Google Sued by YouTube Rival Rumble over Search Rankings(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Google Sued by YouTube Rival Rumble over Search Rankings
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-sued-by-youtube-rival-over-search-rankings-11610407969
76 comments
> But what if it's just that Google's algorithm, designed by someone who's never even heard of Rumble, just doesn't like the Rumble site as much as other sites?
See, that's been Google's defense in most of these cases; they (claim to) defer EVERYTHING to "the algorithm", a magic, top secret, unknowable and ineffable deity that calls the shots, so that Google themselves can deny culpability when it comes to anti-trust cases like this. They insist HARD on minimizing human intervention in search results and rankings, because if they allow it, they become more liable.
See, that's been Google's defense in most of these cases; they (claim to) defer EVERYTHING to "the algorithm", a magic, top secret, unknowable and ineffable deity that calls the shots, so that Google themselves can deny culpability when it comes to anti-trust cases like this. They insist HARD on minimizing human intervention in search results and rankings, because if they allow it, they become more liable.
And.... so what? Yes that is the case. Is it a problem, and if so why?
The manual indexes were explicitly editorialised and pushed their own services, and that was ok. Google is just an index service, if you don't like it's results go elsewhere.
The manual indexes were explicitly editorialised and pushed their own services, and that was ok. Google is just an index service, if you don't like it's results go elsewhere.
If your algorithm is designed perfectly, without the need for human intervention, and it proceeds to do shitty things, you are still responsible for said shitty things.
Imagine that search results were picked by humans, and the particular human that answered these queries had no idea that Google owned YouTube and just thought that YouTube was a better result. It isn't necessarily the best result and Google is responsible for it, but it doesn't strike me as anti-competitive or any sort of legal issue.
If Google tweaks the algorithm (or tells their human rankers) to prefer Google properties then it is an abuse of power and something that I think is morally wrong.
If Google tweaks the algorithm (or tells their human rankers) to prefer Google properties then it is an abuse of power and something that I think is morally wrong.
> Like how could you possibly ensure that for every possible search, the "correct" results appear first?
You align the incentives by breaking up Google. They have no business promoting their other revenue streams in their own search results.
You align the incentives by breaking up Google. They have no business promoting their other revenue streams in their own search results.
So a company isn’t allowed to advertise its other products?
On the same platform where they sell ads to competing products? No.
More like, a company that is in the business of offering you information should not alter that information based on personal interest.
You wouldn't expect a map created by a company to hide streets where rival businesses are located for example, or your doctor to avoid disclosing a potential treatment because it's done by a rival health provider.
Funnily enough, I remember this being one of the differentiating factors that made people love google when they were starting to become popular - "our ads are unintrusive and clearly separated from actual content".
You wouldn't expect a map created by a company to hide streets where rival businesses are located for example, or your doctor to avoid disclosing a potential treatment because it's done by a rival health provider.
Funnily enough, I remember this being one of the differentiating factors that made people love google when they were starting to become popular - "our ads are unintrusive and clearly separated from actual content".
At tech giant's scale, I'd say yes. YouTube gets the level of promotion and integration with Google services that money can't buy.
Google and Microsoft use their successful products to promote and keep competition out for other products.
Microsoft got slapped for Internet Explorer, but somehow Google gets away with shoving Chrome and the Android certification program which is basically "you either bundle all our other products, or we'll make you incompatible with Play Services".
Google and Microsoft use their successful products to promote and keep competition out for other products.
Microsoft got slapped for Internet Explorer, but somehow Google gets away with shoving Chrome and the Android certification program which is basically "you either bundle all our other products, or we'll make you incompatible with Play Services".
I think were going to have to start introducing modern definitions for modern times when it comes to anti-trust. For instance "network effect monopoly/oligopoly" should probably be something defined. Monopolistic domination is more governed by this than anything else today (economies of scale, bundling, etc)
Or apply the rules to trusts instead of thinking they only apply to monopolies.
