| |||||||||||||||||||
| Google's ultrafast Internet draws start-ups to KC USA TODAY (AP) — Inside a small bungalow on the street separating Kansas City, Kan., from its sister city in Missouri, a small group of entrepreneurs are working on their ideas for the next high-tech start-up, tapping Google Inc.'s new superfast Internet ... See all stories on this topic » | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Google: Dominance, Growth, and Cheap Valuation NBCNews.com Google has been one of the tech industry's incredible growth stories. Since going public in 2004 for $85, shares have increased in value by an outstanding 770%, and many analysts and investors (myself included) think there are even more gains ahead. See all stories on this topic » | |||||||||||||||||||
| Kim Jong Un's Thank-You Note to Google's Eric Schmidt (spoof) Forbes Like a member of Google Plus. But oh, Supreme Commander of the Search Monopoly, the minute you arrived I Felt Lucky. Granted, I was holding three royal flushes at the time. But truly you are like a Big Brother to me. Heck, you launch products; we ... See all stories on this topic » | |||||||||||||||||||
| Google unveils Zavers, a new digital coupon based on your phone number VentureBeat Google is investing a lot of resources into e-commerce, and so it's easy get confused by the various projects it is working on. Google has already launched something called Google Wallet, but that is a virtual wallet that lets you pay with your mobile ... See all stories on this topic » | |||||||||||||||||||
| China Google Earth Mystery Solved, As Expert Explains Xinjiang 'Structures ... Huffington Post In general, more and more amateurs have taken to Google Earth to uncover mysterious structures, said Susan Wolfinbarger, an image analyst for the Geospatial Technologies and Human Rights Project of the American Association for the Advancement of ... See all stories on this topic » | |||||||||||||||||||
| The New Google Contacts Integrates Voice And Brings In Voice SMS And Calls ... MakeUseOf Google is giving Contacts a makeover. Google Voice Contacts is being integrated into Contacts for a more seamless user experience. Very soon you will be able to use Google Contacts alone to place calls and send voice SMS. The thought behind the new ... See all stories on this topic » | |||||||||||||||||||
|
| Column: FTC did right by Google USA TODAY Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had closed its exhaustive and high-profile investigation to determine whether Google had violated antitrust laws, and Google announced that it would voluntarily modify certain business ... See all stories on this topic » | ||
| ||
| Google, Apple chiefs visit China Times of India BEIJING: Google chief Eric Schmidt followed by Apple Inc's CEO Tim Cook has visited China in an attempt to expand their presence in the Chinese market. Schmidt's visit is being closely watched by the IT sector as Google has been facing serious problems ... See all stories on this topic » | ||
| ||
| ||
| Google invests $200 million in Texas wind farm WVLA-TV Google announced another big renewable energy deal on Wednesday, purchasing a $200 million stake in a wind farm in west Texas. The 161 megawatt Spinning Spur Wind Project in Oldham County, Texas, generates enough energy to power more than ... See all stories on this topic » | ||
| Google to offer public Wi-Fi in New York City neighborhood Chicago Daily Herald The network will be available free to about a 10-block area surrounding Google's offices in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood, where Google has more than 3,000 employees. The area also is home to other tech companies, as well as high-end hotels and ... See all stories on this topic » | ||
|
Op-Ed Contributors
Is Google Like Gas or Like Steel?
January 11, 2013
AFTER a two-year investigation, the Federal Trade Commission concluded this week that Google’s
search practices did not violate antitrust law. Those who wanted to see
an epic battle like the one the government fought with Microsoft in the
1990s were sorely disappointed. But the analogy to the browser war of
the Web’s early days was never the right one. It failed to capture the
dangers free speech would have faced if regulators had agreed with
Google’s critics.
The theories that many critics advanced — that search must be “neutral” because it is akin to a public utility, or that computer-generated search results are not speech and therefore not protected under the First Amendment — would have undermined free press principles across the Internet. That the F.T.C. decision permits Google to continue to use its judgment in analyzing search requests and presenting pertinent results is a victory for online expression and is consistent with First Amendment law since the 1940s.
