This one's for Monkeyleg

[Perd Hapley]

The Federal Trade Commission gots beef with Google, too:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-of-google-1426793274

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-skewed-search-results-1426793553

[De Selby]

Why is the government interfering in google's private business?  Seems to me google should be free to decide who it will bless with searches and who it won't.

[vaskidmark]

The Federal Trade Commission gots beef with Google, too:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-of-google-1426793274

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-skewed-search-results-1426793553

You got this where it's not behind a paywall?

stay safe.

[Fly320s]

Why is the government interfering in google's private business?  Seems to me google should be free to decide who it will bless with searches and who it won't.

Because the current administration doesn't like freedom or big business, not even if it is Google or Apple.  Also, the internets should be free, fair, high speed, non-offensive, and pretty colors.

[makattak]

You got this where it's not behind a paywall?

stay safe.

For the absolute irony, allow me to point out that the Wall Street Journal has a deal with google that any links from google's search results will bypass the paywall.

So, go to this page: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=inside%20the%20us%20antitrust%20probe%20of%20google

And click the first link.

[bedlamite]

For the absolute irony, allow me to point out that the Wall Street Journal has a deal with google that any links from google's search results will bypass the paywall.

So, go to this page: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=inside%20the%20us%20antitrust%20probe%20of%20google

And click the first link.

Did that.

To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Log In

[Perd Hapley]

I got to it through Drudge. Should have anticipated the paywall. Sorry.

http://www.drudgereport.com

[Perd Hapley]

Why is the government interfering in google's private business?  Seems to me google should be free to decide who it will bless with searches and who it won't.

Might have something to do with fraud. Even real free-tradey free-traders won't shake the invisible hand of fraud.

[makattak]

Did that.

That's odd. I wonder why it works for me, still.

[vaskidmark]

For the absolute irony, allow me to point out that the Wall Street Journal has a deal with google that any links from google's search results will bypass the paywall.

So, go to this page: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=inside%20the%20us%20antitrust%20probe%20of%20google

And click the first link.

When can I expect payment for setting that up for you? 

stay safe.

[makattak]

When can I expect payment for setting that up for you?  

stay safe.

As soon as you get me your account. You do have Google Wallet, right?

(Just keep setting them up, I'll keep knocking them down...)

[Monkeyleg]

The Federal Trade Commission gots beef with Google, too:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-of-google-1426793274

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-skewed-search-results-1426793553

Yes!!!!!!

I have no problem with a business doing as they please legally. Google has been playing fast and loose with the rules for a long time. They're also anti-gun (except for Cabelas and a few other giant retailers who get a pass).

[De Selby]

Might have something to do with fraud. Even real free-tradey free-traders won't shake the invisible hand of fraud.

How is breaking government imposed rules about trade "fraud" in any classic sense of the word?

Anti trust legislation is at its core designed to restrict market practices to advantage some businesses over others.  Forcing Google to protect its competitors interests isn't a "free market" regulation in any rational sense.

[Perd Hapley]

How is breaking government imposed rules about trade "fraud" in any classic sense of the word?

Anti trust legislation is at its core designed to restrict market practices to advantage some businesses over others.  Forcing Google to protect its competitors interests isn't a "free market" regulation in any rational sense.

I didn't say that breaking government imposed rules was fraud, or the other thing you're talking about there.

Just from skimming the article, I assumed that fraud was the issue. From my layman's (i.e., not an SEO expert's) perspective, there looks like a lot of dishonesty going on. Like this:

The report’s findings are at odds with Google’s descriptions of its search practices.

And this:

In a lengthy investigation, staffers in the FTC’s bureau of competition found evidence that Google boosted its own services for shopping, travel and local businesses by altering its ranking criteria and “scraping” content from other sites. It also deliberately demoted rivals.

But the article approaches it from the anti-monopoly side. Sorry to have confused you.

[De Selby]

Again fistful - why should google be prevented from displaying search results on the engine in any way it chooses?  Google owns it, so I don't see how it's anything but a restraint on the free market enjoyment of google's property to force them to display results in any particular way.

[Perd Hapley]

Again fistful - why should google be prevented from displaying search results on the engine in any way it chooses?  Google owns it, so I don't see how it's anything but a restraint on the free market enjoyment of google's property to force them to display results in any particular way.

I suppose you could ask the FTC; or Monkeyleg, for whom I started this thread. As I'm pretty sure I already mentioned, it would appear to the casual reader as if Google was ranking its results differently from the way it claimed it would. I'm sorry I cannot answer your question more fully.

[Monkeyleg]

I see no reason why Google can't rank sites however they wish. As DeSelby and others point out, it's their business.

Now, seeing them have a run-in with the FTC? I'm not shedding any tears.

[Monkeyleg]

A reason for folks other than me to dislike Google: http://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2015/03/24/as-tech-giant-calls-for-more-foreign-workers-senate-hears-of-displaced-americans-n1975180/page/2

[Scout26]

Wouldn't it be fraud if Google told their customers "Pay us money and we'll do A, B, and C for you", and then, after you paid, they failed to to do A, B, and C?

Seriously counselor, this isn't that hard...

[De Selby]

Wouldn't it be fraud if Google told their customers "Pay us money and we'll do A, B, and C for you", and then, after you paid, they failed to to do A, B, and C?

Seriously counselor, this isn't that hard...

Uh, no, it wouldn't be - especially not where a,b,c are things like "we'll advertise your product."  Simply failing to perform a contract to an acceptable standard (or at all, I might add) is not fraud.  Not even close.

[HankB]

Uh, no, it wouldn't be - especially not where a,b,c are things like "we'll advertise your product."  Simply failing to perform a contract to an acceptable standard (or at all, I might add) is not fraud.  Not even close.

So there's nothing fraudulent about "We'll sign a contract to take your money to do something for you, but we have no intention of honoring the terms of the contract." ?

[De Selby]

So there's nothing fraudulent about "We'll sign a contract to take your money to do something for you, but we have no intention of honoring the terms of the contract." ?

That's not what happened here - having a self serving interpretation of what a contract requires isn't fraud.