Personally, I think a company should conform to a single NCL category (like trademarks)
It is unfair competition when a megacorp can compete at loss to establish dominance in a new sector - yet these megacorps do it regularly. Buying their way in, or providing a service at a loss until the competition is eradicated.
Youtube is the perfect example of a loss leader. Impossible to provide for "free" unless you own a massive ad network and substantial global infrastructure. It is simply "unfair" that it exists in its current form. You cant run youtube off google ads - only google can do that, because they get both the publishers share and the ad networks share of the revenue split!
Personally, I think a company should conform to a single NCL category (like trademarks)
It is unfair competition when a megacorp can compete at loss to establish dominance in a new sector - yet these megacorps do it regularly. Buying their way in, or providing a service at a loss until the competition is eradicated.
Youtube is the perfect example of a loss leader. Impossible to provide for "free" unless you own a massive ad network and substantial global infrastructure. It is simply "unfair" that it exists in its current form. You cant run youtube off google ads - only google can do that, because they get both the publishers share and the ad networks share of the revenue split!
The thing with network effects is that we the users benefit if all the other users (or a majority of them anyway) are on the same system. The answer isn't to force diversity because that just imposes costs and inconvenience on users just as much as it hurts providers.
In a sense in a situation like this you can consider the customer to be essentially all of us as a group. Therefore as a group it makes sense for us to negotiate terms with the service provider, hence I think there's a reasonable role for government to regulate. After all our elected representatives are there to do exactly that - represent us and our interests.
Honestly I would prefer minimal or no regulatory intervention. I don't think the degree of any harm being done currently is sufficient to make imposing regulation worth the risks of getting those regulations wrong and making things worse for users. I think the degree of any current abuses are relatively trivial from a user perspective, however I do accept the basic principle that regulation may be necessary and appropriate, and companies like google need to know that and act accordingly.
In reality I'm a Brit and these are mainly US companies, so it's mainly up to you guys, but I'm sure the EU and other governments, should look at this.
In a sense in a situation like this you can consider the customer to be essentially all of us as a group. Therefore as a group it makes sense for us to negotiate terms with the service provider, hence I think there's a reasonable role for government to regulate. After all our elected representatives are there to do exactly that - represent us and our interests.
Honestly I would prefer minimal or no regulatory intervention. I don't think the degree of any harm being done currently is sufficient to make imposing regulation worth the risks of getting those regulations wrong and making things worse for users. I think the degree of any current abuses are relatively trivial from a user perspective, however I do accept the basic principle that regulation may be necessary and appropriate, and companies like google need to know that and act accordingly.
In reality I'm a Brit and these are mainly US companies, so it's mainly up to you guys, but I'm sure the EU and other governments, should look at this.
We do, it's called "monopolistic behavior" and you don't need to have a certain market share to get fined for it.
Care to try to define it? I think this is an interesting idea and I wonder how to meaningfully distinguish between market domination that is, let’s say, “earned” fairly, and that which is obtained by exploiting network effects.
Network singularity abuse?
We also need to stop calling it a “monopoly”. Every time someone brings up that word, someone says that they’re not technically a monopoly because there’s other options. We should be calling it something related to the name of the laws that would be used: anti trust. Are there any words that would be more appropriate?
I don't particularly like Google, but I think that the rumblings here amongst the comments about bringing the government in for antitrust or regulating are much worse ideas than leaving Google alone. I like to be ahead of trends, I've been gently phasing Google out of my life. It isn't causing me any problems, there are alternatives for most things. They are currently pushing all the people I watch off YouTube, so wherever they go to I'll follow.
If a person trusts Google (or YouTube) to decide what they see or host their content, then that is the person's choice. Google have a long history of unchallenged market dominance because they provide, frankly, better service than the alternatives. Not because of shady tricks, but because Google is a technically amazing company. But at some point they will cease to be technically amazing and sink back to being average, and then the market will open up space for some competitors.
