifically removed the site from the internet (removed its DNS entries or blocked resolution at the IP level). They essentially stopped giving them preference on their network, there are still other networks out there.

    Um, if they've blocked it's traffic through their network then they have removed it's resolution at the IP level. It's certainly a problem if they are the end point for the resolution. If they impede or block the resolution going out of their network to the destination point then that is actually effectively removing it from the internet.

    If it's my ISP that's doing this action, I may simply have no recourse whatsoever. There are many areas where you cannot go to different provider. And if it's the end point you're royally screwed.

    If I search for something on Google and it doesn't come up, I can go to Bing, Yahoo, etc. There are options. There are no other options when it comes to certain areas and certain ISPs.

    Roz on
    Elvenshae
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    What I'm understanding from the admittedly brief information presented in the thread is that Rap Genius was abusing Google, by committing some kind of PageRank shenanigans to boost their results, so Google punished them by manually removing them from the results (presumably after warning them to stop and being ignored?) and once Rap Genius straightened up and flew right they got put back in. Is that about right?

    Honestly, that's not evil or scary or anything. In fact it sounds like a pretty fair system to me.

    But more importantly in the context of this thread, it's very much different from what Verizon wants to do.

    Verizon is not planning to go after sites that exploit some kind of flaw in their network. They are planning to go after all sites for money. They plan on selling preferred traffic treatment to sites that pay them to or earn them money somehow, and curb traffic to sites that don't pay as much. The only "abuse" they are going after is the "abuse" of not giving them enough money.

    Verizon is not eliminating Net Neutrality because they want to punish abuse. They want to become the abusers.

    Google already does that to a degree with sponsored links. There's also been points raised about them giving their own systems preference in search. So the difference isn't nearly as wide as you think.

    As for the infrastructure vs. service argument, I'd say that Google has long since passed from the latter to the former. Network effects point out why the "use another search engine" argument really doesn't work - after all, when it comes to search engines, who's left? At best, you have Bing, which remains viable mainly because Microsoft wants its own network service stack.

    The fact is that if Google delists you, you will effectively cease to exist to users. No matter how defensible the Rap Genius decision is, it doesn't change the fact that Google has that power now.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • khainkhain Registered User regular
    Everyone is missing the point of Hedgie's example. The problem is that users cannot find the site via Google, but the solution everyone is suggesting of the user switching to another search engine or accessing the site directly is viable for some users, but the site itself is screwed in most cases because traffic from search engines, and specifically Google, is vital and cannot effectively be replaced.

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Amusingly, Verizon not being allowed to discriminate is one of the very reasons you can go to Bing/Yahoo to search just as easily if you want. So if Verizon is allowed to do whatever then Google may actually end up being the only index people are able to use

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    Elvenshae
  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    What I'm understanding from the admittedly brief information presented in the thread is that Rap Genius was abusing Google, by committing some kind of PageRank shenanigans to boost their results, so Google punished them by manually removing them from the results (presumably after warning them to stop and being ignored?) and once Rap Genius straightened up and flew right they got put back in. Is that about right?

    Honestly, that's not evil or scary or anything. In fact it sounds like a pretty fair system to me.

    But more importantly in the context of this thread, it's very much different from what Verizon wants to do.

    Verizon is not planning to go after sites that exploit some kind of flaw in their network. They are planning to go after all sites for money. They plan on selling preferred traffic treatment to sites that pay them to or earn them money somehow, and curb traffic to sites that don't pay as much. The only "abuse" they are going after is the "abuse" of not giving them enough money.

    Verizon is not eliminating Net Neutrality because they want to punish abuse. They want to become the abusers.

    Google already does that to a degree with sponsored links. There's also been points raised about them giving their own systems preference in search. So the difference isn't nearly as wide as you think.

    As for the infrastructure vs. service argument, I'd say that Google has long since passed from the latter to the former. Network effects point out why the "use another search engine" argument really doesn't work - after all, when it comes to search engines, who's left? At best, you have Bing, which remains viable mainly because Microsoft wants its own network service stack.

    The fact is that if Google delists you, you will effectively cease to exist to users. No matter how defensible the Rap Genius decision is, it doesn't change the fact that Google has that power now.

    Except you don't effectively cease to exist. You still exist just fine. The public's ability to reach you remains completely unimpaired. They simply can't search for you using one company's search engine - every other service engine will work just fine. Direct resolution will work just fine.

    If this were in the physical realm, this wouldn't be much different than a very popular guide book to a city removing your diner from their list of top diners to visit. There are other guide books - they may not be as popular - but your diner didn't stop existing. People's access to your diner wasn't impeded. But the end result is the same - less traffic to your diner (website).

    PLAApothe0sisElvenshaeLord_Asmodeus
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    khain wrote: »
    Everyone is missing the point of Hedgie's example. The problem is that users cannot find the site via Google, but the solution everyone is suggesting of the user switching to another search engine or accessing the site directly is viable for some users, but the site itself is screwed in most cases because traffic from search engines, and specifically Google, is vital and cannot effectively be replaced.

    This is the problem, it is not the same thing as the Verizon example. It's a poor example.

    A better example would be when Amazon ghetto-ized Gay and Lesbian books. This was problematic because of Amazon's huge market share.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
Sign In or Register to comment.