Search neutrality...what's good for the goose

[Paddy]

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/sea...ontent=My+Yahoo

QUOTE

But outside the den of self-interest that is an FCC docket, academics were also pondering the question. In 2009, for instance, well-respected University of Minnesota scholar Andrew Odlyzko suggested that net neutrality (which he favored) might then “open the way for other players, such as Google, that emerge from that open and competitive arena as big winners, to become choke points. So it would be wise to prepare to monitor what happens, and be ready to intervene by imposing neutrality rules on them when necessary.”

But what does it even mean when we talk about applying “neutrality” to search — which is all about subjective rankings of relevance?

[gunug]

What I think is obvious is when you invariably get websites that represent companies in competition with the website that I'm interested in going to in a higher location in the ranking then the one I really wanted to get to.  They generally have a paid ad somewhere else on the page.  This is "not" search neutrality!

[Xairbusdriver]

Reading about DNS Hijacking and came across this.

QUOTE

Users don't recognize the political argument hides under a web page with some advertisements on it, and pointing it out to them only makes you look like a smug prick. Not that it matters any: the internet is only a cause to a small subset of people, to the rest, it's entertainment.

<Read the whole article at the Register here>. This attitude probably explains why our local US Representative spoke at the recent media conference supporting the fight against of "net neutrality." I'm sure the unlimited contributions of media companies had nothing to do with her abandoning of the people who elected her...

I suspect that these huge and growing larger entertainment companies are aware of the public's lack of knowledge and concern for "net neutrality." "Let them eat cake...preferably one we sell them!"