How much happiness does Google search bring you every day? How many times a day do you visit the homepage or harness the power of the G through its embedded search bars? (And I haven’t even mentioned the happiness gained from chuckling at Google doodles that show up on holidays or other special occasions.)
Last week the New York Times ran an editorial suggesting that Google’s search algorithm should be subject to government oversight or possibly even regulation. Unfortunately, the Old Gray Lady came across more like an Old Gray Hag. To sum up her primary argument: it’s not fair that, because of its market share of search and subsequent tremendous power to determine search result rankings, Google wields immense authority over a company’s success — or even whether one flies or flops.
Search engine guru Danny Sullivan brilliantly satirized the editorial:
The New York Times is the number one newspaper web site. Analysts reckon it ranks first in reach among US opinion leaders. When the New York Times editorial staff tweaks its supersecret algorithm behind what to cover and exactly how to cover a story — as it does hundreds of times a day — it can break a business that is pushed down in coverage or not covered at all.
[. . .]
Some early suggestions for how to [ensure the paper doesn't play favorites] include having the New York Times explain with some specified level of detail the editorial policy that guides what it decides to covers [sic], what it doesn’t decide to cover, why it chooses to write a particular headline with a particular angle, to show all versions of a newspaper story that is written from start to finish, to reveal what’s been edited out. Another would be to give some government commission the power to look at all these aspects, perhaps the power to reside within the newsroom and ensure fairness.
Marissa Mayer, Google’s Vice President of Search Products & User Experience, weighed in in the Financial Times:
. . . The proponents of “search neutrality” want to put an end to [search competition], introducing a new set of rules in which governments would regulate search results to ensure they are fair or neutral.
Here the practical challenges would be formidable. What is fair in terms of ordering? An alphabetical listing? . . . Without competition and experimentation between companies, how could the rules keep up? There is no doubt that this will stifle the advance of the science around search engines.
[. . .]
But the strongest arguments [sic] against rules for “neutral search” is that they would make the ranking of results on each search engine similar, creating a strong disincentive for each company to find new, innovative ways to seek out the best answers on an increasingly complex web.
Incentives for search companies “to find new, innovative ways to seek out the best answers on an increasingly complex web” is what led (and continues to lead) Google to develop an excellent search product that brings millions of people copious information, knowledge, and happiness. It’s obvious even to internet-surfing grandmothers everywhere that search neutrality would stifle innovation and limit potential future happiness brought to all of us who regularly harness the power of the G.
I wonder why it’s seemingly so easy to see the negative unintended consequences of regulating search, yet most people are blind to similar consequences from government regulation of other stuff. I think one reason is because proponents of regulation can yell about fairness and “leveling the playing field,” which sounds intuitive and appealing, so most people never realize that there’s potential for unintended consequences. Let alone what the costs and benefits of those consequences might be.
One example is cybersecurity certification. It sounds so great and intuitive — government sponsored certification (“We must protect this networks!”) will lead to better information security — that most people wouldn’t bother to consider whether such certification would keep up with technological advance, hamstring innovation, or discourage security investment outside the scope of the certification.
Search neutrality would prevent creative innovation that could change the status quo. In general, people who like the status quo are either afraid that in the future they won’t be able to innovate as well as their competitors or already getting fat, happy, and rich and don’t see why they should expend time and energy to innovate further. Ultimately, the masses suffer with less-innovative and often more expensive products.
Neutrality neuters innovation. The playing field is level, it’s just that Google’s algorithm keeps smacking the Jabulani into the upper 90s while the competition can’t stop kicking it out of bounds when trying to make a simple square pass, all while the New York Times whines about not knowing how Google is kicking the ball.
Every week we bring you in-depth interviews with leading thinkers and entrepreneurs from the world of technology. The most recent episode features 