From google:

When a user enters a query, our machines search the index for matching pages and return the results we believe are the most relevant to the user.

Nothing about "impartial" or "unbiased".

@FranticFish
Well no, that's not quite what the commission is saying, but it's not any less persuasive for that.

It's just that on your and their narrative of events, which are perfectly reasonable, there is no law requiring them to act otherwise.

Surely that's the test? That the break an actual law, not act in an underhand way?

Is no one else worried that a bit of populist reasoning is enough to fine someone, irrespective of the actual law?

I would be happy for the law to be rewritten. I think what Google is doing should be illegal (and there I part with Shepherd). But I don't think they have broken a current law, as written.

I get that many want "retribution", I'm pretty sure no one here has been harmed more (financially) by google than we have. But I am not willing to cut my nose of to spite my face.

This precedent will stifle innovation.

I was reading on one site that consumers may be able to file a civil claim against google for damages, i'm not sure how you would prove it but I guess consumers may have been denied finding a cheaper price for a product on another price comparison site.

Does google claim anywhere that their algo is "impartial"?

Please supply your definition then. Google has an algorithm which is supposed to be...

_{(added quote to make it clearer hopefully, took too long to reply)}

[edited by: FranticFish at 6:55 pm (utc) on Jun 28, 2017]

google has an algorithm which is supposed to be google's algorithm.

If google wants to define their algorithm they can. No matter how many times people outside of google say the algo is supposed to be this or that, does not make it so.

Exactly. But once it is set, if the subsets of the results it brings back are grouped and displayed in ways that favour one service provider over another, then...

...return the results we believe are the most relevant to the user. They never said they would return some utopian set of search results. I willing to bet that the vast majority of people here "believe" that their website is better and more relevant than the websites of their competitors, why should google be any different?

Ok, I retract my previous position. Google could be said to break the law as written.

Assume Google Shopping is separate from Google search.

Google shopping is then a supplier to search.

That supplier is getting unequal access to search, in direct violation of 1.c) which requires all trading partners to be treated equally.

So yeah, Google either needs to desist from showing Shopping results in search, or allow equal access to all other comparison sites.

And no, that's not what any of you were saying. And no, that did not require a law degree.

Google's "comparison shopping service results" are ads, and they're clearly labeled as such.

Why wouldn't Google run its ads at the top of the page, if that's where it thinks the ads are likely to get the most attention?

Google isn't the friendly startup that didn't want to be evil. Google is intent on making as much money as possible for its shareholders. It has a significant market share (over 80% of search traffic). This makes it quite different to the ordinary webmaster with a small website. Google operated in the EU and broke EU law. It was caught. It was fined $2.7 billion.

[justice.gov...]

A $500,000,000 fine. Google had to give up the money it made from drug pushing.

Now it has been caught breaking the law in the EU and has been fined $2.7 billion. Google rigged its system to favour its own shopping service over others.

Of course people will still defend Google and try to distract from these simple facts with risible arguments.

This is what the EUC said:
The European Commission has fined Google €2.42 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules. Google has abused its market dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to another Google product, its comparison shopping service.

Regards...jmcc

This is what the EUC said:

The EUC are politicians.

A UK politician recently said that people making political decisions in one London Borough are murderers.

Should we go and lock them up?

Or should we perhaps look at the law? See if it has actually been broken. You know, due process and all that nice stuff that's supposed to protect people from arbitrary decisions by politicians.

Hitler was a politician. Stalin, debatably, was a politician.

Unless we have a rule of law, we are in trouble, whether you are a big company or small, or a business or citizen or migrant.

Just because a politician says something, doesn't mean we should all just acquiesce, just because we agree with their reasoning. I have agreed with the commissions reasoning throughout- but fines should not be issued on the basis of reasoning, but on the letter of the law.

Reading a law may not need a law degree, but deciding if the relationship between one Google product and another is a supplier relationship or not is an actual legal argument. We can debate it, Google will definitely debate it, but it is at least a law that may have been broken.

I am seriously concerned if intelligent people see a fine they like and support it, just because politicians say it's justified. At no point has anyone challenged me with a legal basis for this fine, until I posited one myself. Shame on you all.

@EG
Why wouldn't Google run its ads at the top of the page, if that's where it thinks the ads are likely to get the most attention?

Because they have a dominant market position, so are bound by different terms of trade (specifically EEA Article 54). If Shopping is classed as a supplier to Search, then that is abuse of market position.

The commission has offered their opinion that it is indeed a separate entity and thus a supplier.

The sensible thing would be to comply and appeal. They instead refused to comply, though will presumably still appeal. The difference between the two courses is a €2.4billion fine.

By definition of the law what is advertised at the top is a google property which is google shopping and businesses have nothing to cheer about they submit a feed with all the information that is required and when shoppers go in google shopping they do not see themselves being on a business shop but still on a google property. Slowly it feels like businesses will no longer need a website why not put a buy now button direct in google shopping?

And for all those still in denial of Google abuse tricks, just note the recent multiple closures of medium size online retailers. (No, no, no, and no - Amazon, eBay and Ads taking all top spots in search results has nothing to do with this . . . )

.

Of course people will still defend Google and try to distract from these simple facts with risible arguments.

