• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EU Hits Google with €2 billion Fine

So Google by virtue of being the preferred search engine due to its being the best must be brought down to a lower level so that other lesser quality engines can compete.

Makes sense to me.

Eh? Are you saying that Google putting its own products ahead of others is "the best thing" and by not doing that, it will be come some how lesser quality?

So a search result like this for Android smartphones

1) Google Pixel
2) Google Pixel XL
3) Samsung S8
4) LG G6
5) ZTE Blade
6) Sony Z5

a result like this, where Google is clearly at the top, despite the Pixel only being sold in selective markets and Samsung dominating the Android market..that this search will some how be less of a search if it was more like this

1) Samsung S8
2) Samsung S7 edge
3) Google Pixel
4) LG G6
5) Sony Z5
6) Google Pixel XL

I would claim that the top search is the top Android phone out there, and hence making it the most relevant, where as the result of the Pixel phone being on top is not true at all.. hell cant even get it here.
 
Do American companies sometimes break the law and get away with it? I'd say they absolutely do. Amazon and eBay have been ripping off their customers for years with counterfeit goods, Google has spied on Americans, etc etc etc. I'm for regulating illegal behavior, otherwise these behemoth money factories like Google are above the law.

Yes amazon and ebay have problems with counterfeiting but thats not what this fine was about. As for google "spying" that is completely untrue. People willing gave google their information under a TOS that allowed google to share that information. Thats not spying that is morons getting upset for not reading the TOS and privacy policies when they choose to put their information on google services.
 
Antitrust laws exist because govt thinks its supposed to control economics.

Competition amongst businesses is healthy, and benefits consumers. Antitrust laws are in place to protect us from monopolies which only benefit large corporations. Unless of course you're a stockholder with them, then you'd want your company to do whatever possible in the name of profit.

More so in Europe. Where is Google guilty of election tampering?

They were employed by Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2016 Presidential Election. Accusations of collusion seemed accurate when Google's search engine results pushed favorable articles about Clinton to the top of the page when anyone searched her name.
 
Yes amazon and ebay have problems with counterfeiting but thats not what this fine was about. As for google "spying" that is completely untrue. People willing gave google their information under a TOS that allowed google to share that information. Thats not spying that is morons getting upset for not reading the TOS and privacy policies when they choose to put their information on google services.

I'm referring to this:

"Google announced today that the Wi-Fi snooping its Street View vans were engaged in was even worse than previously acknowledged. The company announced today that entire URLs, emails, and passwords were collected as well. And they still have it."

Sounds very CIA-ish no?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storing-private-data
 
So Google by virtue of being the preferred search engine due to its being the best must be brought down to a lower level so that other lesser quality engines can compete.

Makes sense to me.
No.

Being a search engine it must be held to objectively presenting search results rather than putting its own products and services at the top.
 
I'm referring to this:

"Google announced today that the Wi-Fi snooping its Street View vans were engaged in was even worse than previously acknowledged. The company announced today that entire URLs, emails, and passwords were collected as well. And they still have it."

Sounds very CIA-ish no?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storing-private-data

So people with wifi networks non-password protected and open to the public had their data visible? It seems to me that dumb people just like to complain and blame others for their own stupidity
 
No.

Being a search engine it must be held to objectively presenting search results rather than putting its own products and services at the top.

What? if you dont like how a search engine does things then use a different one...
 
Yes amazon and ebay have problems with counterfeiting but thats not what this fine was about. As for google "spying" that is completely untrue. People willing gave google their information under a TOS that allowed google to share that information. Thats not spying that is morons getting upset for not reading the TOS and privacy policies when they choose to put their information on google services.
Agreed.

The net forgets as little as google does (or any other entity on it for that matter).

Want to have absolute privacy, stay out of the whole lot. Live in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, have no provider of any service, no bank account and burn your papers rather than wait for them to rot before disposal.

Going Neanderthal is the answer.
 
What? if you dont like how a search engine does things then use a different one...

Doesn't work that way in Europe (as seen). Want to have a business presence in Europe, stick to the rules. Don't wanna stick to the rules, stay out or pay.

Simple really.
 
Doesn't work that way in Europe (as seen). Want to have a business presence in Europe, stick to the rules. Don't wanna stick to the rules, stay out or pay.

Simple really.

