|
|
|
| Authored by: pem on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
Free speech has limits.
Incitement to riot, some types of fraud, etc.
I'm arguing the government shouldn't have carte blanch to regulate speech, not
that some kinds of speech shouldn't be regulated.
But frankly, you might be missing some history here. A lot of early search
engines, such as alta vista, didn't distinguish very well between paid and
non-paid links.
Was it government, or the free market (aka google), that did those engines in?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
And what is preventing users from using a different search engine if they did?
Nothing.
It is one of the reasons people don't flock to Bing. MS does just that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Yeah, so? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:23 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 06:46 AM EDT |
That's a really dangerous premise. What's to stop (for example)
Google from taking money to increase paying customers in rankings, and not
disclosing that fact? What's to stop them from dropping companies from the
search they don't like? Or dropping companies unless they pay some
amount of
money?
How about the fact that microseconds after there was a
shred of evidence the well-oiled publicity/Fud machine would launch into action
and the entire internet-using world would quickly be made aware that Google's
results were not to be trusted.
The other search engines are only a click
away and it would be a very easy click in those circumstances [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Yeah, so no. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- Yeah, so no. - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 11:50 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
