"Disagreeing has never been so much fun!"
Government Should Regulate Google
Feds Have No Business Regulating
As if President Obama hasn’t expanded the size and power of the government enough they are now considering regulating Google and even considering forcing them to disclose their algorithm’s and reasoning for changes to the formula.
Side A fans: (0)
Neutral Fans: (0)
Side B Comment
Jeff - 8/25/10 @ 5:04 PM:
I understand we need government but when puts it's hands in everything I think it goes to far.
Side B Comment
Olivia Newton - 7/21/10 @ 8:34 PM:
I think the federal government should butt out of private industry! We have far too much federal involvement as it is!
Side B Comment
The Boss - 7/17/10 @ 10:00 PM:
We really need to be careful what we wish for. I know a lot of you big and small business haters are jumping for joy at the very thought of the government stepping in to regulate Google but aside from most of you having no experience running a business or the slightest clue of how much work goes into turning something small into something medium or large your happiness makes me sick with disgust.
We need to get out of this state of mind that we're okay with government intervention as long as it doesn't negatively impact us individually. I know of some people who loved President Obama up until he decided to tax services that affected their business (health care bill) because us Americans are too stoopid (Yes I know I misspelled that) to know what's good and bad for our health. What happened to personal freedom and choice? You have(had) every right to abuse your body but you had to suffer the financial burden of the health care costs that were incurred from your poor choices.
I don't like cigarettes and I don't like smokers but smoking is not illegal and I'm strongly against taxing the hell out of people for something they willingly do to themselves when that something is legal. However, they're health care should be their burden alone; not a redistributed transfer of cost from one group or person to the other. If they can't pay they don't receive; what is so difficult to understand about that? As a VERY hard working tax payer I'm sick and tired of being financially burdened for the lazy and unfortunate alike. We all have hard times but it's not the governments job to protect everyone from failure. Failure is a natural part of life, business, and economics; pretending otherwise is very dangerous. I'm fed up.
We need to get out of this state of mind that we're okay with government intervention as long as it doesn't negatively impact us individually. I know of some people who loved President Obama up until he decided to tax services that affected their business (health care bill) because us Americans are too stoopid (Yes I know I misspelled that) to know what's good and bad for our health. What happened to personal freedom and choice? You have(had) every right to abuse your body but you had to suffer the financial burden of the health care costs that were incurred from your poor choices.
I don't like cigarettes and I don't like smokers but smoking is not illegal and I'm strongly against taxing the hell out of people for something they willingly do to themselves when that something is legal. However, they're health care should be their burden alone; not a redistributed transfer of cost from one group or person to the other. If they can't pay they don't receive; what is so difficult to understand about that? As a VERY hard working tax payer I'm sick and tired of being financially burdened for the lazy and unfortunate alike. We all have hard times but it's not the governments job to protect everyone from failure. Failure is a natural part of life, business, and economics; pretending otherwise is very dangerous. I'm fed up.
Side B Comment
The Boss - 7/17/10 @ 9:47 PM:
"Google handles nearly two-thirds of Internet search queries worldwide. Analysts reckon that most Web sites rely on the search engine for half of their traffic. When Google engineers tweak its supersecret algorithm — as they do hundreds of times a year — they can break the business of a Web site that is pushed down the rankings.
When Google was a pure search engine, it was easy to appear agnostic about search results, with no reason to play favorites with one Web site or another. But as Google has branched out into online services from maps and videos to comparison shopping, it has acquired pecuniary incentives to favor its own over rivals.
Google argues that its behavior is kept in check by competitors like Yahoo or Bing. But Google has become the default search engine for many Internet users. Competitors are a click away, but a case is building for some sort of oversight of the gatekeeper of the Internet..."
Read the full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/15thu3.html?_r=2
When Google was a pure search engine, it was easy to appear agnostic about search results, with no reason to play favorites with one Web site or another. But as Google has branched out into online services from maps and videos to comparison shopping, it has acquired pecuniary incentives to favor its own over rivals.
Google argues that its behavior is kept in check by competitors like Yahoo or Bing. But Google has become the default search engine for many Internet users. Competitors are a click away, but a case is building for some sort of oversight of the gatekeeper of the Internet..."
Read the full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/15thu3.html?_r=2