I'd love to see innovative advertising models to break AdWords and redirect profits from Google to the advertisers. That'd be an improvement. Getting the government and judges involved to decide how to rank search results is not an improvement. I do not want any US administration, or US Congress, or US appointed judge deciding what I should see in my searches. Nothing good will come of that.
If a person trusts Google (or YouTube) to decide what they see or host their content, then that is the person's choice. Google have a long history of unchallenged market dominance because they provide, frankly, better service than the alternatives. Not because of shady tricks, but because Google is a technically amazing company. But at some point they will cease to be technically amazing and sink back to being average, and then the market will open up space for some competitors.
I'd love to see innovative advertising models to break AdWords and redirect profits from Google to the advertisers. That'd be an improvement. Getting the government and judges involved to decide how to rank search results is not an improvement. I do not want any US administration, or US Congress, or US appointed judge deciding what I should see in my searches. Nothing good will come of that.
I think your view ignores many arguments, like the giant network effects that these kind of social companies have, the giant infrastructure costs of hosting video at scale that make it really hard for adversaries to rise, or the technical skills required to move your data out of some google services, if it's possible at all.
Even if those barriers were overcome, the exceptionality of such a feat as taking down one of the big guys makes it really likely that the competing services that potentially succeed google, facebook, amazon et all are going to be just as monopolistic, so it's not clear at all that we would end up better off at all.
> I do not want any US administration, or US Congress, or US appointed judge deciding what I should see in my searches. Nothing good will come of that.
That's of course a matter of preference or ideology (and perhaps partly me being a European) but I do prefer government oversight over monopolies rather than unregulated wild west business areas - admitting it's prone to failure, as both systems are. I do have issues with the US part of it, but we don't have supranational regulatory bodies - perhaps something that we should work for, although it is very unlikely to happen successfully considering the ever diverging interests of the US, the EU and China.
> They are currently pushing all the people I watch off YouTube, so wherever they go to I'll follow.
Out of curiosity, who do you regularly watch that has been pushed off the platform?
Even if those barriers were overcome, the exceptionality of such a feat as taking down one of the big guys makes it really likely that the competing services that potentially succeed google, facebook, amazon et all are going to be just as monopolistic, so it's not clear at all that we would end up better off at all.
> I do not want any US administration, or US Congress, or US appointed judge deciding what I should see in my searches. Nothing good will come of that.
That's of course a matter of preference or ideology (and perhaps partly me being a European) but I do prefer government oversight over monopolies rather than unregulated wild west business areas - admitting it's prone to failure, as both systems are. I do have issues with the US part of it, but we don't have supranational regulatory bodies - perhaps something that we should work for, although it is very unlikely to happen successfully considering the ever diverging interests of the US, the EU and China.
> They are currently pushing all the people I watch off YouTube, so wherever they go to I'll follow.
Out of curiosity, who do you regularly watch that has been pushed off the platform?
I keep thinking that either YouTube needs to continue to exist, or one day we'll have the potential to lose so much content at once. Entire companies predicate themselves on the fact that they can upload to or stream on the large services. It's a hard dependency not many think about consciously.
The sheer amount of technological progress that gets consolidated in the largest companies creates a lot of societal dependencies that would be catastrophic to undo. It reminds me of the work done to lift families in developing nations out of poverty through new jobs, then being unable to move those jobs domestically without it looking like there is now a tangible entity to blame for plunging those families into poverty again.
The sheer amount of technological progress that gets consolidated in the largest companies creates a lot of societal dependencies that would be catastrophic to undo. It reminds me of the work done to lift families in developing nations out of poverty through new jobs, then being unable to move those jobs domestically without it looking like there is now a tangible entity to blame for plunging those families into poverty again.
We really don't need China in the equation, since they have chosen an altogether unique and separate ecosystem for their shit. The big ones IMO are the US, EU and India.
I mean, I'd really want us to work towards global communication, rather than a second steel curtain. But whatever works.
