Google sprang to its own defense with this blog post on its web site: "Supporting choice, ensuring economic opportunity".
The post indicates that using Google, which I agree, is a choice. Certainly there are other search engines, like Bing.com, for example, available to use. However, as far as the FTC is concerned choice is more than just "choosing". In the days of old Ma Bell and rotary dial phones you had a choice as well - no phone or Ma Bell's service. Were there no other phone companies? Of course there were - but it was hard (or impossible) to use them. You could also choose not to use a phone at all - but I guess that was not really a choice.
I doubt the FTC, however, is all that interested in whether you choose Google or Bing when you are looking for "turnip gardening tips".
I think more likely they (the FTC) are concerned about what happens behind the scenes when you use Google. For example, I wrote about Google and digital books in "Judge Chin to Google: Don't Be Evil". Here Google pushes the envelop with regard to copyright ownership and the scanning of books.
Then there was "Google: Censoring your Searches" where I wrote how Google is eliminating "shallow content" from its search results.
And, last (at least for this post), but certainly not least was "Google, Trespassing for your own good".
And these are just some examples. There are other issues as well - the whole notion of "Google Ads" seems fishy to me still - how do I know who to trust regarding a given click - is it really a competitor or is it a real lead?
According to Google's blog referenced above they are "Do[ing] what’s best for the user." How does that jibe with, say, trespassing? Silly me, having a full Google map of the earth is more important that my property rights.
Google also says they must "Be transparent." So how does that jibe with ads and clicks?
The problem here, in my estimation, is that Google has become, at least as far as the FTC is concerned, a potential monopoly. And the government rules for monopolies are not the same as those for other companies. Pushing the limits, like with trespassing or controlling large swathes of copyrights and royalty payments for digital books makes it appear as if the company is reckless or out-of-control with respect to the rights of others. Something even I agree is a place for potential government intervention.
To "google" is now like to "phone" - its ubiquitous. Even my less than computer expert friends know what "googling" is. But they don't have the knowledge or sophistication to understand what it is that Google may or may not be doing under the covers to provide those search results - or what Google may or may not be doing with the information about the searches they are making...
And that's the problem.
You, as the monopolist, now have responsibilities to take care of everyone the same way - not just have "don't be evil" as a slogan. Now the government will help ensure that that is in fact the case.
Old Ma Bell found all this out the hard way over the years. Once the queen of high tech (with Bell Labs and all the rest) she withered away to nothing in a very short period of time once the US courts allowed everyone access under her robes.
While Google is not yet in this same position it has to be careful about what it does and how it does it or soon it too will have the US government poking about under its skirts.
I guess the Spider Man comic said it best when he said "with great power comes great responsibility."
Google, its time to man up and listen to Spider Man - "don't be evil" just doesn't cut it anymore. You are now big and bad and with that, just like for old Ma Bell, comes "great responsibility". Responsibility to fess up on what you do wrong, to really be "transparent" with respect to "click ads" and all the rest...
Otherwise you are just fodder for bloggers like me and US government lackeys (of course, this blog is written with "Blogger" - a Google product).
No comments:
Post a Comment