Anyone who has used a tablet, a smartphone or any other computer device to surf the Internet lately and did so via Google’s search engine may have noticed that Google integrated top consideration to its Google+ or Google Plus pages into its Search Engine Results Pages. The search engine announced not long ago that it was integrating social network results in the SERP rankings, justifying the action with the belief that content is more relevant to a user if it’s recommended or noted by friends and followers.
Well, both Google itself and Google+ hit the Federal Trade Commission’s radar recently with Google’s preferential ranking of its Google+ social network and have been included in the US’s FTC investigation into antitrust violations.
Google initially mentioned in basically the fine print of their SN integration of search engine results that a user could turn off the option via the advanced search options. However, none of us here have been able to keep the option turned off even when allowing permanent cookies.
Every time we brought a browser to the search engine, we had to reprogram the “no thanks, mind your own business” off button.
Google’s step-up of privacy-evading scanning started with bot-reading of email of gmail addresses: Google has long integrated software bots into scanning gmail content to determine “relative” ads on users’ email address pages. That option can also be discontinued by using only the basic gmail. If you opt for the feature-filled advanced platform, you either have to ignore the intrusively received, “not seen by human eyes” ad content or search diligently for a good ad block program.
That bot-oriented scanning of email does not qualify for anti-trust stipulations, nor does Google’s determination of relative content based on search history, but that and Google’s determining what they think matters to a user, in our opinion, stretches far beyond “no personal information is gathered” into the realm of questionable tactics, indeed.
The FTC has determined that Google may have stepped too far in promoting its own social network above others in including them in the anti-trust investigation. Google is a business, and it has the right to promote its products, just as other businesses do, but it’s not “promotion” that has allegedly crossed that line: It’s the higher priority that Google gives its own Google+ platform over other social network mentions that causes the potential problem.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center contacted the FTC some time ago about Google’s apparent overall practices, and Google itself mentioned that the FTC was
“sniffing around”
…since June of 2011.
Google chief Eric Schmidt stated that Google has done
“nothing wrong….”
when Google omitted more relevant content from the top two social networks on the Internet, Facebook and Twitter, but Google would contact the other two and arrange for re-admittance of their content into SERPs.
Our question to Google is two-fold. Google, you know you are the king of the search engine jungle. You know that every business with any kind of presence, large or small, depends on your SERP and PR rankings. You earn billions of dollars every year from advertising revenue and your smartphone and tablet platform, Android. Question number one is this: Why must you use playground rules to play unfairly? People and businesses will still use your services. But fewer people will use your services in the long run if you believe you can “think” for us. And that segues into question number two: Why do you think you have the right to A) “think” what’s relative or not based on search history, chosen URLs and social networking? B) use history and email content to promote Google ads? You didn’t even have an escape clause regarding those user-email-content ad placements until one of our staff sent you the rights question inquiry. We know: We have the screen prints to prove it. One is before the email. One is after the email. If it’s coincidental timing, then fine, but since the no-escape clause wasn’t up for weeks and wasn’t mention in the email response, it’s hard to imagine that it’s a coincidence.
[Please note that the opinions and questions composed in this piece are those of the writer of the piece – not the website owner's or of any other entity. Facts are facts, however, and are published elsewhere as well.]