It's perfectly alright to want a global comms network, but the Chinese don't want to work for that goal. If a global network were to be established, China's position in it would be akin to that of the UK in the EU (as outlined by Sir Humphrey wittingly in Yes Minister).
> ... but I do prefer government oversight over monopolies ...
Harshly but speaking honestly, this attitude is why Google is in America and not in the EU. Google is better at ranking search results than any parliament or regulator on the planet.
They are in America because the US government knows to leave them to it.
> Out of curiosity, who do you regularly watch that has been pushed off the platform?
No-one formally banned yet, but people like Chris Martenson, Joe Rogan, a couple of libertarian types. The usual suspects. I don't like their odds of being on YouTube in 5 years. They 'spread disinformation'.
If I'm wrong then I'll stick with YouTube. I don't mind what they decide to do, even if I have opinions on whether it is good or bad.
Harshly but speaking honestly, this attitude is why Google is in America and not in the EU. Google is better at ranking search results than any parliament or regulator on the planet.
They are in America because the US government knows to leave them to it.
> Out of curiosity, who do you regularly watch that has been pushed off the platform?
No-one formally banned yet, but people like Chris Martenson, Joe Rogan, a couple of libertarian types. The usual suspects. I don't like their odds of being on YouTube in 5 years. They 'spread disinformation'.
If I'm wrong then I'll stick with YouTube. I don't mind what they decide to do, even if I have opinions on whether it is good or bad.
> They are in America because the US government knows to leave them to it
That's great up to a point but I feel like that point is in the past. Companies need freedom to innovate but beyond that point they will use the freedom to commit abuses. Incidentally the government also represents the targets of those abuses.
That's great up to a point but I feel like that point is in the past. Companies need freedom to innovate but beyond that point they will use the freedom to commit abuses. Incidentally the government also represents the targets of those abuses.
>Harshly but speaking honestly, this attitude is why Google is in America and not in the EU.
America certainly has a better track record launching innovative tech, that's indisputable. But I don't think the reasons can be waved away as simply "lack of regulation". There are dozens of variables: some related to the different market environment, like having to support dozens of languages to reach the whole European market vs being able to reach more than 300 million users just with english in America; some related to European bureaucracy making harder to start businesses and raise capital; some related to the culture in the US being more entrepreneurial...
In any case, American companies being better at disrupting the market doesn't really take away from the fact that it's lead to a monopolistic situation, and that said situation is having unwanted consequences.
> Google is better at ranking search results than any parliament or regulator on the planet.
The point is not that a regulator should rank results, but that there should be a set of enforced good practices regarding how the search/ranking system and the company's personal interests can interact, how should the data extracted from users be handled, etc.
In theory, if we end up deciding that social networks, messaging systems, internet search and the like have become so necessary to consider access to them a basic right, I wouldn't be opposed to developing public-funded alternatives freely available to the public.
In practice however, I fully agree that the chances of public bodies feature matching private alternatives are almost nil, and that's just one of the many points that make it unfeasible. So we have to settle for making sure that private actors play clean, and possibly funding potential alternatives to help the market be more diverse.
America certainly has a better track record launching innovative tech, that's indisputable. But I don't think the reasons can be waved away as simply "lack of regulation". There are dozens of variables: some related to the different market environment, like having to support dozens of languages to reach the whole European market vs being able to reach more than 300 million users just with english in America; some related to European bureaucracy making harder to start businesses and raise capital; some related to the culture in the US being more entrepreneurial...
In any case, American companies being better at disrupting the market doesn't really take away from the fact that it's lead to a monopolistic situation, and that said situation is having unwanted consequences.
> Google is better at ranking search results than any parliament or regulator on the planet.
The point is not that a regulator should rank results, but that there should be a set of enforced good practices regarding how the search/ranking system and the company's personal interests can interact, how should the data extracted from users be handled, etc.
