Google, and The Dangers of Monopolizing Speech



Image result for all that google owns
Image result for google"It's like if you were trying to buy a house, and Google owned the house, and a lot of houses on your block. And they were the buyer's agent and also the seller's agent," said Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt. "It would raise questions, certainly."'  This perfectly sums up the idea behind CBS News' article "48 U.S. states launch antitrust investigation into Google."  The article focuses on the lawsuit brought to Google by the attorneys general of all US States, except California and Alabama, as well as the attorneys general of Washington  D.C. and Puerto Rico.  They are investigating weather or not Google has a monopoly on the internet search engine business, and if Google is using this monopoly to push the search results it deems most important.  Google's firm grip on the search engine business leads to them virtually giving the first search result to the highest bidder, as the article explains.  The article highlights the impact of this problem with Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge firmly stating that "When my daughter is sick and I search online for advice or doctors, I want the best ones — the best advice or the best doctors — not the ones who spent the most on advertising[.]"  This best puts into perspective the true danger of Google having a monopoly on one of the main uses of the internet, and using that monopoly to get revenue from people who buy their way to the top, instead of showing the best search results that fit what the individual who uses Google is looking for.  



My take on this issue is that Google has absolutely too much power.  I don't think anyone can really argue the fact that Google as a search engine is the best on the internet, but Google has shown time and time again that they will abuse this title if given the chance.  This article brings to light one aspect of the bigger problem with Google: they routinely silence people who disagree with them.  As i was reading this article, I was bombarded by ads relating to some of my previous Google searches, and whenever I search for something on Google, the first 2-3 results have a little "ad" notification next to them stating that they paid to be at the top.  Now, while these aspects might not seem that bad on their own, making the connection between advertising and free speech begins to shed light on what is going on behind the scenes at Google.  The ads obviously paid to be there, and, as stated in the article, whoever pays Google the most shows up first, which leads to Google treating internet searches as something to monetize, instead of something to help people with.  On the opposite end, Google has notoriously made it harder to find websites or internet searches that they disagree with, and YouTube, who is owned by Google, has begun a wave of banning people who they deem unworthy over the past couple of years.  
         When it comes to this issue, the reason why this is such a big deal is because that the Internet itself is a public place, even though people are not physically gathering there.  So, given what we learned in class about private companies who work in the public sector, the fact that companies like Google and Twitter (who's largest individual shareholder is a former partner of Google's) shut down speech and regulate who can and can't have a voice is dangerous; and the fact that it has taken the American government this long to recognize this is astounding. 

 Link to article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-antitrust-probe-48-u-s-states-launch-antitrust-investigation-of-google-dominance-in-search-ads-and-data/   

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whistleblowers: The Hard Part of "Freedom of Speech"

Image
For the past couple months, and really the last three years but this is just the newest thing, the mainstream news outlets have been showing 24 hour coverage of the Trump-Ukraine hearings.  This started when an unnamed whistleblower, now known but not confirmed as Eric Ciaramella, leaked information regarding President Trump and a conversation he had with representatives from Ukraine.  This sparked the latest in a long line of impeachment queries that have been launched against Trump since even before he was sworn in as president; and, as the evidence has been flushed out, it now seems that Ciaramella never had any firsthand knowledge of the claimed incident.  While this is a bad example, it is an example nonetheless of whistleblowing: the act of alerting the masses and news media of wrongdoing by an official or their administration.  Chelsea Maning, Edward Snowden, and Daniel Ellsberg are names that generally come to mind when people talk about whistleblowing.  These are people
Read more

The Rise of the Computer as a Household Object

Image
  For class this past week, we were divided up into groups and each presented on a form of technology that has changed or helped progress communication.  I chose the Personal Computer.  As I researched all the history of the personal computer, I was reminded how far we've come in the advancement of technology over the past half a century.  People from my generation, myself included, take the fact that we have access to computers and the internet whenever we want it for granted, and doing this research presentation really reminded me of that.  Without going into a full history of the PC, it started out as a glorified calculator.  The idea of a machine   that could send messages, play games, or even just have a color screen was foreign to early PC developers.  It came in pieces that you had to assemble yourself, and when it was complete, it looked like a pile of thrown together parts when compared to todays computers.  But, in a day and age when computers normally took up an
Read more

The Radical Idea of a Court By The People, For The People

Image
  As we have talked about the founding of our nation, and especially our form of government, it has further astounded me that the Founding Fathers had enough foresight to form the government in the way they did.  Three separate branches, keeping each other in check, all getting their power to operate from the people, was an idea the world had never heard of before.  One of the aspects that I did not know much about was the supreme court.  The two videos we watched for class that are linked below really explained the courts in simple ways and had one main theme: the judges are Americans just like the rest of us, and they get their power from the people in the same way that the other two branches do.  When talking about the history of the supreme court, the fact that the courts receive their power from "public faith," as the video puts it, is possibly the most radical idea to come from the Founding Fathers.  A people who decides their own laws, and petitions the court to
Read more