Seven decades ago, a lawsuit against The Associated Press applied
antitrust rules to the media and was resolved in a way that ultimately
protected First Amendment interests. This case was always a better
parallel than Microsoft to the F.T.C. investigation of Google. Like
Google today, The A.P. had extraordinary influence. Then as now there
were questions about whether something more than common antitrust law
should govern companies that play such an important role in the delivery
of information to the public.
Back then, the Justice Department alleged that A.P. bylaws allowed its member papers to impede local competitors by denying them access to The A.P.’s expansive news network. A trial court agreed but applied a theory far broader than routine antitrust law. It held that news was not an “ordinary” product like “steel” governed solely by antitrust, but rather something more “vital” because it was “clothed with a public interest.”
In other words, the trial court wanted to treat the mass media like a public utility, which carried considerable consequences. For example, while it would be illegal under antitrust law for a large steel company to conspire with competitors to fix prices, that company has no obligation to sell to every carmaker that wants steel. A public utility, on the other hand, has to serve everyone in the marketplace equally. Applying that standard to The A.P. would have opened the door to far broader regulation and could, in theory, have meant something as absurd as requiring newspapers to cover every press release or publish every letter to the editor.
When the case reached the Supreme Court in 1945, the modern understanding of the First Amendment, with its insistence on an independent news media, had yet to take shape. So it was with great significance that — even though The A.P. lost its appeal and had to allow more access to its services — the court steered entirely clear of the public-utility model. It looked instead to standard antitrust law in finding The A.P.’s conduct to be a classic restraint on trade.
The court went further in setting down a marker that to this day restrains government regulation of the media. Justice Hugo L. Black, who would become a leading champion of the First Amendment, wrote that nothing in the ruling could “compel A.P. or its members to permit publication of anything which their ‘reason’ tells them should not be published.”
This began a historic run in which the court transformed the media into an institution with the autonomy to serve as a check on government power. The First Amendment as we know it would look very different if public utility obligations had been forced onto the press that day.
If The A.P. was concerned about a regulator in every newsroom, Google was concerned about a regulator in every algorithm.
Advocates of aggressive action against Google saw the computer algorithms behind search as a utility that should be heavily regulated like the gas or electricity that flows into our homes. But search engines need to make choices about what results are most relevant to a query, just as a news editor must decide which stories deserve to be on the front page. Requiring “search neutrality” would have placed the government in the business of policing the speech of the Internet’s information providers. To quote Justice Black, it would have made search engines publish those results “which their ‘reason’ tells them should not be published.”
Others argued that the F.T.C. did not need to be guided by First Amendment concerns at all because search results are created by computers, not by human beings. Yet computers “speak” in many ways today. Lawmakers could have used F.T.C. precedent against Google to regulate the content of Amazon’s book recommendations, the locations on Bing’s maps, the news stories that trend on Facebook and Twitter, and many other online expressions of social and political importance.
The F.T.C. resisted these harmful theories, and as a result speakers all over the Internet won. But that doesn’t mean Google is exempt from regulation. The First Amendment is not a grant of immunity for any business, and antitrust scrutiny does not end where editorial judgment begins. But the A.P. case shows that antitrust laws can be enforced while protecting the right of a free press to print what it chooses and nothing more.
This makes regulation of the media difficult. But regulating speech should not be easy, like regulating a public utility, but hard, as the F.T.C. has correctly found.
The theories that many critics advanced — that search must be “neutral” because it is akin to a public utility, or that computer-generated search results are not speech and therefore not protected under the First Amendment — would have undermined free press principles across the Internet. That the F.T.C. decision permits Google to continue to use its judgment in analyzing search requests and presenting pertinent results is a victory for online expression and is consistent with First Amendment law since the 1940s.
Back then, the Justice Department alleged that A.P. bylaws allowed its member papers to impede local competitors by denying them access to The A.P.’s expansive news network. A trial court agreed but applied a theory far broader than routine antitrust law. It held that news was not an “ordinary” product like “steel” governed solely by antitrust, but rather something more “vital” because it was “clothed with a public interest.”