In theory, if we end up deciding that social networks, messaging systems, internet search and the like have become so necessary to consider access to them a basic right, I wouldn't be opposed to developing public-funded alternatives freely available to the public.
In practice however, I fully agree that the chances of public bodies feature matching private alternatives are almost nil, and that's just one of the many points that make it unfeasible. So we have to settle for making sure that private actors play clean, and possibly funding potential alternatives to help the market be more diverse.
I never heard of rumble...
But I’ve heard and seen Google’s auctioning trademarked keywords in their search ads. That should be illegal. You hold a trademark, others should not bid on that. It’s a kind of self dealing, no actually racketeering/protection. I’m glad Europe is looking into it. Maybe? The new admin will look into it, though I have my doubts.
If I type AT&T or ATT I want AT&T's website listed first. If I type Google I want google to come first and not Yandex or Baidu. If I type Mazda that's who I want listed first, not Peugeot...
You can put all those bidders second if you like.
But I’ve heard and seen Google’s auctioning trademarked keywords in their search ads. That should be illegal. You hold a trademark, others should not bid on that. It’s a kind of self dealing, no actually racketeering/protection. I’m glad Europe is looking into it. Maybe? The new admin will look into it, though I have my doubts.
If I type AT&T or ATT I want AT&T's website listed first. If I type Google I want google to come first and not Yandex or Baidu. If I type Mazda that's who I want listed first, not Peugeot...
You can put all those bidders second if you like.
If I go to a store and ask for a KitchenAid, should it be illegal for the salesperson to try to sell me a mixer from another manufacturer?
Is the salesperson selling ads or selling goods? If she's selling goods, she can show me all the alternatives she wants!
If she's selling ads, she should not pretend to not hear me say KitchenAid unless KitchenAid pays her enough to "understand" KitchenAid.
If she's selling ads, she should not pretend to not hear me say KitchenAid unless KitchenAid pays her enough to "understand" KitchenAid.
Vendor specific sales incentives and brick and mortar retailers charging vendors to be more visible than competitors are sales of active and passive advertising respectively.
Retailers have income streams beyond what shoppers provide directly. They sell access to your attention like Google and Facebook.
Retailers have income streams beyond what shoppers provide directly. They sell access to your attention like Google and Facebook.
It should be illegal for the salesperson to put the KitchenAid product behind a mixer from another manufacturer, just because the other manufacturer paid them to.
You need to actively scroll past the ads. They aren't after the organic results. They are at the top, you need to ignore them or click them. It comes in b/w you and the first result.
You need to actively scroll past the ads. They aren't after the organic results. They are at the top, you need to ignore them or click them. It comes in b/w you and the first result.
This is how stores are in the real world - suppliers pay for good shelf space and for things like endcap displays. Also, salespeople get a bonus for selling particular items.
True, but when you reach for Coke, you get a coke. If you reach for a Pepsi you get a Pepsi. They don't nest a Pepsi in a Coke wrapper or vice versa to keep you from buying your choice.
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. When you get the ad, it’s labeled as an ad and you still get the organic result. “I feel lucky” doesn’t send you to the ad.
Yeah, a better comparison would be if you go to the store intending to buy Coke, but at the front of the soda aisle is a giant display with Pepsi on sale -- so you end up buying Pepsi. Which, come to think of it, happens to me all the time.
Ok a better representation would be I ask a clerk for a Coke but I get handed a Pepsi and I have to say, no, I asked for a Coke, not a Pepsi. But depending on how much Pepsi paid them I may get the Pepsi handed to me several times till I get the Coke (sometimes some trademarked brands are way down -maybe below the fold.)
At a lot of restaurants, I ask for a Coke and I'm told "Would Pepsi be OK?"
That's likely because restaurants have exclusivity deals with either supplier to get a discount - Coke gets you Coke, Sprite and Fanta, Pepsi gets you Mirinda, Pepsi and 7up. It's not the restaurant blocking you with fake advertising, but just stating that they simply don't have it.
