I don't really care what Ecosia's motive is; I never even heard of it before now. What Google is doing is simply wrong. Anyone who can't see that has been in the SV bubble too long.
"Oh, the EU says we have to give people a choice to promote fairness and competition? Let's figure out how to make money off of it!"
It would be interesting if none of the other search engines participate in this auction. Then what is Google going to do? Ignore the EU and suck up another billion dollar fine?
The FAQ answers that already. It will choose randomly from among the search engines that register and don't offer a bid (and charge them nothing). That would be a really surprising outcome, as it would suggest that no one other than Google derives any economic value from being the search engine on an Android device.
FWIW, I have trouble imagining that this process was designed without consulting with the EU to ensure it would comply. If Google did indeed design this without ensuring that it is in compliance, that would imply that whoever they have working on this is colossally stupid.
Or that they refuse to pay. It still seems anti-competitive as Google doesn't have to pay, i.e. you can't outbid Google.
For example, "Our servers run on 100% renewable energy, and every search request removes 1kg of CO2 from the atmosphere."
As far as I can tell it's on AWS and Cloudflare/Ghost hosted blog. It acts and feels like a Bing proxy with Bing ads with really nothing else, but they say they have 34 full time salaried employees? I'm super confused.
By setting up an auction system, Google has effectively ensured that ALL of the options on the screen will be Google search syndication partners, because no primary search competitor (Bing/Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu) can afford to compete in EU countries. Google will give up some app market share but all search traffic will flow back to them at what is likely to be a very low TAC. If I'm Google, I just view this new TAC as part of a separate, on-going EU fine.
Google is very clever in their approach to these regulatory challenges. However, the EU anti trust authorities are more aware and empowered than ever before. It will be interesting to watch how this develops.
You're saying that Google syndicators value a unit of traffic more highly than Bing/Yahoo/Yandex/Baidu do? That does not seem especially likely to me. Perhaps in some small countries, but I would be surprised if Bing, Yandex, and Baidu don't bid in e.g. France, Germany, etc.
Its the very definition of what makes a monopoly dangerous, the ability to outspend any competitor and force them out of the market.
In my opinion these attacks are a paid PR driven distraction from the truly evil actors in the world - see the losses of freedom for people in Hong Kong or citizens of Russia who been imprisoned or killed.
When will hacker news end together to fight true evil instead of minor infractions?
You seem to be under the impression that Google is the only company that could have achieved this. Fastmail is proof that this is simply not true. Google was the leader, and used slimy tactics to kill competition wherever it could. That's not innovation, that's monopoly.
Here's the corollary to your statement:
"Remember how great the internet was when there were lots of choices for services? Remember when web sites competed to produce the best content in order to attract readers, instead of gaming Google's SEO? Remember when sites didn't have to make separate AMP versions of their content? Remember when you could surf the web and not be tracked from site to site to TV to store? Remember when your credit card purchases were between you and your bank, and not handed over to a Mountainview advertising company? Remember when you bought into an internet service and it would keep running until it went out of business, instead of just being randomly terminated for no reason?" I could go on.
> Remember when sites didn't have to make separate AMP versions of their content?
This one contradicts your "kill competition" narrative. Any search engine can implement its own AMP cache, and all the major ones do. A slimy kill competition tactic would be to demand publishers integrate directly with Google instead, like Apple News or FB Instant Articles.
> Remember when web sites competed to produce the best content in order to attract readers, instead of gaming Google's SEO?
This also contradicts your thesis because it's actually a benefit to competitors instead of an example of Google killing competition. Competitors that use different algorithms from Google are less likely have their rankings gamed by SEO black hats, causing their results to appear comparatively better.
> Remember when you bought into an internet service and it would keep running until it went out of business, instead of just being randomly terminated for no reason?
No, I don't remember when this was ever the case.
Actual examples of killing competition are things like making it difficult to use alternate app stores, push notification services, and location services on Android. Enabling some of these would be difficult (not impossible) to do securely, and Google has no incentive to expend resources to enable them, but a working regulatory body could require it for the public good.
