You know what, you are allowed to have problems with this game being made. You also seem to self regulate the media you ingest - good for you. That's how it is supposed to work. At no point did I hear you mention that you think this sort of thing should be stopped or prevented. I won't make you play this game or watch those shows.
I applaud you as a responsible social citizen who realizes they are responsible for their own actions and are allowed to have opinions.
Now, begin to take a suppressive action and we may have problems...
Sorry, emotional distress is not a quantifiable element.
Child molestation and killing are acts of force. Words are not. This turns into legislating taste, which is absolutely pointless and eventually breaks down into mob rule.
People may be hurt by words, sure - but other people would be able to shrug those same words off. The same is not true of molestation. Either you are inappropriately touching a child or you are not. Same with killing, either you DID kill them or you didn't.
If someone told me I was fat, I wouldn't care. If someone told an anorexic girl she was fat, they most certainly be affected by it. While this act is tasteless and quite rude, any harmful results from it all start with the anorexic. If she decides to take actions that are harmful to her, that is ultimately her responsibility. If someone's feelings get hurt, it is ultimately their responsibility to cope with it.
Now, calling out someone who called the anorexic fat would also be fair game. Feel free to reprimand them all to hell, but to actually try to muzzle them is an act far more repulsive than the words spoken.
Ultimately, responding to words, ideas, and imagery that have no corresponding action behind them with force of any kind is the action of an insecure entity. There is no sensible form of censorship as sensible is subjective. The best solution is to self regulate.
Overall I agree with your assessment of free speech and what has happened in this specific event. First let me clarify my position on this issue at hand. I do not feel that anyones free speech rights were violated, nor was any party out of line in exercising their freedoms.
I invoked the downside of free speech in response to the tone of the following statement made by the GP: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want". I think people attacking the use of free speech as if it was a cop out by the creator of everything they don't like or find distasteful a misunderstanding of the concept.
Hmm... interesting thing about 'Free Speech' is that it's name is often misconstrued. Free speech often implies that you can say anything or do (in a creative context) anything you want, which is not true. You are not allowed to lie or make false statements verbally or on paper. That's slander and libel.
I don't disagree with your assesement at all, but I would like to state that these laws are not attacking or preventing free speech in any way. They are addressing specific issues with speech crafted for the purpose of causing significant harm. In no way is free speech as a concept being prevented, you can still say anything you want - but if you say a very specific thing for a very specific purpose you will be penalized for such behavior.
The use of free speech as a cover for purposely malicious acts should be penalized.
Which is exactly what the game festival did. The game festival (as an entity) decided they didn't want to view it any longer and stopped.
Yeah, but you can't court the game maker to enter the game, let it climb through the judging process, kick it out because of sponsor pressure, and then claim Free Speech as your reasoning or defense. Sure you can do it, I never argued that you couldn't. You have to take the good with the bad and allow everyone the same rules. My only claim against the festival is that they have no balls and now no street cred in my eyes. I only invoke the Free Speech discussion when someone states that things like this should never get made.
True, freedom of speech lets you say what you want, but it does not give you the right to say it anywhere you want, nor does it guarentee an audience. If I wrote a book, but a publisher won't publish it. Is my freedom of speech being violated?
We are in agreement.
I particularly find it ironic to see protesters storming a party and cutting off a presenter to force their speech upon others, and scream their right to free speech when they're interrupted. Apparently, it only applies to them since they didn't consider the fact they just forced the guy who was talking to stop. I guess his freedom of speech isn't as important as theirs.
I find this an ignorant and brutish way to invoke the idea of free speech. The idea is to let all ideas come out into the open and be based on their merit. Often the orators speaking skill may have an influence, but ideas are eventually weighed by their merit. To attempt to silence anyone is a sign of desperation. A well constructed counter argument that causes listeners to question the original point is much more effective and civil (most of the time).
Of course, I guess that's his right to free speech to have that opinion... or are you trying to subdue his opinion?;)
I encourage him to voice his opinion. I will also not try to suppress his attempts at speaking his mind. I, however, am not compelled to accept those statements as educated, true, or valid. I also feel required to voice my opinion to the contrary if I feel strongly enough about it.
Ideas cannot harm you, its action that needs to be regulated. These just be words and imagery.