Now if they were getting supplied by both, then asking the same, that would be a better analogy.
Now if they were getting supplied by both, then asking the same, that would be a better analogy.
If they have both, in some places, you're likely to be asked "What kind of coke?" to which "Pepsi," is an acceptable answer.
> It should be illegal for the salesperson to put the KitchenAid product behind a mixer from another manufacturer, just because the other manufacturer paid them to.
This seems insane to me. I can't believe how hungry for legislation people are. If I own a store I should be able to stock anything I want and arrange it however I want. Why should the US government get a say in that?
This seems insane to me. I can't believe how hungry for legislation people are. If I own a store I should be able to stock anything I want and arrange it however I want. Why should the US government get a say in that?
The law isn't super clear here, but nobody has put up a serious legal challenge against this practice since Rosetta Stone sued Google over it back in 2012. Google was awarded summary judgement against Rosetta Stone for its practice of selling bids for searches for Rosetta Stone's trademarks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone_Ltd._v._Google,_....
There have been earlier legal challenges to this practice as well, but none has resulted in a clear opinion that it is unlawful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone_Ltd._v._Google,_....
There have been earlier legal challenges to this practice as well, but none has resulted in a clear opinion that it is unlawful.
GoogleAds has a system like this behind the scene where trademark holders need to whitelist the specific GoogleAds accounts that want to use their trademark keywords.
No idea how widely used or effective this is though.
No idea how widely used or effective this is though.
This is a good example of feature bloat that hampers Google’s search product, making them less competitive.
Of course, Google’s dominance allows them to do this without much damage ... for now.
Of course, Google’s dominance allows them to do this without much damage ... for now.
Eh, a trademark doesn't mean you own a word. You only own the exclusive right to use that word within a few explicitly defined contexts.
More explicitly, you own the shape within a certain, limited in scope, industry (sometimes in broader industry).
Most trademarks that contain everyday words must explicitly state no ownership claim of such words, but instead claim ownership of the shape of the word (and sometimes color) within a specific context, ie. "Apple".
For most trademarks, this usually means shape of the logo is what is protected, not the word used inside the logo.
So while you could create a lawn mowing service called "Apple" without any legal issue, you cannot use the exact shape of the letters (ie, font) in the Apple logo.
Most trademarks that contain everyday words must explicitly state no ownership claim of such words, but instead claim ownership of the shape of the word (and sometimes color) within a specific context, ie. "Apple".
For most trademarks, this usually means shape of the logo is what is protected, not the word used inside the logo.
So while you could create a lawn mowing service called "Apple" without any legal issue, you cannot use the exact shape of the letters (ie, font) in the Apple logo.
> So while you could create a lawn mowing service called "Apple" without any legal issue, you cannot use the exact shape of the letters (ie, font) in the Apple logo.
The wider problem is that even if they don’t have the right to the broader usage of the term, they do have billions more dollars than you and can sue you into submission. Even when the apple happens to be a different fruit: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/354644
The wider problem is that even if they don’t have the right to the broader usage of the term, they do have billions more dollars than you and can sue you into submission. Even when the apple happens to be a different fruit: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/354644
Other indexes used to honor trademark owners.
Why not have the trademark office charge trademark owners right to maintain trademark fees.
It’s just unseemly. I believe the EU is looking at this situation, so I’m not alone in this view.
Why not have the trademark office charge trademark owners right to maintain trademark fees.
It’s just unseemly. I believe the EU is looking at this situation, so I’m not alone in this view.
They effectively do. You pay fees to register the trademark, and continue to pay fees to maintain it every 10 years thereafter.
> I never heard of rumble...
I wonder why
I wonder why
It makes in theory, but I think that could get really messy in practice. Trademarks aren't universal, they're for a specific domain.
So who can bid on the keyword "Apple"? Does Apple Computer get exclusivity? What about Apple Cosmetics? Apple Travel Agency? Apple Corps? Imagine telling Greg Apple of Apple Plumbing that he can't advertise using his own last name!
