Slashdot Mirror
Group Calls For Google Antitrust Probe
CWmike writes "Advocacy group Consumer Watchdog called on the DOJ to launch a broad antitrust investigation into Google's search and advertising practices and consider a wide array of penalties, including possibly breaking the company up (PDF). The watchdog, along with a mobile entrepreneur and two lawyers representing Google rivals, called for an investigation focusing on a number of issues, including Google's marriage of search results to advertising and its book search service. '...We think all remedies should be on the table, including, we think, the possible breakup of the Internet giant,' said John Simpson of Consumer Watchdog. Adam Kovacevich, senior manager for global communications and public affairs at Google, discounted the criticisms, saying Consumer Watchdog has been 'relentlessly negative' about Google. The group recently questioned the reasons why Google stopped censoring search results in China, and criticized Google's privacy Dashboard as inadequate, Kovacevich said."
Adam Kovacevich, senior manager for global communications and public affairs at Google,
So Google pays Kovacevich.
So the first reaction is obvious: who's behind this? From the linked article:
Apparently, people who make a business out of gaming Google's algorithm. The very folks that muddy up searches with crap links to various questionable "offers", link farms, and johnny-come-lately web apps. And they're claiming Google has a bias in their search results? Do tell.
Granted - conspiracy theorists might find the possibility of other actors bing involved too hard to pass up. It does look intriguing. But I'm reminded of the whole Occam's Razor thing.
What? You have to use Youtube, Gmail and Wave when you use Google Search? That's actually what you're saying. Sopssa, you're an idiot.
Breaking up companies always bugs me when the companies has grown primarily based on outright success.
How about a company that used its monopoly in a market to lock out and hurt competitors?
That is the big difference between Microsoft, Apple and Google. MS was convicted of monopoly abuse, the others have not.
The article criticizing the dashboard has already been slashdotted but (oh irony) it was in my chrome cache.
The google dashboard is cleverly "buried" at google.com/dashboard
Navigating to it requires the user to select the "Settings => Google Account settings" dropdown at the top right of the page when you're logged in. Maybe I've been around computers for more than a few minutes and that gives me an advantage, but that felt like a pretty natural way to find this.
I agree that Google needs to take more steps to make user behavior anonymous, but at least they're honest about that and have a means for providing dashboard feedback.
And FWIW I don't see anything in the Microsoft Online Privacy Statement about giving users a way to control their data. Nor in the Yahoo Privacy Center.
Maybe it's just too hard to find.
Anti-trust is about determining whether a company is limiting competition or using one monopoly market to leverage itself into another.
1. Google has a huge market share in search, but it's got plenty of competition, and there's nothing stopping customers from switching to that competition immediately: there's no switching cost at all.
2. Google might have a monopoly on advertising, but I don't think so. The latest numbers I can find are from Jan. '09, which put Adsense at 57%. It's probably larger than that now. Not likely to be labeled a monopoly, though.
Google has protected itself very well with the Data Liberation Project. That alone will probably scuttle any attempt to prove Google is limiting competition. There's no tying, either.
Put identity in the browser.
http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/
Both it and its predecessor link back to grassroots.com.
"At Grassroots Enterprise, we combine the best of cutting-edge Internet technology with high-impact communications to build movements that make an impact.
What does this mean, in plain English? In a nutshell, that means that we help clients:"
The question is who is the client????
Microsoft has already been exposed using CWD in the past as part of their fake astroturfing attacks:
http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/
I'm just saying, as with anything, always consider the source.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
You know as soon as you see a group, then you read into it a bit more and you find out that a lot of the group is composed of competitors. so then it goes from being a group with a legitimate complaint to a group of cry babies who can't compete and are trying to get the government to help them because they are weak.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.