Those aren't the reason why some people are down on Google. The damage that they're doing to the public discourse is one of the things that concerns people.
Blaming them for the state of society is sheer scapegoating as frankly society can and has fucked itself up far more without any outside involvement. It is like accusing rock music of making teenagers rebellous when it is really the result of development of agency,nand finding the framework they are under constraining, and discontent with choices made for them.
They get shit no matter what they do directionality. If they let algorithms guide it pure they are "promoting radicalization" by trying to serve the user with engagement. If they hide disturbing suggested searched they are "censorsing". The true purpose isn't to be satisfied but to try to bully for control.
The whole damn point of a search engine is to prioritize.
The kids are alright. There are Google whistle-blowers coming forward to about Google's manipulation, and there are internal documents corroborating this.
It is like accusing rock music of making teenagers rebellious when it is really the result of development of agency
No, it's like calling out the media trying to push that narrative.
The true purpose isn't to be satisfied but to try to bully for control.
Bingo! So the solution is just to let people have their speech.
The whole damn point of a search engine is to prioritize.
When it helps things go viral that people want to see, this is being done correctly. When it's pushing an agenda, even though what's being pushed doesn't have traction, for the sake of ad dollars, and to prop up dying industries, then this is corruption.
As for "having their speech" - they already have it but nobody has to help them spread it.
The object of the 1st fragment is not the same as the person described in the 2nd fragment.
As for "having their speech" - they already have it but nobody has to help them spread it.
It's one thing to "not spread" something. It's another thing entirely when there are people who want information, even want to pay for it, and big companies get in the way to push their own agenda. It's not just the most radical segments this applies to, but lots of normal people nearer to the center. Also, it's really something that big companies do this, all the while claiming they're "platforms" not "publishers."
I'd gladly go back to pre-Google search and MapQuest if they weren't based on mass surveillance as well. Sadly, they were. Many if not most internet businesses are. The problem runs much deeper than Google, but they're one of the biggest offenders.
Its so mindless and terrifying, like the mechanism for the banality of evil was just copy and pasted but since its not ethnonationalism no one notices or cares.
To understand how google got the way it is requires an acknowledgement from all of our direct and vigorous contributions. The parable of the frog and scorpion is one of shared responsibility, not of faultless victim and malcious aggressor.
It's baffling.
Google has gone its way to the mega corporation where nothing else matters but money. And they are moving into direction where this money is comming from worse possible sources.
Regarding "true evil", to some people google IS true evil. And based of their conduct in last 5 years it is hard to argue.
If you want some insight, read: https://www.amazon.com/Age-Surveillance-Capitalism-Future-Fr...
> Do you remember how terrible email was before Gmail? How awful MapQuest was before Google maps?
No? There was nothing wrong with email without g. I am still using it and having my own mail server. And now you have OpenStreetMaps, I don't use Google Maps, when I want map, I want MAP, not map&ads&suggestions&search&reviews,..
Serving banner ads across sites does not even remotely compare.
Um, Altavista was better than Google for a very long time.
And I STILL cry that I can't search and then get a graphical clustermap in order to drill down to what I want. (Yeah, when I search for Python I'm probably not looking for reptiles).
Do like one or two google searches and you'll see a monthly transparency report. (https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planti...)
Spend another five minutes doing research and it feels like Ecosia goes above and beyond to make their purpose pretty legitimized. E.g. the company is a certified b-corporation. The founders donated their ownership of the company back to the share. (https://blog.ecosia.org/trees-not-profits/)
Sure, google has done a great job building the ecosystem. But Ecosia doesn't appear to deserve the skepticism I see here in the comments.
The linked website doesn't point to anything else but that they're allegedly planting trees for (an unknown percentage of the money collected by) showing ads to users. Which is nice, but if you want that I support tree planting initiatives explicitly (which I do), why don't you just encourage someone doing just that, maybe by pointing out sites which actually encourage to do that, like https://www.plant-for-the-planet.org?