13 posts • joined 19 Jun 2010
In other words, the South Carolina state government wants to profit from pornography. (They're already taxing cigarettes and booze, so why not porn, too?)
"No, no it really wasn't.
Unless they think the kind of people who block ads are the same kind of people who also love them and click on them and buy from them..."
Not all ads are pay-per-click.
The headline is deceptive. FairSearch (sic) and its ilk aren't "Google Watchers," they're "Google's competitors."
"Transparency" would mean leaving the search results in place instead of hiding them from the public eye.
Re: Who uses Google Shopping?
Shopping results are ads. Period. Whether they're hopeless or brilliant is beside the point.
Has anyone explained to Ms. Vestager that, like their counterparts on other search engines, Google's "comparison shopping service" results aren't organic search results, but ads?
The word "Sponsored" should be a giveaway.
It's worth noting that Microsoft is one of Senator Lee's top campaign contributors. Looks like it's time for Google to ante up.
I've had the slowness and "Not responding" problems with Chrome on my Windows 7.0 laptop for a while now. (No problems with Firefox.)
Re: Google should get a declaratory judgement
Back in 2003, in a decision about Search King, Inc. v. Google Technology, Inc., a U.S. district court judge wrote:
"Page Rank is an opinion - an opinion of the significance of a particular web site as it corresponds to a search query. Other search engines express different opinions, as each search engine's method of determining relative significance is unique.....A statement of relative significance, as represented by the Page Rank, is inherently subjective in nature. Accordingly the Court concludes that Google's Page Ranks are entitled to First Amendment protection."
(The judge apparently had some problems with terminology--e.g., "Page Rank" for "rankings"--and the lawsuit was about Google's right to rank or not rank the plaintiff's pages, but the "First Amendment protection" seems pretty clear.)
Smartphone? Feature phone? Unless I'm traveling, a landline works fine for me.
Now, if only they'd plant some foliage around the stadium. (I'm not a fan of the Full Brazilian look.)
Your "straw man" argument
"If all the commercial content producers were to join Murdoch behind a paywall,..."
That's a mighty big "if," for two reasons:
1) In the real world, some content producers would see an opportunity in staying outside the paywall, where they'd have less competition for the larger Web audience after the Murdochs of the world had retreated to their gated community.
2) Your hypothetical scenario smacks of collusion. Would "all the commercial content producers" seek antitrust immunity from the USA, the EU, and other jurisdictions before joining together in a paywall scheme?