And just like free speech grants these guys the right to make the game, free speech grants the festival organizers the right to reject the game from their festival.
Sure it does. But when you court the game to be entered, and then let it climb through the review process until the money threatens to walk out the door, which compels you to promptly kick it out - you can't claim free speech as your scapegoat for behaving that way.
Even the sponsors were well within their rights to pull their money - I never argued that they did anything wrong. But to say that Slamdance is interested in free speech when their behavior clearly shows self preservation is a larger goal than that aspect of their mission makes them suspect.
This one move will probably result in all future entries requiring sponsor approval. That will not only spell doom for the festival's legitimacy, but could eventually result in the full on demise of their existence as they will no longer fulfill the niche that they were supposed to.
I think this game was rightfully taken out of the competition, it's just taking it a step too far. I'm a big supporter of freedom of speech, but people tend to abuse the term to justify about everything.
Feel free to say whatever you want as long as you don't offend me. You cannot abuse free speech.
I'll tell you what. I have read your comments on this issue and would like to applaud you for stating a subtle, yet important, perspective on the game.
You played it. Bravo for having a first hand opinion on the content.
You didn't like it. Completely acceptable. Opinions are welcome.
You stated that you didn't like it because you feel it didn't manage to convey anything you considered educational or addressing social issues. Awesome, a legitimate critique on delivery.
You seem to be able to separate the idea from execution. Your criticism of execution in relation to content is well received.
I have to agree with the sentiment that this is not government affecting free speech.
My problem with this whole thing is that corporations and private interests have the ability to decide what speech is made widely available due to their economic influence. Everybody here was playing by the rules, so I'm not crying foul there.
But Slamdance courted columbin for this game to be entered. Not the other way around. Then, when the money was about to walk - Slamdance not only kicked the game out, but comprimised their own stance.
Either have the balls to stand for your convictions or don't state them at all. The whole festival is now suspect moving forward. Did all the entries this year get sponsor approval before evaluation? If so, how can I take you seriously if sponsor approval is now part of the criteria. Sponsors are usually non human corporate entities with profit as thier motivation.
The content on that page doesn't point to any classifiable mental illness. Maybe you would just like him to go to reeducation camp so he will only touch on things that you agree with.
Arn't there better ways to "address complex social issues" than in a game where people are supposed to have "fun" with it?
If it was an educational game that actually teached something, i'd have less problem with it, but this one was clearly meant for the entertainment value.
Have you played the game? I have, and let me tell you something - it has zero entertainment value. It's entertainment level is just enough to keep you progressing through it. Also, this is an attempt to move the medium forward. You need to get off the nomen of "game" as it is outdated. A lot of these things aren't "games" anymore. Using your mentality we never should have let the "talkies" move into a training or education tool. We never should have let radiotelegraphy and spark gap transmissions move into the realm of entertainment.
Like someone else said: it is of poor taste. Poor taste is not a viable criteria for art or education.
In other news on/.: a game maker is making a game about nazis gas chambers: a simulator of people choking to death and a second game about kidnapping and raping people. When confronted on the controversy of it's games, the game maker said: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want". Welcome to the downside of free speech. Deal with it. Seriously, if you don't like it - don't view it - but the opinion that you should be able to categorize and then subdue some content based on your fragile sensibilities is not only fascist, but downright ignorant. Free speech comes with the requirement that people can self regulate what they choose to consume.
If they didn't want to deal with this sort of thing they should have never accepted the entry. But letting it get to the finals and then kicking it out?
Cowards. I am losing respect for almost every aspect of today's society and its dogma propped institutions. If it negatively affects our commercial viability, our image, we must condemn it. Never mind what the game is actually trying to do, move the medium forward by using it as a means to address complex social issues - not just shoot space baddies.
Its gonna get modded as flamebait or a troll, but I have a question.
Why is someones use of a cellphone superseded by your displeasure at them using it? Honestly.
I'm not saying I disagree with your perspective, but "because it annoys me" is not a justifiable argument. Cigarette smoking was banned because it affected people with asthma and other respiratory conditions adversely and there was no method of escaping the second hand smoke.
That does not mean that X% marketshare in one implies X% marketshare in the other, as you have (falsely) claimed.
This would be true only if there was another provider for search ads other than the search provider, there isn't. I cannot place or serve ads on Google search through a 3rd party. Well, I could - but they would then be forced to use Google as a conduit.