It does work that way, google will never be paying this fine just as Intel has yet to pay their fine from 8 years ago. Its just a shakedown of an American company, funny how only the American companies get these record fines.
 
So people with wifi networks non-password protected and open to the public had their data visible? It seems to me that dumb people just like to complain and blame others for their own stupidity
You think I can't identify your wifi network from outside, even if I can't crack it?

Okay, I don't particular care whether others know that I have a router or not but it still makes it nobody's business.

On the idiocy of people not securing their networks I totally agree, it's like printing out all your personal data (bank accounts, bills, whatever) onto a multitude of pages and throwing the whole lout out into the street.
 
It does work that way, google will never be paying this fine just as Intel has yet to pay their fine from 8 years ago. Its just a shakedown of an American company, funny how only the American companies get these record fines.
On payment we'll have to wait and see, paranoia belongs into CT, however.

What next, far more Mercs. and BMWs on American streets than Chevvies on German ones?
 
When you're right, you're right.

I'll prefer a San Miguel if I may.;)

No problem. Looks we have Red Horse too, since this is the only picture I could find :lol:

sanmig.jpg
 
So people with wifi networks non-password protected and open to the public had their data visible? It seems to me that dumb people just like to complain and blame others for their own stupidity

Google stock took a $50 tumble since the EU announcement. Is that the real reason you're stubbornly rejecting every post I make on this thread?
 
Because that is what Google search is all about? Do you even understand the Internet and search engines?

You clearly don't understand business. A business has no reason to not put their products first. Demanding they do something that is counterproductive to their business is just dumb and shows me that the EU has no concept of business.
 
Google stock took a $50 tumble since the EU announcement. Is that the real reason you're stubbornly rejecting every post I make on this thread?

and yet still higher than it was a month and a half ago, google was already going too high on its stock price people just needed a reason to sell. Its still not low enough where I would buy more google stock, so I think they are just fine
 
You clearly don't understand business. A business has no reason to not put their products first. Demanding they do something that is counterproductive to their business is just dumb and shows me that the EU has no concept of business.
You know what?

Europe (and subsequently the bulk of its people) doesn't give a damn about what you think of it or them. That goes for your not understanding its regulations on market distortions as well.
 
You know what?

Europe (and subsequently the bulk of its people) doesn't give a damn about what you think of it or them. That goes for your not understanding its regulations on market distortions as well.

And I don't need to understand all of their laws on market distortions to know that this one is stupid.
 
What paranoia? I was simply stating objective facts

Here is the perspective from wired



https://www.wired.com/story/google-big-eu-fine/
Oh, what joy there'd be even for yourself if you actually purveyed articles in their entirety (instead of cherry picking what suits you).

Of course the EU considering Yelp and MS owned Ciao among the complainants is a sure fire sign of Yank bashing.

Yeah, roight.:roll:
 
And I don't need to understand all of their laws on market distortions to know that this one is stupid.
Yeah, but any damn still remains ungiven.:2razz:
 
Eh? Are you saying that Google putting its own products ahead of others is "the best thing" and by not doing that, it will be come some how lesser quality?

So a search result like this for Android smartphones

1) Google Pixel
2) Google Pixel XL
3) Samsung S8
4) LG G6
5) ZTE Blade
6) Sony Z5

a result like this, where Google is clearly at the top, despite the Pixel only being sold in selective markets and Samsung dominating the Android market..that this search will some how be less of a search if it was more like this

1) Samsung S8
2) Samsung S7 edge
3) Google Pixel
4) LG G6
5) Sony Z5
6) Google Pixel XL

I would claim that the top search is the top Android phone out there, and hence making it the most relevant, where as the result of the Pixel phone being on top is not true at all.. hell cant even get it here.

I didn't say that. I said the quest for mediocrity seems to be the purpose of this ruling.

Google is not a Monopoly. By its nature the World Wide Web tends to create competition. I've got three search engines loaded, but most often use Google.

Being the best does not necessarily mean you are the only.
 
No.

Being a search engine it must be held to objectively presenting search results rather than putting its own products and services at the top.

Why? if you disagree, use Firefox or Edge.

I don't get why Google is obligated to advertise other vendors products over theirs.

This sounds like a massive money grab to me. Google doesn't need to have a physical presence in Europe to compete and no one is obligated to choose their product over the many in existence. But the consumers do.
 
Back
Top Bottom