I'm of two minds (at least). Initially, I thought that any tampering with Google's algorithm-based search results was a bad idea. By doing so, you take away the vital impartially of the algorithm, and you make Google the arbiter of what people see. Also, if the information is publicly available and we can't block a website from posting it, then why can we block a search engine from showing us what's already out there?
But then I thought that Google already sort of is the arbiter, since they designed and control the algorithm. Even though they're just showing you what's out there, the results of a search on Google (or other search engine) determines what the vast majority of people actually see. Does that make it more important that it be impartial? Was it impartial in the first place?
Finally, does the ruling apply to other search engines, or just to Google? If this is something that we think is a good idea, I don't see how it's smart or fair to single out the largest search engine, while allowing yahoo/ask/bing etc to go about their business. Aren't we all supposed to play by the same rules?
Wow, that's a lot of question marks! Do y'all have answers? No? Then I'll settle for your opinions :)
No comments:
Post a Comment