These numbers are the same. No one else can facilitate search ads on Google other than Google. If Google has X% share in Search they also control that much share in raw search traffic available for advertising to.
Control of supply can be a source of monopoly power, particularlyl if it is absolute (100%), but control of some large share of supply in circumstances which do not provide monopoly, that is, price-setting, power does not make a monopoly.
We gotta keep this debate in one spot. I address this issue in my reply to your other post along the same lines as this thread.
The availability of means to use search engines without receiving ads invalidates it. The fact that different uses of the same search engine may expose one to more or less of the ads it serves also invalidates it, since the share of ads does not equal the share of searches, in either case.
Nope, because that requires action on the surfer using a 3rd party tool. The entity that serves the ad controls the share, not viewership of that ad. Unless someone else can serve ads to Google search results, they have equal share on their advertising as in their search market. There is no way around it.
Also, the frequency of a particular ad has no bearing on the ownership of all opportunities for that ad to show. Just because your ad shows 2 more times than mine doesn't mean that google doesn't serve ads to all 73% of its market share.
Once again you are refering to its effectiveness, which has nothing to do with share.
Price setting power is the ability to control the overall prices in the industry, usually the monopolists ability to raise the prices it charges without fear of losing its dominant market position because of barriers to competition associated with its market position (not mere marketshare.) Every participant in every market has the ability to set the price it charges for services to itself at "$0", that is not the price-setting power that defines a monopoly.
Your perspective on this is flawed based on your lack of understanding of search marketing. If you have dominant share of the market in search, you have dominant share on the market for search advertising. That being the case, you control the supply (another definition for monopoly btw).
Google frequently raises the rate of certain key terms it deems "underperforming", even if there is no competition for that term. Google does this because there is no fear of losing its dominant position of search advertising provider. This clearly is abuse of position. As long as it holds dominant market share percentage on search, it will be the default dominant position for serving ads to an equal percentage of searchers.
Monopoly power is precisely price-setting power; price-setting power may not always be clear directly, and other factors that may be more easily directly analyzed can be looked at to determine if monopoly power exists.
Google's search market share and AdSense's market share are two different things, the can increase and decrease in popularity irrespective of one another, I would assume.
I didn't say AdSense. I said search share. To be more precise, Google allows you to advertise on other sites based on Content through other people using AdSense. You can opt in or out for this. Google also allows you to advertise on search results. You can opt in or out of this also. The two are not synonymous.
I am being very precise when I use the term search advertising. I am only referring to the advertisements that show up on the right and top of Google search results page in response to terms entered. Being the case that these ads are only served when you search on Google, 73% of search share does equate to 73% search advertising share.
The Search Marketing/Search Advertising market relies heavily on ads generated by the search providers (google, yahoo, et al) but placed on OTHER web sites. Search Traffic is restricted to the portals on which those search results are displayed. So, invalid.
That's content advertising, not search. Google places ads on other peoples websites based on the content of that website - hence the name.
The ads shown in search results are search advertising.
Also, the Search Marketing/Search Advertising market can be segmented by ad views, ad revenues, ad clicks, or other methods.
Sorry, tracking methodology does not define the delivery vehicle. It is derivative of it.
Search Traffic is judged essentially by unique visitors within a given period of time. Without clarification of the market segmentation, your argument cannot be proven. So, invalid.
SO WRONG IT HURTS! Uniques are worthless. What if 20 people behind a corporate firewall click through your ad or look at your landing page. 1 unique.
I'm not even sure you know what market segmentation is. You lump search and content advertising into one group when it is clearly two. You also use wholly unrelated elements when trying to prove your case. Tracking methodology, once again, has nothing to do with determining segmentation. Tracking is derivative of segmentation.
The segmentation is based on delivery vehicle. Content distribution, search distribution, direct distribution, and viral distribution.
I agree with what you are saying. The existence of a monopoly is not necessarily a bad thing. But we are entering a time where online advertising is more than just banner ads and content advertising. New avenues are being created and the existing ones are being redefined with more granularity. Search advertising is still legally a new beast. Laws have had a hard time keeping up with their relative online charges.
The definitions of monopoly in place today lean on the limitations of the product delivery vehicle or naturally occuring physical states of the product. Its very similar to how copyright law leans against the shortcomings of the delivery mechanism to make up for its crappy definitions.
