This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Bing seems to work just as good as Google the times I have used it.
They missed a huge advertising opportunity not getting Chandler and Ned Ryerson to do the early commercials when this first came out.
It's that thing that is living in @gianmarco's backyard.
Is it? Should I have heard of it and I just haven't because they aren't paying Google money to be on the top of the search pile? Hasn't there always been a cost to getting a new company noticed? It used to be print advertisement, radio, tv spots. Just seems like a shift.
I think information is becoming a public utility similar to gas, water, electric etc. But it’s nearly entirely privatized at this point. I have no idea how we can regulate it.
i don't think that he is saying that google has to do anything different. This is related to the newer world paradigm where scale and efficiency rule, which are leading to more winner-take-all outcomes resulting in a variety of major economic and social changes.
Its an interesting piece of information that I wasn't completely familiar with, but I think he's confusing the issue somewhat by calling it a "tax." That term generally refers to payments to a government required by law. This "Google tax" is just another cost of doing business, like rent.
Yes. I think that's what he means when he's using the word "tax". Just another cost of doing business.
I don't think the short blog piece suggests Google is doing anything wrong, much less illegal (Amazon isn't mentioned). I would say the point of the piece is summed up in the last few sentences - that the internet has massively opened access to different markets, creating competition and raising all boats; but at the same time, when one access provider has dominant control over access to the market, those benefits are mitigated.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Okay, serious answer: it was a wannabe Travelocity startup founded in 2010 which was bought out by SAP in 2016.
I guess I just disagree with this premise.
Actually it's not, though.
But the results you get are ALL advertisements. That is the problem. I would not mind if they just had a few advertisements which are labeled. That is all fine. The problem is Google no longer gives you real completr search results. You can't find obscure stuff like you used to be able to. It is unusable unless you are happy with the filtered results. I am not.
I don't think an analogy to television advertising works here. The point is not that Google shows ads, but that Google alters internet search results in favor of its customers. It would be more like watching the Superbowl and thinking there are only two beers available in the market, Bud and Miller, because those are the only two advertisers you can see. We know that's not true, because of other advertising outlets (like the internet). But if you're doing an internet search, you will only find the tailors who pay Google for search hits, because Google is so dominant that almost no one uses any other search engine. Many don't realize this. Most of us think a search for a product will hit anyone who has a webpage with the right tags, but that's not the case.
I use DuckDuckGo. Google is fine if you are looking for stuff from their prescribed retailers or their select media sources. I do use Google maps. But I usually avoid their search engine.
