[Day2]

It should be an interesting case... That I don't think is as baseless as you guys make it out to be.

It sounds like you guys think that Google should be able to ban any site they want for any reason that they want, and have no system in place for getting unbanned.

For the record, I pretty much feel the same way (I've always had a Libertarian streak).

But would it raise your eyebrows if Google penalized Microsoft for how the did SEO on their site? Or penalized the Republican Party? Pretty much on a whim, Google can dramatically effect people's ability to find certain sources of information. Because Google is THE ubiquitous search tool, they are functionally playing the role of "internet censor"-- ostensibly just censoring stuff that might be trying to trick Google into ranking them higher than they should be... But what if they make a mistake and ban/penalize the wrong site? Or what if a site hires an SEO specialist that employs tactics that are against the rules? What if a Google employee simply doesn't like the politics of a certain blog and penalizes it on a whim?

I'd certainly rather have Google running my search engine than the Government, but it's a scary amount of power.

[akula]

Originally Posted by Day2

It should be an interesting case... That I don't think is as baseless as you guys make it out to be.

It sounds like you guys think that Google should be able to ban any site they want for any reason that they want, and have no system in place for getting unbanned.

For the record, I pretty much feel the same way (I've always had a Libertarian streak).

But would it raise your eyebrows if Google penalized Microsoft for how the did SEO on their site? Or penalized the Republican Party? Pretty much on a whim, Google can dramatically effect people's ability to find certain sources of information. Because Google is THE ubiquitous search tool, they are functionally playing the role of "internet censor"-- ostensibly just censoring stuff that might be trying to trick Google into ranking them higher than they should be... But what if they make a mistake and ban/penalize the wrong site? Or what if a site hires an SEO specialist that employs tactics that are against the rules? What if a Google employee simply doesn't like the politics of a certain blog and penalizes it on a whim?

I'd certainly rather have Google running my search engine than the Government, but it's a scary amount of power.

nice. so there' the opening statement, but I'm also interested in the cause of action.

knowing as little as I do about the 1st amendment, it doesn't make sense to me why Kinderstart is choosing to run this argument. Surely, the 1st was intended a a protection against governments, not other citizens.

I would think that the plaintiff, would have more success in arguing tort, or applying for an equitable remedy. Because, say, if Google's actions aren't unconstitutional - they are certainly negligent and unconscionable.

[jpmorgan13]

This is an interesting case because Google may want to enter the defense of comparative fault (if it ends up a tort case), but this would be difficult because then they would have to prove that Kinderstart played a part in how their ranking fell, and to do this Google would have to show how their spider works and say, our spider works like this, but Kinderstart did (x) to make their ranking go down. I suspect Google will keep arguing that the secrecy of their formula is critical to maintaining their business and if forced to put it out in the open, their business would affect the market.

They would also say, once again as a defense to a product liability claim in tort, that Kinderstart made an assumption of risk by being aware of the danger of a poor ranking or a quick change and acted in the face of it.

I am really unsure how they want to make this a first amendment claim. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they argue.

[jdoc]

Originally Posted by Day2

It should be an interesting case... That I don't think is as baseless as you guys make it out to be.

It sounds like you guys think that Google should be able to ban any site they want for any reason that they want, and have no system in place for getting unbanned.

For the record, I pretty much feel the same way (I've always had a Libertarian streak).

But would it raise your eyebrows if Google penalized Microsoft for how the did SEO on their site? Or penalized the Republican Party? Pretty much on a whim, Google can dramatically effect people's ability to find certain sources of information. Because Google is THE ubiquitous search tool, they are functionally playing the role of "internet censor"-- ostensibly just censoring stuff that might be trying to trick Google into ranking them higher than they should be... But what if they make a mistake and ban/penalize the wrong site? Or what if a site hires an SEO specialist that employs tactics that are against the rules? What if a Google employee simply doesn't like the politics of a certain blog and penalizes it on a whim?

I'd certainly rather have Google running my search engine than the Government, but it's a scary amount of power.

Google already does censoring, just not here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01...hinese_results

I don't really care what they do though, since in the end they have to answer to the users. Netscape was the ubitquious browser, but something (arguably) better came along and ate its lunch. Then that browser got old and tired and another started to chew away at it's market share. People may have a herd mentality, but the herd's preferences can change if enough people get dissastisfied with the offering.

Google has competiton from Yahoo! and MSN globally, and hundreds of foreign language search engines in China, India, etc.. If people know that censoring is affecting their search results and it matters to them, they'll switch. Not all at once, but if you act like you're the only game in town when you're not, you can lose your dominance over the medium to long term.

[GriZzly]

You have to remember that google didn't choose to be the most popular search engine and that because they are not an official governmentally sanctioned body they do not have to fall in line with such measures. Google is a business and while people still have the choice to use other search engines... google can display whatever results they damn well please.

Would McDonalds be in trouble for having olympics advertising all over their packaging...but refusing to advertise burger king on their packaging? No...so what is wrong with google dropping the rank of a competing search engine or any other website for that matter?

[Jeff]

Google has an algorithm they use to determin page rank and search engine results placement.

This website could have easily edited something on there site that google doesnt look for in determening rankings on their SERP. Which would have made them fall in rankings.

This has happened to me more than once.