More to the point, with new business models that leverage non physical assets, cultural, and social behavior in order to generate revenue - the existing definitions seem lacking. When people choose enmasse to use a particular service, in this case Google, and this service has majority influence on how the population uses the vehicle (the Internet and the web) - you need to take a look at it. There are no currently acceptable legal precedents for this occuring.
As an example, a brick and mortar probably views online advertising as one conduit of marketing. If they choose not to use Google, fine - they have other options: TV, Print, ect. These methods can get traffic into your store.
Now lets look at a virtual business. A t-shirt shop for instance. While you CAN advertise in Print and TV, the behavior of the consumer will be much different. They won't be able to go to your store. They have to find your store online. Now, while a small percentage of people will type your websites URL directly into their browser - a much, much larger percentage will type your company's name into a search engine hoping it will lead them to your store.
It just so happens that Google has 73% of the search market share. Now, Google is not obligated to list your website in their organic listings - so your only other "guaranteed" option for visibility is AdWords. This advertising conduit is only available through Google, and if you want your business to function - you MUST use them.
In my opinion this needs to be explored to a deeper level. Social behaviors and business conduits have changed to such a degree that there are many ways we can manipulate the laws our way due to fuzzy definitions for online behaviors. Some legal definitions might not even be useful in certain circumstances.
What is a "natural" barrier for online business? What is an "artificial" barrier in online business? Does the term monopoly even apply when the supply of a service or material is infinite? In an environment where change is "one click away", what constitutes true competition?
Um, no. The share of the two "markets" is not the same. Search and search advertising are different markets, and marketshare in one is not the same as marketshare in the other. In fact, most search engines can be, and are, used in ways which do not involve serving ads at all, which affects search marketshare, but clearly detaches it from search advertising.
Semantic. One market is inextricably attached to the other. You can't have search advertising without someone searching. Please detail how I can utilize search advertising on someone who isn't using a search engine. You can't.
Peoples use of the search engine does not effect its state as the only vehicle for the advertising. It isn't whether or not Google has the most effective search advertising, it is the fact that Google has the most search advertising opportunities. More searchers = more opportunities to advertise. It's that simple. When you have the most searchers, you have the most search advertising opportunities.
A monopoly is not defined market share. A monopoly is defined by price-setting power;
A monopoly can also be defined as control of supply. When Google has 73% world market share in search, they most definitely have control of the supply.
How is it invalid? Show me an example of something that invalidates it. NO search engine shows other providers advertisements. Monopoly on search traffic = monopoly on search advertising. A blanket statement of "not true" means jack.
Which is, as stated, false as well, as a monopoly is defined by price-setting power, not marketshare.
And setting your own price for key placement of certain advertisements at zero is not price setting power how?
Also, monopoly is defined by many more facets other than price setting power.
Its not that hard to customize your google experience. Proxomitron anyone? I haven't seen a google ad in my search results for years.
That has zero effect on whether or not google actually supplies the ad. Just whether or not you can see it.
a company that is a convicted prdatory monopolist is categorically different from a company that has a large market share and has NOT been convicted of anything.
Comparing the "character" of the two companies is a logical fallacy. It in no way changes what the actual behavior of google.
Further, 73% of search "marketshare" does not mean 73% of search advertising marketshare.
Show me a search engine that shows another providers advertising and that will be true. Since it doesn't exist, the argument is semantic.
Its also dubious whether search advertising, as opposed to online advertising more generally with which it is arguably fungible, is legitimately a component of the market in which there can be a monopoly--the availability of alternative venues for online advertising makes it harder for substantial search advertising marketshare to translate into monopoly power.
That's why the argument is in place. Online advertising is quickly becoming too nebulous a term. It's ridiculous to lump in the YouTube "will it blend" videos with the content advertising on that site. It's also foolish to add search advertising into that mix as well and label it "all the same".
monopoly power is principally the ability to set prices without concern for competition
You mean like showing advertisements for your products on top regardless of what anyone else bids for the spot? This is effectively done by ether a) making the keyword email so expensive that only google can afford it or b) charging themselves nothing for it. I'm of the opinion that it needs to be looked at.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what, you are allowed to have problems with this game being made. You also seem to self regulate the media you ingest - good for you. That's how it is supposed to work. At no point did I hear you mention that you think this sort of thing should be stopped or prevented. I won't make you play this game or watch those shows.
