Slashdot Mirror
FTC Tells Search Engines to Disclose Paid Links
linderdm writes "CNN has an article describing how the FTC wants search engines who receive payment for higher rated links, to disclose this to users. The concern is that users go to search engines looking for the best results for their search criteria, not the highest paid results for their search."
google already does this in more ways than one!
oh, fr05t p157
is the i in "links" capitalized.. or am I reading it wrong?
It's been a long time coming. Google is the only engine currently doing a decent job of making clear which links are paid advertisements.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
I guess not since we all know this site it suspect before we get here.
----- Refactoring is the reason why man does not mistake himself for a god.
This is really good that the FTC is putting their foot down on this. Why? Being able to let users understand what is relevant to their search instead of all this corperate clutter and pay-offs that may or may not even be relevant. One thing that I do want to see more and more out of government groups is the further pushing of truth in how search engines index and give relevancy -- that is, what people are looking for, not "Click here and buy NOW!" Personally this should only help engines get more traffic -- like how google does things.
Karma whorin' since 1999
If yahoo and the like would let users set options to where the user has to opt out of this to get the best search results, they'd probably be able to get away with it. Of course that'll raise more trouble with user tracking and still won't fix the trouble with internet novices not knowing that they can turn this option off and get valid search results. Maybe we should all just use google.
It's been a heck of a long time since I've heard of anyone using a search engine other than Google...
So really, how many people would honestly be affected by this?
The very first time you visit a search engine you will have to sign an EULA that says (in 5000 words;) that you understand there are paid links and agree that they will be hidden. I'm sure the search engines won't mind...
I stole this Sig
I guess I would have liked to see the FTC at least say "we plan to make this illegal" instead of:
You wouldn't expect Microsoft to divulge which congressmen it gives cash to, would you? Least said the better, there's a whole wriggly can of worms out there.
Do they really believe that? The average joe really isn't going to care, and he probably thinks that if a site can afford to pay the search engine, it must be good.
Fault loves the past, worry loves the future, but content enjoys the present.
My Website - My Choice
If I accept advertising on a personal website, am I required to disclose the fact?
Perhaps the reason the FTC is not taking legal action here is there is no legal basis for them to. Under which law would they sue?
I'm not a lawyer, but I am genuinely curious about the legalities here. Any lawyers or other experts care to respond?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
This is Yet Another Reason Why I Want To Have Google's Children (YARWIWTHGC), they clearly disclose "Sponsered Links" and "Shameless Self-Promotion".
This is a retarded idea. Here's why. The more the government interferes with business, particularily online business the less of a free market it actually is. If in fact it is important that users see what is relevant before paid results then the marketplace will change to demand that from search engines. Consumers will flock to what they want to use. The fact that the majority of Internet Cattle are made up of stupid people shouldn't really factor into this at all. People should find out for themselves how search engines work, people shouldn't have to rely on the government to protect them. In the famous words of Jesse Ventura, "The government is not your mom!"
If a privately owned search engine wants to get money for prioritized links, more power to them, that's free enterprise, it is their perogative to do business that way! If users dislike it they will go elsewhere and that search engine will be out of business. That's how the market works, the government doesn't need to interfere at all, the government is not your mom!
Save yourself the trouble. Really. It's just not worth it:
Here.
Really. The way is it supposed to be done.
goats? gay roomates?.. I missed something? will go beat myself about the head with a framing hammer. thought this thread was bout search'in and cash.. oh well.
I'm going to let you in on a dirty little secret I'm a Republican. You can flame me for this later. But being a Republican, I believe in the independence of the people from the government, and extend this independence for corporations as well. I believe in a fair, and open marketplace free of monopolies, which is exactly what the FTC was setup to enforce by enforcing the Sherman act of 1890. So, as a whole, I'm pro FTC.
This however, oversteps their bounds. What are they doing telling a non-government related business how to advertise, or what to put on their website? Don't they have a certain aspect of freedom of speech when it comes to composing and editing their websites as they see fit?
Now, of course I'm against any corporation defrauding the public as to what they do or how they operate, but is saying that a link was paid for really fraud? Yeah, it sucks that they can lie to you, but anyone can lie to you, it's your responsibility to be paying attention, not the government's to make sure that lies don't happen.
Now I'm not insane, I'm glad that I'll know that a particular link was a paid advertisement, but do we have to go to the lengths of legislating such a thing? Cut the red tape already...
On the other hand, if I don't want to go to a site that will most likely be wanting to sell me something, then I don't have to.
Seems like it's the best solution all way round.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
This is a really poor decision on the part of the FTC - they shouldn't be "warning" companies, particularly if what they're doing is not in any way illegal. The market should decide. The rise of Google in what at the time was a saturated search market dominated by AltaVista is clear proof of that.
If a search engine displays poor results, people will stop using it. If the results are good, then they'll come back. It really doesn't matter how the results were created, through some complicated heuristic or through sponsorship.
Search engines have no obligation to be "editorial" - they're not newspapers, and they make no claim that their results are free from bias. It is beyond me why Ruskin would think otherwise.
I think they are doing this as an extension of being asked to look into that stupid Gator spyware, learning that it's not the only thing that makes searchresults unfair.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
"Und aren't they Taco's sex toys?"
I think this line needs another syllable, but other than that...