In other words, the trial court wanted to treat the mass media like a public utility, which carried considerable consequences. For example, while it would be illegal under antitrust law for a large steel company to conspire with competitors to fix prices, that company has no obligation to sell to every carmaker that wants steel. A public utility, on the other hand, has to serve everyone in the marketplace equally. Applying that standard to The A.P. would have opened the door to far broader regulation and could, in theory, have meant something as absurd as requiring newspapers to cover every press release or publish every letter to the editor.
When the case reached the Supreme Court in 1945, the modern understanding of the First Amendment, with its insistence on an independent news media, had yet to take shape. So it was with great significance that — even though The A.P. lost its appeal and had to allow more access to its services — the court steered entirely clear of the public-utility model. It looked instead to standard antitrust law in finding The A.P.’s conduct to be a classic restraint on trade.
The court went further in setting down a marker that to this day restrains government regulation of the media. Justice Hugo L. Black, who would become a leading champion of the First Amendment, wrote that nothing in the ruling could “compel A.P. or its members to permit publication of anything which their ‘reason’ tells them should not be published.”
This began a historic run in which the court transformed the media into an institution with the autonomy to serve as a check on government power. The First Amendment as we know it would look very different if public utility obligations had been forced onto the press that day.
If The A.P. was concerned about a regulator in every newsroom, Google was concerned about a regulator in every algorithm.
Advocates of aggressive action against Google saw the computer algorithms behind search as a utility that should be heavily regulated like the gas or electricity that flows into our homes. But search engines need to make choices about what results are most relevant to a query, just as a news editor must decide which stories deserve to be on the front page. Requiring “search neutrality” would have placed the government in the business of policing the speech of the Internet’s information providers. To quote Justice Black, it would have made search engines publish those results “which their ‘reason’ tells them should not be published.”