I applaud you as a responsible social citizen who realizes they are responsible for their own actions and are allowed to have opinions.
Now, begin to take a suppressive action and we may have problems...
I love that essay.
Sorry, emotional distress is not a quantifiable element.
Child molestation and killing are acts of force. Words are not. This turns into legislating taste, which is absolutely pointless and eventually breaks down into mob rule.
People may be hurt by words, sure - but other people would be able to shrug those same words off. The same is not true of molestation. Either you are inappropriately touching a child or you are not. Same with killing, either you DID kill them or you didn't.
If someone told me I was fat, I wouldn't care. If someone told an anorexic girl she was fat, they most certainly be affected by it. While this act is tasteless and quite rude, any harmful results from it all start with the anorexic. If she decides to take actions that are harmful to her, that is ultimately her responsibility. If someone's feelings get hurt, it is ultimately their responsibility to cope with it.
Now, calling out someone who called the anorexic fat would also be fair game. Feel free to reprimand them all to hell, but to actually try to muzzle them is an act far more repulsive than the words spoken.
Ultimately, responding to words, ideas, and imagery that have no corresponding action behind them with force of any kind is the action of an insecure entity. There is no sensible form of censorship as sensible is subjective. The best solution is to self regulate.
Overall I agree with your assessment of free speech and what has happened in this specific event. First let me clarify my position on this issue at hand. I do not feel that anyones free speech rights were violated, nor was any party out of line in exercising their freedoms.
;)
I invoked the downside of free speech in response to the tone of the following statement made by the GP: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want". I think people attacking the use of free speech as if it was a cop out by the creator of everything they don't like or find distasteful a misunderstanding of the concept.
Hmm... interesting thing about 'Free Speech' is that it's name is often misconstrued. Free speech often implies that you can say anything or do (in a creative context) anything you want, which is not true. You are not allowed to lie or make false statements verbally or on paper. That's slander and libel.
I don't disagree with your assesement at all, but I would like to state that these laws are not attacking or preventing free speech in any way. They are addressing specific issues with speech crafted for the purpose of causing significant harm. In no way is free speech as a concept being prevented, you can still say anything you want - but if you say a very specific thing for a very specific purpose you will be penalized for such behavior.
The use of free speech as a cover for purposely malicious acts should be penalized.
Which is exactly what the game festival did. The game festival (as an entity) decided they didn't want to view it any longer and stopped.
Yeah, but you can't court the game maker to enter the game, let it climb through the judging process, kick it out because of sponsor pressure, and then claim Free Speech as your reasoning or defense. Sure you can do it, I never argued that you couldn't. You have to take the good with the bad and allow everyone the same rules. My only claim against the festival is that they have no balls and now no street cred in my eyes. I only invoke the Free Speech discussion when someone states that things like this should never get made.
True, freedom of speech lets you say what you want, but it does not give you the right to say it anywhere you want, nor does it guarentee an audience. If I wrote a book, but a publisher won't publish it. Is my freedom of speech being violated?
We are in agreement.
I particularly find it ironic to see protesters storming a party and cutting off a presenter to force their speech upon others, and scream their right to free speech when they're interrupted. Apparently, it only applies to them since they didn't consider the fact they just forced the guy who was talking to stop. I guess his freedom of speech isn't as important as theirs.
I find this an ignorant and brutish way to invoke the idea of free speech. The idea is to let all ideas come out into the open and be based on their merit. Often the orators speaking skill may have an influence, but ideas are eventually weighed by their merit. To attempt to silence anyone is a sign of desperation. A well constructed counter argument that causes listeners to question the original point is much more effective and civil (most of the time).
Of course, I guess that's his right to free speech to have that opinion... or are you trying to subdue his opinion?
I encourage him to voice his opinion. I will also not try to suppress his attempts at speaking his mind. I, however, am not compelled to accept those statements as educated, true, or valid. I also feel required to voice my opinion to the contrary if I feel strongly enough about it.
Ideas cannot harm you, its action that needs to be regulated. These just be words and imagery.
Not all sound business decisions are good decisions.
If you are in the business of promoting independent works, bowing to corporate sponsors kinda kills your street cred.