Even if you let everyone with a relevant trademark bid on keywords, you're still gonna have problems because so many trademarks are normal words. Should a random orchard that hasn't obtained a trademark containing the word "Apple" be able to place apple ads?
So who can bid on the keyword "Apple"? Does Apple Computer get exclusivity? What about Apple Cosmetics? Apple Travel Agency? Apple Corps? Imagine telling Greg Apple of Apple Plumbing that he can't advertise using his own last name!
Even if you let everyone with a relevant trademark bid on keywords, you're still gonna have problems because so many trademarks are normal words. Should a random orchard that hasn't obtained a trademark containing the word "Apple" be able to place apple ads?
Even better, what about "Nissan?" https://nissan.com/
[deleted]
“We also offer Web design, Custom graphics design”.... not the best portfolio for that?
Have you seen a Japanese website before?
https://www.infocubic.co.jp/en/blog/website-design/how-japan...
https://www.infocubic.co.jp/en/blog/website-design/how-japan...
Many companies have names that have perfectly valid uses in their business domain as well. For instance, "coinbase", "y combinator", etc.
Simple solution, in case of conflict nobody gets to bid on advertising.
Doesn't that lead to a very simple DOS on your competitors? Just register a trademarked entity in another market.
Google Soap. Parler French School. Stripe Flags. Square Foods. etc.
Google Soap. Parler French School. Stripe Flags. Square Foods. etc.
Trademark offices make it hard to register similar trademarks.
However, what you described is not a conflict search “Windows” and you get www.microsoft.com etc, but search “Storm Windows” and no search engine is going to show you www.microsoft.com/... as the top entry.
It is however a reason not to choose single word trademarks.
However, what you described is not a conflict search “Windows” and you get www.microsoft.com etc, but search “Storm Windows” and no search engine is going to show you www.microsoft.com/... as the top entry.
It is however a reason not to choose single word trademarks.
I don’t think this would be a problem in practice. Google search already does context aware searches. It already differentiates people searching for Apple the iPhone company vs the appples that you eat. It differentiates searches for programming strings vs weaving.
So in practice, I think differentiating the area of trademark is something that could be done.
So in practice, I think differentiating the area of trademark is something that could be done.
I think it’s fair to say we only need to consider national and international trademarks.
At least with Ads you need to attribute a competitor's trademark to your competitor.
Matt’s apple orchard may or may not be trademarked. They may be registered in their state, but not likely nationally.
The money is in the big marks. Matt is not going to bid against Apple. Matt might bid against his neighbor on generic terms or on business name. His neighbor may bid on generic terms but not on his business name. That’d be tawdry.
At least with Ads you need to attribute a competitor's trademark to your competitor.
Matt’s apple orchard may or may not be trademarked. They may be registered in their state, but not likely nationally.
The money is in the big marks. Matt is not going to bid against Apple. Matt might bid against his neighbor on generic terms or on business name. His neighbor may bid on generic terms but not on his business name. That’d be tawdry.
The lawsuit also argues that Google’s deals to pre-install a YouTube app on mobile devices running Google’s Android operating system have unfairly deprived Rumble of viewers.
That sounds a lot like the US vs Microsoft (2001) antitrust case, where MSFT were sued for preinstalling IE on Windows without giving users other options, that Microsoft eventually lost. No doubt there's a lot more to it but Google bundling Google apps on Android does seem like pretty dodgy ground given the history of companies bundling their own software with OSes.
That sounds a lot like the US vs Microsoft (2001) antitrust case, where MSFT were sued for preinstalling IE on Windows without giving users other options, that Microsoft eventually lost. No doubt there's a lot more to it but Google bundling Google apps on Android does seem like pretty dodgy ground given the history of companies bundling their own software with OSes.
Off-topic: It was interesting to see that they offer video hosting. However, didn't find it any cheaper than Wasabi. Do you know of a cheaper provider than Wasabi?