Even more laughable is how quickly some are willing to give up their rights in order to get a feeling of retribution. In essence the EUC is attempting to fine an entity for publishing their opinion on their website. The justification being that the entity's opinion is popular. Sadly the blood lust of the simple majority blinds them from seeing how dangerous this is.

Defending google? No. Opposing government overreach and protecting my own rights.

Something is really wrong,

The computer brain interface seems to fail producing logical answers...

Defending google? No. Opposing government overreach and protecting my own rights.

And the rule of law.

Punishment should not be judged on if you personally agree with it, but rather if it is warranted after due process. This thread has been a real eye-opener on the mentality of some people.

In essence the EUC is attempting to fine an entity for publishing their opinion on their website.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue.This is anti-trust and abuse of a dominant market position for unfair commercial advantage.

The justification being that the entity's opinion is popular.

The entity is a business operating in the EU and it has to abide by the rules and legislation in the EU. Not the USA, not China but the EU. It has been found to have a significant market share of the Search market (>80%).

Sadly the blood lust of the simple majority blinds them from seeing how dangerous this is.

Nasty populism, eh? Google has put people out of business and crushed sites with its pondscum intellected kludges. This time Google got caught breaking the rules -- the EU rules -- and it has been fined for doing so.

Defending google? No. Opposing government overreach and protecting my own rights.

What rights? The rights of Google shareholders to make more money while breaking the law? The right to tell the EU that Google shouldn't be fined for abuse of its dominant market position because they really are very nice people who don't want to be evil?

Regards...jmcc

I get the feeling that most points & views have been covered sufficiently regarding this topic, including ignorance, denial, contradiction, obstinacy and lunacy. It has been useful and terrifying on occasions.

Again, "protecting my own rights" not defending google.

Looking at the press release mentioned earlier in the post, under section"Google has demoted rival comparison shopping services in its search results", it says

" Google has included a number of criteria in these algorithms, as a result of which rival comparison shopping services are demoted. Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down. Google's own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google's generic search algorithms, including such demotions."

I am super curious what demotions they are referring to specifically? Too bad there is not more detail. Also, I think the point about their comparision engine search block not being subject to demotions is an interesting point....Not sure if its apples to apples but i've heard of cases over the years of Google promoting their own aquisitions in search engine results pages or the aquisitions not getting demoted (and therefore getting indirectly promoted) dispite the aquisitions using the same tactics that would get another site demoted. I've only seen one case personally (around coupons) where that may have been the case but I'm wondering if they're talking about something similar here?

The whole EU investigation was started by a price comparison site called foundem, they were hit by a Google penalty the kind that are usually used to fight web spam and black hat SEO. But it also hit this price comparison site that was clean. Foundem spent 3 years complaining to Google about the penalty. Eventually they got through to someone and Google "white listed" the site and the search traffic came back.

It seems Google does have a white list that makes these sites immune to Google's penalties.

Google asked Foundem to "keep the details of this dialogue private"

But Foundem reported the case to the EU and started the EU case as well as the searchneutrality.org site.

you can read all the details there.

Who knows what other sites are on the Google "white list" but smaller legit sites are supposed to be able to compete with them?

It seems the search results are not a level playing field.

It seems the search results are not a level playing field.

No! I won't have that. Google motto is "Do no Evil". Sorry to disappoint, you got it wrong there.

.

haha isn't life ironic the company that has the motto "Do no Evil" turned out to be the most evil one.

It seems the search results are not a level playing field.

The search results are, because the ads aren't part of the search results.

Ms. Verstager (the EU commissioner <snip>) doesn't believe in the principle of ad-supported content (at least not for search engines), if we're to believe this article from WIRED:

[wired.co.uk...]

Her vision of what product search should be is said to be more like this:

"In product search, a broad picture might mean a range of price-comparisons: a 'Find the best price' link at the top of the page, perhaps, instead of the current 'Shop on Google'. If the case extended to other areas, similar solutions could be found."

Is Ms. Verstager overreaching? Some people certainly think so (I'm one of them), but in any case, it's too bad that the idea for the kind of search engine that Ms. Verstager wants to see didn't come from a European entrepreneur instead of a politician (assuming that such a search engine is what the EU's 508 million inhabitants would like to see and use).

[edited by: goodroi at 6:24 pm (utc) on Jun 30, 2017]
[edit reason] TOS [/edit]

The search results are [a level playing field]

OMG ! how blind have I been in the past few years!

.

haha isn't life ironic the company that has the motto "Do no Evil" turned out to be the most evil one

Don't be upsetting the Google fans. Can't you see that they are already upset and in shock that anyone would dare fine their beloved clayfooted fake god. :)

Regards...jmcc

Is Ms. Verstager overreaching? Some people certainly think so (I'm one of them),

This might be a bit of a dent to your ego but Europe doesn't even know you exist and couldn't care less what you think. Google operated in the EU. Google broke EU law. Google got caught. Google got fined.

Regards...jmcc

Fascinating site, Nonstop.

[searchneutrality.org...]

It really shows the poverty of the arguments of the Google fans here.

It was a good thing that the useless collaborationist commissoner (Almunia) replaced with Vestager.

Regards...jmcc