And just like free speech grants these guys the right to make the game, free speech grants the festival organizers the right to reject the game from their festival.
Sure it does. But when you court the game to be entered, and then let it climb through the review process until the money threatens to walk out the door, which compels you to promptly kick it out - you can't claim free speech as your scapegoat for behaving that way.
Even the sponsors were well within their rights to pull their money - I never argued that they did anything wrong. But to say that Slamdance is interested in free speech when their behavior clearly shows self preservation is a larger goal than that aspect of their mission makes them suspect.
This one move will probably result in all future entries requiring sponsor approval. That will not only spell doom for the festival's legitimacy, but could eventually result in the full on demise of their existence as they will no longer fulfill the niche that they were supposed to.
I think this game was rightfully taken out of the competition, it's just taking it a step too far. I'm a big supporter of freedom of speech, but people tend to abuse the term to justify about everything.
Feel free to say whatever you want as long as you don't offend me. You cannot abuse free speech.
You seem to be able to separate the idea from execution. Your criticism of execution in relation to content is well received.
I have to agree with the sentiment that this is not government affecting free speech.
My problem with this whole thing is that corporations and private interests have the ability to decide what speech is made widely available due to their economic influence. Everybody here was playing by the rules, so I'm not crying foul there.
But Slamdance courted columbin for this game to be entered. Not the other way around. Then, when the money was about to walk - Slamdance not only kicked the game out, but comprimised their own stance.
Either have the balls to stand for your convictions or don't state them at all. The whole festival is now suspect moving forward. Did all the entries this year get sponsor approval before evaluation? If so, how can I take you seriously if sponsor approval is now part of the criteria. Sponsors are usually non human corporate entities with profit as thier motivation.
What issues would those be?
The content on that page doesn't point to any classifiable mental illness. Maybe you would just like him to go to reeducation camp so he will only touch on things that you agree with.
Arn't there better ways to "address complex social issues" than in a game where people are supposed to have "fun" with it?
/.: a game maker is making a game about nazis gas chambers: a simulator of people choking to death and a second game about kidnapping and raping people. When confronted on the controversy of it's games, the game maker said: "it is freedom of speech, it gives me the license to do whatever i want".
If it was an educational game that actually teached something, i'd have less problem with it, but this one was clearly meant for the entertainment value.
Have you played the game? I have, and let me tell you something - it has zero entertainment value. It's entertainment level is just enough to keep you progressing through it. Also, this is an attempt to move the medium forward. You need to get off the nomen of "game" as it is outdated. A lot of these things aren't "games" anymore. Using your mentality we never should have let the "talkies" move into a training or education tool. We never should have let radiotelegraphy and spark gap transmissions move into the realm of entertainment.
Like someone else said: it is of poor taste.
Poor taste is not a viable criteria for art or education.
In other news on
Welcome to the downside of free speech. Deal with it. Seriously, if you don't like it - don't view it - but the opinion that you should be able to categorize and then subdue some content based on your fragile sensibilities is not only fascist, but downright ignorant. Free speech comes with the requirement that people can self regulate what they choose to consume.
If they didn't want to deal with this sort of thing they should have never accepted the entry. But letting it get to the finals and then kicking it out?
Cowards. I am losing respect for almost every aspect of today's society and its dogma propped institutions. If it negatively affects our commercial viability, our image, we must condemn it. Never mind what the game is actually trying to do, move the medium forward by using it as a means to address complex social issues - not just shoot space baddies.
Its gonna get modded as flamebait or a troll, but I have a question.
Why is someones use of a cellphone superseded by your displeasure at them using it? Honestly.
I'm not saying I disagree with your perspective, but "because it annoys me" is not a justifiable argument. Cigarette smoking was banned because it affected people with asthma and other respiratory conditions adversely and there was no method of escaping the second hand smoke.
Noises are not the same.
Troll? New math? Fuck you're an idiot.
The monopoly is not on search, it on on search advertising. It is completely different.
That does not mean that X% marketshare in one implies X% marketshare in the other, as you have (falsely) claimed.
This would be true only if there was another provider for search ads other than the search provider, there isn't. I cannot place or serve ads on Google search through a 3rd party. Well, I could - but they would then be forced to use Google as a conduit.
