Slashdot Mirror
Search Engine Payola
QwkHyenA writes: "Seems that Ralph Nader and his Consumer Watchdog group has fired the first shot in pegging 8 search engines for reshuffling query results based on fees paid to them. Like we didn't see this happening! Nader has asked the FTC to look into this based on deceptive advertising practices..." Check out the complaint, which itself references pages like this one detailing how to pay for placement at all the major search engines.
Garth Algar: Here, take two of these.
Wayne Campbell: Ahh, Nuprin. Little, yellow, different.
Maybe AltaVista was worthwhile three or four years ago. Maybe five people have ever used Netscape or MSN search on purpose, but those are things one accidentally uses by clicking the wrong button in her browser. However, none of these companies has a real business strategy -- if they weren't selling placement, they'd be selling your personal data to x10.com. Selling placement is merely the third or fourth step on the road to fuckedcompany.com.
Last time I checked we lived in a free market economy
One of the fundamental tenets of capitalism is that the free market only works efficiently with accurate information.
Misrepresenting (also called "lying" by normal people) your product or business in order to decieve the public is not a right of a company (at least in our country).
Whether the search engines are misrepresenting themselves and services is what Nader is asking to investigate.
"We can say what we want to sell our stuff, and by the way did I mention this cures cancer?" is not a particularly compelling argument.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's lying. Read the freaking article--it isn't a complaint that they accept paid advertisements. The complaint is about search sites that mix the paid advertisements in with the ACTUAL results, providing no way for a viewer to know whether a site is actually relevant to your query, or just a site that paid the search engine some money.
This is nothing more than lying.
See how it specifically points out Google, which has clearly marked "SPONSORED LINKS" at the top of your query results, with the actual relevant results below that? That is perfectly fine.
Read first, then post.
(karma whore)
For those who can't be bothered to read the links directly from the news posting, here's a little translation of the whole bit:
Commercial Alert would like the FTC to investigate whether current methods of paid placement are deceptive to consumers, and whether that deception is strong enough for FTC intervention.
Don't think they could be intentionally misleading people? I've met people who didn't know the "click here to optimize your internet connection!" button was an ad the first time they saw it. I've also met people who have a hard time distinguishing between icons in their web browser and icons on the web page. This is much more subtle than either of those examples.
Don't think this is something the FTC would bother intervening in? The complaint has a little section entitled "The FTC Has Repeatedly Sought to Stop Companies From Concealing That Their Ads Are Ads", in which they argue that point as well.
It's a very simple three point argument, summarized with bold headings above each of the points. So there's my simple pitch for reading the complaint. I think you'll find it interesting and informative, and it will take less time to read than it's taken you to get this far.
To get back to the initial post, suffice it to say that the Commercial Alert complaint is obviously not asserting that paying search engines for targeted advertisements is wrong.
No one is forcing you to use the free service of go.com, excite.com, or even google. How do you think they pay for hardware, bandwidth, and programmers? Selling banner ads won't keep a search engine going. As long as you know companies paid to be listed in bold (red, highlited, whatever) print, who cares?
I clicked:
Got friends?
The complaint is not that search engines are accepting money to have certain links pop up towards the top of a search, it's that they're doing it without LABELING it as such - essentially, they're trying to masquerade the paid links as normal, objective search data, to make it seem like the paid links are somehow more "relevant" to a search.
But god forbid anyone actually read the tiny article... that'd be far harder than just spouting your mouth off to look clever.
The Free desktop that Just Works
It's ok not to read the article, but if you don't, then don't post!
A few points:
1) To those who say, "Hey, AltaVista is a business. Can you blame them?" Yes, we can blame them. Newspapers are a business, but you don't (well, you didn't once upon a time) see them printing corporate press releases as news.
2) It's kinda funny to me how many people respond to this strictly in terms of capitalism. What ever happened to democracy? I realize that the original promise of the 'Net is drying up faster than liquid nitrogen, but still, someone needs to say it.
Let's imagine that Google goes out of business. Poof -- suddenly you can't do a search without having to turn to a paid search engine. Yeah, yeah, search engines suck anyway, but... unless I am running linuxisbitchin.org, they are a good way to get people to come to my site (I run a humor site and do not blanch at appearances of .aol in my logs). However, if $$$ is causing me to be marginalized, that ceases to be a tool for me.
Ultimately, it seems to me the barrier to entry is being raised here. I understand quite well that search engines are not the only way to promote a site, but from a strictly democratic point of view, this leaves one in a situation that's like running for President with nothing but a bunch of bumper stickers, while your competition has access to the airwaves.
3) A philosophical question, really. The airwaves are supposed to be a public resource, according to the FCC charter. Since the airwaves are regularly sold lock, stock, and barrel to companies that couldn't possibly give a shit about the public good despite this, what protects the Internet, given that the infrastructure is owned by a zillion institutions and there is no charter to speak of?
G'nite.
Visit sunny Knowumsayin.com, home of the pork shirt.