If you're looking specific for video hosting, you should check out Streamable. $7.99/mo for 2TB of space, and a fair free tier.
They seem to be purposely not returning results from Gab. I searched for Trump Gab, returns only news articles. Did the same on Bing, and returns the proper page as first result.
I searched when I heard he switched over. Was kind of surprised that Google is doing that. Basically returning negative news articles.
Or removing negative results. Remember when they didn't autocomplete all the "crooked hillary" etc.
What's the claim here, that there's some line of code in search code that manually specifies Youtube to be higher than Rumble? Otherwise what does "rigging its search algorithms". Is it rigged if Google is giving the user what they're much more likely to want?
If I search "rumble big tech censorship", the rumble video shows up before Youtube. For other queries, why would they expect some random small video site to show up higher than the #1 video site? The article is behind a paywall, does anyone have more details on the claims here?
If I search "rumble big tech censorship", the rumble video shows up before Youtube. For other queries, why would they expect some random small video site to show up higher than the #1 video site? The article is behind a paywall, does anyone have more details on the claims here?
The complaint (https://www.scribd.com/document/490433093/Rumble-Inc-v-Googl...) lists some specific scenarios where they expect Rumble results to show up first: the search phrase "dog videos on rumble", the unique title of a video which was posted on Rumble first, etc.
Even so, I very much share your skepticism that this is actionable or even improper. The idea that it's unlawful for your search algorithm to not translate "on rumble" to "site:rumble.com" would be... quite a precedent.
Even so, I very much share your skepticism that this is actionable or even improper. The idea that it's unlawful for your search algorithm to not translate "on rumble" to "site:rumble.com" would be... quite a precedent.
Funnily enough, while it is true that there are some Youtube videos that show up above the rumble.com video for that query, all of them are from Rumble's own Youtube channel... So they are cannibalizing their own search queries :) And for some loose interpretation of "on", the results are indeed correct, those are dog videos "on" the rumble channel. As you mention, I don't see why it should be a string site: filter, if they're unhappy they can delete their Youtube channel.
Google is an advertisement company. They are not giving the user they want, but whatever someone pays them to make the user think he wants. And that's being charitable to Google, as there were leaked internal memos from Google essentially saying that they know that censorship doesn't work, but they will try to do it anyway, "for the greater good" I suppose.
I don't know exactly what they did to their search engine, but whatever they did, it's an absolute travesty. It used to be that if you searched for something long enough, you would eventually find it, no matter how obscure the thing you were looking for was. Now, it's almost impossible to catch them red-handed and prove anything, as archiving millions of Google webpages is really not an option, but I'm convinced that they are for example removing results of old news stories. I thought I might be going crazy, but no, other people had noticed how garbage Google has become too, including those who I know privately and don't get political at all.
I don't know exactly what they did to their search engine, but whatever they did, it's an absolute travesty. It used to be that if you searched for something long enough, you would eventually find it, no matter how obscure the thing you were looking for was. Now, it's almost impossible to catch them red-handed and prove anything, as archiving millions of Google webpages is really not an option, but I'm convinced that they are for example removing results of old news stories. I thought I might be going crazy, but no, other people had noticed how garbage Google has become too, including those who I know privately and don't get political at all.
> Google is an advertisement company. They are not giving the user they want, but whatever someone pays them to make the user think he wants.
This is plain false. The lawsuit is about search results, and those have nothing to do with someone paying to be higher. That only applies to ads results, which doesn't seem to be the issue here.
This is plain false. The lawsuit is about search results, and those have nothing to do with someone paying to be higher. That only applies to ads results, which doesn't seem to be the issue here.
It's a WSJ article about Google. I wouldn't hold my breath
Good. Glad to see anti trust attention being brought to megacorps that are abusing their position or just immune to competition even otherwise.
Google does its fair share of shitty things with search and ads, but I'm kind of skeptical that this is one of them.