These numbers are the same. No one else can facilitate search ads on Google other than Google. If Google has X% share in Search they also control that much share in raw search traffic available for advertising to.
Control of supply can be a source of monopoly power, particularlyl if it is absolute (100%), but control of some large share of supply in circumstances which do not provide monopoly, that is, price-setting, power does not make a monopoly.
We gotta keep this debate in one spot. I address this issue in my reply to your other post along the same lines as this thread.
The availability of means to use search engines without receiving ads invalidates it. The fact that different uses of the same search engine may expose one to more or less of the ads it serves also invalidates it, since the share of ads does not equal the share of searches, in either case.
Nope, because that requires action on the surfer using a 3rd party tool. The entity that serves the ad controls the share, not viewership of that ad. Unless someone else can serve ads to Google search results, they have equal share on their advertising as in their search market. There is no way around it.
Also, the frequency of a particular ad has no bearing on the ownership of all opportunities for that ad to show. Just because your ad shows 2 more times than mine doesn't mean that google doesn't serve ads to all 73% of its market share.
Once again you are refering to its effectiveness, which has nothing to do with share.
Price setting power is the ability to control the overall prices in the industry, usually the monopolists ability to raise the prices it charges without fear of losing its dominant market position because of barriers to competition associated with its market position (not mere marketshare.) Every participant in every market has the ability to set the price it charges for services to itself at "$0", that is not the price-setting power that defines a monopoly.
Your perspective on this is flawed based on your lack of understanding of search marketing. If you have dominant share of the market in search, you have dominant share on the market for search advertising. That being the case, you control the supply (another definition for monopoly btw).
Google frequently raises the rate of certain key terms it deems "underperforming", even if there is no competition for that term. Google does this because there is no fear of losing its dominant position of search advertising provider. This clearly is abuse of position. As long as it holds dominant market share percentage on search, it will be the default dominant position for serving ads to an equal percentage of searchers.
Monopoly power is precisely price-setting power; price-setting power may not always be clear directly, and other factors that may be more easily directly analyzed can be looked at to determine if monopoly power exists.
Control of supply is also a determining factor.
The fact that they use ALL google properties instead of just google.com. Google.jp IS NOT google.com.
Google's search market share and AdSense's market share are two different things, the can increase and decrease in popularity irrespective of one another, I would assume.
I didn't say AdSense. I said search share. To be more precise, Google allows you to advertise on other sites based on Content through other people using AdSense. You can opt in or out for this. Google also allows you to advertise on search results. You can opt in or out of this also. The two are not synonymous.
I am being very precise when I use the term search advertising. I am only referring to the advertisements that show up on the right and top of Google search results page in response to terms entered. Being the case that these ads are only served when you search on Google, 73% of search share does equate to 73% search advertising share.
The Search Marketing/Search Advertising market relies heavily on ads generated by the search providers (google, yahoo, et al) but placed on OTHER web sites. Search Traffic is restricted to the portals on which those search results are displayed. So, invalid.
That's content advertising, not search. Google places ads on other peoples websites based on the content of that website - hence the name.
The ads shown in search results are search advertising.
Also, the Search Marketing/Search Advertising market can be segmented by ad views, ad revenues, ad clicks, or other methods.
Sorry, tracking methodology does not define the delivery vehicle. It is derivative of it.
Search Traffic is judged essentially by unique visitors within a given period of time. Without clarification of the market segmentation, your argument cannot be proven. So, invalid.
SO WRONG IT HURTS! Uniques are worthless. What if 20 people behind a corporate firewall click through your ad or look at your landing page. 1 unique.
I'm not even sure you know what market segmentation is. You lump search and content advertising into one group when it is clearly two. You also use wholly unrelated elements when trying to prove your case. Tracking methodology, once again, has nothing to do with determining segmentation. Tracking is derivative of segmentation.
The segmentation is based on delivery vehicle. Content distribution, search distribution, direct distribution, and viral distribution.
Thanks for playing.
I agree with what you are saying. The existence of a monopoly is not necessarily a bad thing. But we are entering a time where online advertising is more than just banner ads and content advertising. New avenues are being created and the existing ones are being redefined with more granularity. Search advertising is still legally a new beast. Laws have had a hard time keeping up with their relative online charges.
