The internet is an interesting place. With the rise of all these privacy reduction laws in the US and the general mythos that surrounds the internet among lawmakers (many of which are old, which somehow earns them the right to be ignorant) there is an every apparent notion that the laws of the “real world” do not apply to the net and that we should codify a new set for this fancy new “digital universe”.
In particular, CISPA aside, Google is coming under antitrust attacks from both the US and the EU. This isn’t necessarily remarkable, at least until you know why. Effectively the argument is that when you use Google search they ‘may’ be prioritizing their own products over those of others. This is seen as antitrust worthy.
Lets take the Google website and identify what it is. This is a shop front, when you enter the Google page you are effectively walking into their store. When I walk into an apple store all the advice for products they give me are Apple based, can I sue them? If I want into a Best Buy I’ll be damned if they are going to start praising the competition (of which there is no much these days).
As the article itself states, if a person does not approve of the way the Google store (search engine) runs they can easily go use any of the other options. By using the website most people, I would imagine, are approving of the practice. It’s very obvious which results are Google results and which are non-Google results, and even if it weren’t that wouldn’t matter.
If we are going to start demanding that Google treat everyone fairly in their own store this needs to move into Brick and Mortar stores. Rite Aid should carry the ad papers on entry for Walgreens, Best Buy should carry the ads for Fry’s, and damn it when I walk into a JCPenny I want to see an advertisement from Sears.
Because I’ve already made some grave error in my life to be in that store in the first place, I better just go for the gold and read up on Sears.
This lawsuit is, going off the statements made, a fantastic example of biases against a new technological front. Keeping in mind that I’m not one to worship or praise the founding fathers I do point out discrepancies in those that would use them as a catchall for oppressive new laws or legal actions. Routinely we are being reminded that somehow while television and telephones are covered under our rights that the internet was not intended by the founding fathers and is not naturally covered.
Which is fair, because obviously the constitution was spitballed over a telephone while watching Williamsburg Shore.
(And really, THIS is the company that’s being targeted. Really? Nobody can think of any other companies using their vast wealth and power to topple competition? Nobody at all, because it seems like it would be mighty easy to name a hand full of large companies in nearly every field of industry.)