CNN has an describing
.. an article! Yes!! Yes an article! CNN has an article! Written by a monkey. As such, it's completely classified and we cannot give a link.
a monkey? A chicken? hold on... wait a second, a
In other news, CNN reports that, and so you really should wear lead underwear during the next few days.
This has to be one of the dumbest news related bits I've read.
Why does it matter if search engines only put the highest paying companies at the top of the list?
YOU ARE SEARCHING FOR FREE.
If you want to pay their bills send them checks. If you want things changed and they won't, then dammit, make your own search engine.
Don't go around forcing people to do what you want.
Jeez.
Yeah, it's annoying when a web catalog business pretends to be a search engine, but instead of returning "best match" returns "catalog item #53715".
With the current state of affairs, you have something that looks like a gas station, is labelled like a gas station, has credit-card operated pumps like a gas station, and, after you insert your credit card, pump a tank full, get billed, and go to start your car, you find out they are actually selling chocolate syrup, but pretending it's gas, because no one wants to buy chocolate syrup.
I think that this is as necessary as the little label bars with "Advertisement" in them above and below fake magazine articles in magazines these days.
-- Terry
Search engines are for-profit corporations. They ought to be able to do what they please, so long as they are not doing direct harm to others. That is the essence of capitalism. If consumers of information demand unbiased searches, then they will gravitate to search engines that advertise such. Again, this is how capitalism works: the company that provides what the customer wants succeeds.
How dare the government dictate how information, from a search engine that is composed exactly of SPEECH and the PRESS ought to be formatted to benefit the "consumer." That is unprecedented, and unconstitutional.
If we let them get away with this, it's one fast ride down a greased up slippery slope to control of information on the net.
As long as the site isn't outright claiming that they don't bias searches based on 'ad revenue' (payola), I don't see that they have done anything wrong in doing it. Could be an unwise move to do it if there is a public backlash, but it doesn't strike me as anything that tax paid "public servants" need to stick their nose in.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Where are going this way?
One of the major online travel sites will quite happily skew "lowest fare" flight search results towards a certain airline as long as said airline is willing to pay them a modest monthly fee. (I'm not going to say which one.)
The lowest fares (in an absolute, mathematical sense) are still there, just buried 40 pages deep into the search results. 99.999999% of all users won't bother to navigate past the first page, but the "complete results" are technically available for you to browse through.
This is just one real-life example -- there are endless, and I mean endless, types of games you can play by sorting of results. As long as the company has something to gain by skewing search results a certain way, some of the companies will choose to do so. (Yet another argument against any one private entity monopolizing access to a certain type of information.)
Aloha,
-Cal
First of, we aren't completely a freemarket. In fact, it's a good thing we aren't. In a completly free market we have no rights, we have no balance and what we end up with is a bunch of large corperations in control.
Even with what we have now we can see some effects: they write the laws (see the DMCA) they decide what you can and can't say and they decide what you can and can't use.
In a completely freemarket socity you end up with shit like in Russia, with Maffia's in control of everything.
A good socity and its respective market (I doubt a perfect one exists, and more I doubt I'd be able to regonize one) is made up of checks and balances.
Teoma also makes their sponsored links quite prominant. I use Google mainly, but once in awhile I try Teoma too, and am quite impressed. Teoma's "Refine" feature is really REALLY cool, and works well.
That's exactly what commerce is.
**ANY** exchange of goods and services.
I think you might be confusing the two. The former the FTC can't really touch the later is a bit differnt.
For example, if you own a resturant and buy food from maryland and your resturant is in Virgina, and you don't allow blacks in your establishment, the goverment can "change your rules".
The retarded idea is that the Net should be "commercially-enabled" all the way long.
When you go into a search engine you don't always search for something to buy ! You sometimes (sic) search for relevant information. And when link are sponsored by money, then the relevance is dropped out and skew your search.
as for the governement not being your mom, if there wasn't a governement it would be the law of the strongest. Or complete anarchy. So in other word , unless you ant compelte anarchy, what you "wish" is the advantage without the inconvenience [intervention] of a governement. In other word , wishful thinking.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Foo! You are nothing but a charleton!
If you really believe all that you wrote, then you aren't a Republican, you're a Libertarian.
You see, Republican's want to be your dad; they want to tell you what kind of sex you can have with who, what kind of drugs you're allowed to use (only tobacco and alcohol!), and what you can and can't do with your body, as you are only leading it from God (it doesn't belong to you; if it belongs to anyone other than God, that would be the government).
Democrats, on the other hand, want to be your mom; they want you to be happy, they want you to be taken care of. If you fall down and get a boo-boo, they want to be there to give you medical treatment and kiss it all better. If you run into economic problems, your dad yells "Get a Job, Slacker!"; your mom, though, she's the first to suggest you move home and live in the basement (just until you get back on your feet, of course, or until you inherit the upstairs in the will).
Libertarians... they just want to be your landlord. 8-).
PAYOLA laws cover this. Too bad the FTC isn't pursuing Clear Channel with equal vigor (or even at all).
And this is why even the slashdot creators stop using slashdot - it doesn't provide them with "what they're searching for". Slashdot has become such a cesspool that I'm surprised that so many avowed "expert searchers" keep coming back to so much crap.
Since you seem intelligent enough to do so, I suggest you think about this at the next election. Or tell me why I'm wrong, as I really wish I could be more confident in my president.
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC