- 13
- Sphinn It!
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://altsearchengines.com)
Category: SEM Industry
9 Comments
9 Comments
Save the date for:
SMX Local & Mobile - San Francisco, CA (July 24-25) See the agenda, and register now!
SMX Sao Paolo - Brazil - (Aug. 7-8)
SMX China - September 23 & 24, 2008
SMX Stockholm - September 23 & 24, 2008
SMX East - NYC - (Oct. 6-8) Registration is now open.
SMX London - November 4 & 5, 2008
Comments
I think he might have had more than one Bud before writing this!
;)
Interesting theory, but wouldn't this fall foul of anti-trust legislation? I just can't see it being even remotely feasible. But hey, it's good to theorise.
Methods that depend on bribing people large-scale to achieve a business goal are probably doomed to fail.
Another similar action, legally also very dubious but much more feasible, is (European) governments wary of Google's monopoly removing all government-related sites from Google.
@sza - would I be right in thinking that you're not European? Most governments have a moral, if not legal, duty to make their information accessible to their populations. And so the idea that they would block their sites from Google's index is even more implausible than the original post.
"would I be right"
No, you'd actually be wrong. My comment is just a reflection on how some governments (e.g. the French) complain about Google and fund efforts to create a Google-beating search engine.
BTW, their information would still be accessible even without being indexed by Google. So while I do see the legal implications ('legally also very dubious'), I don't really see any moral issues here.
Apologies - struck me as something someone from outside Europe would say.
When 90% of the population, or similar, are using a particular medium to access information, and a public body has a duty to provide access to that information, cutting off that particular channel, for me, starts getting morally dubious.
I'm well aware of the attempts at a European search engine but actually don't think that has anything to do with Google per se, more to do with wishing to have a European alternative to what are all US companies (not a policy I agree with btw).
I'd be very, very surprised if any democratic European govt ever attempted this.
Sphunn for the Jethro Tull mention. Sphinn is all too lacking in mentions of one of the greatest bands ever.
"When 90% of the population, or similar, are using a particular medium to access information, and a public body has a duty to provide access to that information, cutting off that particular channel, for me, starts getting morally dubious."
A lot of official stuff that affect millions of people is published in official papers read by a thousand professionals. Not in the tabloids read by those millions.
Governments are not as awestruck (and shouldn't be) by the power of a singular company as the business sector is.
All their legal and moral duties to inform the masses are fulfilled by publishing their things on heavily-linked-by-others, usability-certified, searchable government sites.
"I'd be very, very surprised if any democratic European govt ever attempted this."
I'd be, too, because it'd be quite a serious discrimination against a particular company. Not on moral grounds, though.
On the other hand, if a government decided to disallow all robots on its online properties, even the discrimination charge would go away, and it would still hurt Google the most. Which could be a viable armtwisting tactic when it comes to ('cause it will inevitably come to) curtailing the monopolistic power of Google.
I think Mark's living in the past with this...
@swags ... yeah baby... erm... showing my advancing age tho...
@Brian / ciaran... yeah, I actually thought it was a tad humorous myself... so definately conversation worthy.. he he