The definitions of monopoly in place today lean on the limitations of the product delivery vehicle or naturally occuring physical states of the product. Its very similar to how copyright law leans against the shortcomings of the delivery mechanism to make up for its crappy definitions.
More to the point, with new business models that leverage non physical assets, cultural, and social behavior in order to generate revenue - the existing definitions seem lacking. When people choose enmasse to use a particular service, in this case Google, and this service has majority influence on how the population uses the vehicle (the Internet and the web) - you need to take a look at it. There are no currently acceptable legal precedents for this occuring.
As an example, a brick and mortar probably views online advertising as one conduit of marketing. If they choose not to use Google, fine - they have other options: TV, Print, ect. These methods can get traffic into your store.
Now lets look at a virtual business. A t-shirt shop for instance. While you CAN advertise in Print and TV, the behavior of the consumer will be much different. They won't be able to go to your store. They have to find your store online. Now, while a small percentage of people will type your websites URL directly into their browser - a much, much larger percentage will type your company's name into a search engine hoping it will lead them to your store.
It just so happens that Google has 73% of the search market share. Now, Google is not obligated to list your website in their organic listings - so your only other "guaranteed" option for visibility is AdWords. This advertising conduit is only available through Google, and if you want your business to function - you MUST use them.
In my opinion this needs to be explored to a deeper level. Social behaviors and business conduits have changed to such a degree that there are many ways we can manipulate the laws our way due to fuzzy definitions for online behaviors. Some legal definitions might not even be useful in certain circumstances.
What is a "natural" barrier for online business? What is an "artificial" barrier in online business? Does the term monopoly even apply when the supply of a service or material is infinite? In an environment where change is "one click away", what constitutes true competition?
Um, no. The share of the two "markets" is not the same. Search and search advertising are different markets, and marketshare in one is not the same as marketshare in the other. In fact, most search engines can be, and are, used in ways which do not involve serving ads at all, which affects search marketshare, but clearly detaches it from search advertising.
Semantic. One market is inextricably attached to the other. You can't have search advertising without someone searching. Please detail how I can utilize search advertising on someone who isn't using a search engine. You can't.
Peoples use of the search engine does not effect its state as the only vehicle for the advertising. It isn't whether or not Google has the most effective search advertising, it is the fact that Google has the most search advertising opportunities. More searchers = more opportunities to advertise. It's that simple. When you have the most searchers, you have the most search advertising opportunities.
A monopoly is not defined market share. A monopoly is defined by price-setting power;
A monopoly can also be defined as control of supply. When Google has 73% world market share in search, they most definitely have control of the supply.
An argument which is invalid, to start with.
How is it invalid? Show me an example of something that invalidates it. NO search engine shows other providers advertisements. Monopoly on search traffic = monopoly on search advertising. A blanket statement of "not true" means jack.
Which is, as stated, false as well, as a monopoly is defined by price-setting power, not marketshare.
And setting your own price for key placement of certain advertisements at zero is not price setting power how?
Also, monopoly is defined by many more facets other than price setting power.
Its not that hard to customize your google experience. Proxomitron anyone? I haven't seen a google ad in my search results for years.
That has zero effect on whether or not google actually supplies the ad. Just whether or not you can see it.
a company that is a convicted prdatory monopolist is categorically different from a company that has a large market share and has NOT been convicted of anything.
Comparing the "character" of the two companies is a logical fallacy. It in no way changes what the actual behavior of google.
Further, 73% of search "marketshare" does not mean 73% of search advertising marketshare.
Show me a search engine that shows another providers advertising and that will be true. Since it doesn't exist, the argument is semantic.
Its also dubious whether search advertising, as opposed to online advertising more generally with which it is arguably fungible, is legitimately a component of the market in which there can be a monopoly--the availability of alternative venues for online advertising makes it harder for substantial search advertising marketshare to translate into monopoly power.
That's why the argument is in place. Online advertising is quickly becoming too nebulous a term. It's ridiculous to lump in the YouTube "will it blend" videos with the content advertising on that site. It's also foolish to add search advertising into that mix as well and label it "all the same".
monopoly power is principally the ability to set prices without concern for competition
You mean like showing advertisements for your products on top regardless of what anyone else bids for the spot? This is effectively done by ether a) making the keyword email so expensive that only google can afford it or b) charging themselves nothing for it. I'm of the opinion that it needs to be looked at.