Others argued that the F.T.C. did not need to be guided by First Amendment concerns at all because search results are created by computers, not by human beings. Yet computers “speak” in many ways today. Lawmakers could have used F.T.C. precedent against Google to regulate the content of Amazon’s book recommendations, the locations on Bing’s maps, the news stories that trend on Facebook and Twitter, and many other online expressions of social and political importance.
The F.T.C. resisted these harmful theories, and as a result speakers all over the Internet won. But that doesn’t mean Google is exempt from regulation. The First Amendment is not a grant of immunity for any business, and antitrust scrutiny does not end where editorial judgment begins. But the A.P. case shows that antitrust laws can be enforced while protecting the right of a free press to print what it chooses and nothing more.
This makes regulation of the media difficult. But regulating speech should not be easy, like regulating a public utility, but hard, as the F.T.C. has correctly found.
搜索引擎不應被視作公共事業設施
布魯斯··布朗艾倫··戴維森 2013年01月11日
經過兩年調查後，美國聯邦貿易委員會（Federal Trade Commission，簡稱FTC）於本周宣布，
谷歌(Google)的搜索業務沒有違反反壟斷法。那些想要看到如同20世紀90年代政府和微軟(Microsoft)之間的激烈訴訟大戰的人對此大失所
望。但說它像早期的互聯網瀏覽器之戰本來就是不正確的。這種說法沒有看到，如果監管部門採納了谷歌的批評者的意見，言論自由將會面臨怎樣的危險。
許多批評人士認為，搜索服務必須“中立”，因為它類似於公共事業，電腦生成的搜索結果不屬於言論，因此不受美國憲法第一修正案保護。這些觀點一定會 削弱互聯網言論自由原則。FTC允許谷歌繼續利用自己的判斷標準分析搜索請求、呈現相關結果的決議是網上表達自由的勝利，這個決議與20世紀40年代以來 第一修正案的精神是一致的。
70年前，一起針對美聯社的訴訟援引反壟斷法對付媒體，此案最終以維護第一修正案利益的方式審結。與微軟案件相比，FTC對谷歌的調查與此案例更為 類似。那時候的美聯社就像今天的谷歌一樣，影響力非同尋常。當時也存在現在的問題——除了普通的反壟斷法之外，是否應該有其他規則來規範那些在向公眾傳播 信息方面扮演重要角色的公司。
當時司法部(Justice Department)指控，美聯社的章程允許旗下報紙拒絕當地競爭對手加入其巨大的新聞網絡，從而遏制對手。一家初審法院同意這個指控，但該法院提出一 個觀點，比普通的反壟斷法關注的更廣泛。該觀點認為，新聞並非普通產品，比如“鋼鐵”，僅僅受反壟斷法監管。新聞是一種更“要緊”的產品，“包覆著一層公 共利益”。
換句話說，這家初審法院想要把大眾傳媒視作一種公共事業，此舉帶來了重要的後果。例如，雖然按照反壟斷法的規定，一家大型鋼鐵公司和其競爭者串通一 氣設定價格的行為是違法的，但該公司沒有向每一個需要鋼鐵的汽車製造商出售鋼鐵的義務。相反，公共事業需要平等地服務於市場中的每一個人。如果對美聯社適 用這個原則，將會導致更廣泛監管的出台，而且在理論上，這可能意味着會有很多荒唐法規，比如要求報紙刊發所有新聞稿，刊登每一封讀者來信。
1945年該案件被提交給最高法院的時候，對於第一修正案的現代理解尚未成形，這項修正案堅持新聞媒體應當獨立。所以，雖然美聯社敗訴，不得不允許 更多報紙使用它的服務，但法院完全沒有採用公共事業模式的觀點，這具有重大意義。法院通過標準的反壟斷法來證明，美聯社的行為屬於典型的限制交易行為。
最高法院進一步設定了一個標杆，它至今約束着政府對媒體的管控。雨果·L·布萊克(Hugo L. Black)法官當時寫道，任何法令也不應“迫使美聯社或者其成員媒體，同意發表那些他們的‘理性判斷’告訴他們不應發表的內容。”布萊克後來成了第一修正案的主要支持者。
這開啟了一個歷史性的進程，最高法院將媒體變成了一種擁有自主權、能制衡政府權力的制度。如果當時法院迫使媒體承擔作為公共事業的義務，那麼第一修正案看起來將會與我們的理解十分不同。
如果說，美聯社會擔心每一個編輯部都會安插一個監管者，那谷歌要擔心的則是每一種算法都會受到監管。
提倡嚴厲制裁谷歌的人士，將搜索背後的計算機算法視作應被嚴格控制的公共事業設施，就像接入千家萬戶的煤氣或者電力一樣。但搜索引擎需要決定，哪些 結果是與搜尋的關鍵字最相關的，就像新聞編輯必須決定哪篇報道值得放到頭版。要求“搜索中立”將會促使政府插手監管網絡信息提供者的言論。引用布萊克的話 說，這會導致搜索引擎顯示“那些它們的‘理性判斷’告訴它們不應被顯示的結果”。
其他人認為FTC根本不需要遵從第一修正案的規定，因為生成搜索結果的是電腦，而不是人類。雖然現在電腦通過很多方式“說話”。那樣的話，立法者就 可以利用FTC對付谷歌的先例，來對亞馬遜(Amazon)的推薦圖書、必應(Bing)地圖上的位置、Facebook和Twitter上瘋轉的新聞報 道，以及網絡上其他許多具有社會和政治意義的言論加以控制。
FTC拒絕採納這些有害的理論，於是所有在網絡上發言的人是最終的勝者。但這並不意味着谷歌不必受到監管。第一修正案沒有赦免任何行業，尊重編輯判 斷的權利，並不意味着不必受到反壟斷法規的約束。但美聯社的案件說明，反壟斷法得以實施的前提是，要保障新聞媒體根據自主判斷，而不是遵從他人要求，進行 自由出版的權利。
這讓媒體監管變得困難。但就像FTC的正確決定所表明的，控制言論不應該像監管公共事業那麼容易，而是應該很難。
許多批評人士認為，搜索服務必須“中立”，因為它類似於公共事業，電腦生成的搜索結果不屬於言論，因此不受美國憲法第一修正案保護。這些觀點一定會 削弱互聯網言論自由原則。FTC允許谷歌繼續利用自己的判斷標準分析搜索請求、呈現相關結果的決議是網上表達自由的勝利，這個決議與20世紀40年代以來 第一修正案的精神是一致的。
70年前，一起針對美聯社的訴訟援引反壟斷法對付媒體，此案最終以維護第一修正案利益的方式審結。與微軟案件相比，FTC對谷歌的調查與此案例更為 類似。那時候的美聯社就像今天的谷歌一樣，影響力非同尋常。當時也存在現在的問題——除了普通的反壟斷法之外，是否應該有其他規則來規範那些在向公眾傳播 信息方面扮演重要角色的公司。
當時司法部(Justice Department)指控，美聯社的章程允許旗下報紙拒絕當地競爭對手加入其巨大的新聞網絡，從而遏制對手。一家初審法院同意這個指控，但該法院提出一 個觀點，比普通的反壟斷法關注的更廣泛。該觀點認為，新聞並非普通產品，比如“鋼鐵”，僅僅受反壟斷法監管。新聞是一種更“要緊”的產品，“包覆著一層公 共利益”。
換句話說，這家初審法院想要把大眾傳媒視作一種公共事業，此舉帶來了重要的後果。例如，雖然按照反壟斷法的規定，一家大型鋼鐵公司和其競爭者串通一 氣設定價格的行為是違法的，但該公司沒有向每一個需要鋼鐵的汽車製造商出售鋼鐵的義務。相反，公共事業需要平等地服務於市場中的每一個人。如果對美聯社適 用這個原則，將會導致更廣泛監管的出台，而且在理論上，這可能意味着會有很多荒唐法規，比如要求報紙刊發所有新聞稿，刊登每一封讀者來信。
1945年該案件被提交給最高法院的時候，對於第一修正案的現代理解尚未成形，這項修正案堅持新聞媒體應當獨立。所以，雖然美聯社敗訴，不得不允許 更多報紙使用它的服務，但法院完全沒有採用公共事業模式的觀點，這具有重大意義。法院通過標準的反壟斷法來證明，美聯社的行為屬於典型的限制交易行為。
最高法院進一步設定了一個標杆，它至今約束着政府對媒體的管控。雨果·L·布萊克(Hugo L. Black)法官當時寫道，任何法令也不應“迫使美聯社或者其成員媒體，同意發表那些他們的‘理性判斷’告訴他們不應發表的內容。”布萊克後來成了第一修正案的主要支持者。
這開啟了一個歷史性的進程，最高法院將媒體變成了一種擁有自主權、能制衡政府權力的制度。如果當時法院迫使媒體承擔作為公共事業的義務，那麼第一修正案看起來將會與我們的理解十分不同。
如果說，美聯社會擔心每一個編輯部都會安插一個監管者，那谷歌要擔心的則是每一種算法都會受到監管。
提倡嚴厲制裁谷歌的人士，將搜索背後的計算機算法視作應被嚴格控制的公共事業設施，就像接入千家萬戶的煤氣或者電力一樣。但搜索引擎需要決定，哪些 結果是與搜尋的關鍵字最相關的，就像新聞編輯必須決定哪篇報道值得放到頭版。要求“搜索中立”將會促使政府插手監管網絡信息提供者的言論。引用布萊克的話 說，這會導致搜索引擎顯示“那些它們的‘理性判斷’告訴它們不應被顯示的結果”。
其他人認為FTC根本不需要遵從第一修正案的規定，因為生成搜索結果的是電腦，而不是人類。雖然現在電腦通過很多方式“說話”。那樣的話，立法者就 可以利用FTC對付谷歌的先例，來對亞馬遜(Amazon)的推薦圖書、必應(Bing)地圖上的位置、Facebook和Twitter上瘋轉的新聞報 道，以及網絡上其他許多具有社會和政治意義的言論加以控制。
FTC拒絕採納這些有害的理論，於是所有在網絡上發言的人是最終的勝者。但這並不意味着谷歌不必受到監管。第一修正案沒有赦免任何行業，尊重編輯判 斷的權利，並不意味着不必受到反壟斷法規的約束。但美聯社的案件說明，反壟斷法得以實施的前提是，要保障新聞媒體根據自主判斷，而不是遵從他人要求，進行 自由出版的權利。
這讓媒體監管變得困難。但就像FTC的正確決定所表明的，控制言論不應該像監管公共事業那麼容易，而是應該很難。
沒有留言:
張貼留言