Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 


advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


University governance as a new topic of public discussion.

An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)

Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)

USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter.  (LAC)

Private prisons? Why, sure! What could possibly go wrong? (kw)

TNR profiles Susan Crawford (kw)

Berkshire Hathaway is bigger than Warren Buffett.  Manual of Ideas (LAC).

Guns don't shoot people, kitchen appliances shoot people (kw)

Via Glom, Sat Eve Post review of The Essays of Warren Buffett.

Jack Coffee on Bad Plaintiffs' Counsel in M&A Deals and What Must Be Done to Break Them


Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Joe on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • mls on Copyright’s Constitutional Chameleon

    • Shag from Brookline on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • Brett Bellmore on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part II: Superusers and Super Stories)

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part I: Risks and Myths)

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part II: Superusers and Super Stories)

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part I: Risks and Myths)

    • Shag from Brookline on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • Brett Bellmore on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • Peter Strauss on Copyright’s Constitutional Chameleon

    • John Duffy on Copyright’s Constitutional Chameleon

    • Andrew on BRIGHT IDEAS: Q&A with Bruce Schneier about Liars and Outliers

    • Joe on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • John Duffy on Copyright’s Constitutional Chameleon
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Google’s Self-Undermining First Amendment Strategy

posted by Frank Pasquale

As Google grows, regulators are starting to take notice. Many have written about the scary privacy implications of massive database coordination, but the legal discussion is only beginning about the results of Google searches. Consider the fate of countless businesses which depend for their livelihood on internet-based customers. John Battelle chronicled one small business’s Google crisis:

Right before the critical holiday shopping season of Thanksgiving and Christmas, the phones stopped ringing at [large-shoe seller] 2bigfeet.com. . . . [it] was no longer the first result for “big feet” on Google. In fact, it wasn’t even in the first hundred results. As [business owner Neil] Moncrief put it, it was as if the Georgia Department of Transportation had taken all the road signs away in the dead of night, and his customers could no longer figure out how to drive to his store. . . .

Google had tweaked its search result algorithms, something the company does quite frequently. But this time Google’s modifications, which were intended to foil search engine spammers – people who dishonestly modify their web sites to rank higher in search engine results – had somehow sideswiped Moncrief’s site as well. What Google giveth, Moncrief learned the hard way, Google can also take away.

When a company can exercise make-or-break power over internet-based businesses, does it need to be held accountable to some standards? Google says that it does not–that it has a First Amendment right to rank web entities as it pleases. But consider what Google itself thinks of the companies that own the “pipes” that transmit its services.


Robert X. Cringely succinctly presents the following nightmare scenario for Google:

Microsoft is a Pyramid of Giza compared to Google, whose success is dependent on us not changing our favorite search engine. But what if it is changed for us? What if Verizon, and AT&T, and Comcast, and half a dozen other huge broadband ISPs suddenly cut deals with some search company other than Google and your ISP-supplied browser and homepage no longer give such prominence to Google? The G-folk have rabid competitors who would very much like to take over that top spot. Would we even notice? How different are the search results these days from one engine to another? Not very different.

I think Cringely is wrong about the vulnerability of Google (absent a scenario like this), and I do think there is some diversity in search engine results. Nevertheless, the situation he describes is scary enough for Google to spur it to lobby for “net neutrality” rules designed (in part) to prevent upstream providers of “conduits” from squeezing content providers for more dough–or shutting them down altogether.

Some say net neutrality is dead; others see hope post-2008. What is striking to me is the way in which Google appears to be embracing expansive interpretations of the First Amendment now in ways that will undermine fights for net neutrality in the future. For just as Google claims that it is has a First Amendment right to order web pages as it pleases, broadband carriers may claim that they have a First Amendment right to avoid government regulation. Is their “message” that much different than Google’s?

Admittedly, Google may be banking on a legacy of limited protection for carriers to continue immunizing government regs on them while it gets to do its own thing. Though Christopher S. Yoo complains of “architectural censorship” of carriers by the FCC, he said in 2005 that “current First Amendment doctrine effectively immunizes architectural censorship from meaningful constitutional scrutiny.” I think “censorship” is the wrong word for regulation here–but if it must be used in the search context, I hope the same line of cases apply there, too.

Hat Tips: Eric Goldman, for link to Greg Linden, for link to Cringley. Though I’m sure Goldman disagrees with all I’m saying!


 September 21, 2007 at 3:19 pm   Posted in: Google & Search Engines   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (3)

  1. Bruce Regal - September 21, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    I think there is an important distinction to be made between two different kinds of businesses: (1)Companies that are using physically scarce access to public rights of way (streets and highways for telecom cables; spectrum for wireless transmissions)to build transmission facilities, who can be said to have a public obligation to use those facilities, installed in public rights of way, in an open, fair and non-discriminatory manner and in the public interest(and thus to be subject to reasonable regulation to assure compliance with those obligations). (2) Information companies that are so successful in providing information to people that they gain make or break power over others who seek publicity.

    Oprah Winfrey gained an astounding ability to turn a book into a nationwide bestseller with her literary recommendations. Of course that doesn’t mean that there should government regulations to make sure she applies that power fairly. Presumably if it became known that Oprah was auctioning off her recommendations to the highest bidder, her influence would disappear (same with Google). On the other hand if the city of Chicago provides access to public streets to AT&T to install telecom cables it seems plausible to argue that AT&T could then, consistent with the First Amendment, be barred from, say, auctioning off exclusive access to its cable capacity in the public streets to the highest search engine bidder or the highest sports web site bidder, etc., thus turning a public right-of-way (the streets, the spectrum) into a private bottleneck. Oprah or Google on the other hand, if they start selling their imprimatur to the highest bidder, merely sell off their own reputations.

  2. Frank - September 21, 2007 at 9:41 pm

    Bruce, Those are excellent points, especially on the historical foundations of telco/carrier power. It’s clear that many state actors granted them exclusive franchises on a natural monopoly theory. Google was never granted such a franchise. However, its success is founded on an intricate combination of DMCA, CDA, trade secret, and other laws. One question this raises is whether Congress could bargain with a search engine by threatening to strip, say, its CDA immunity if it refuses to be regulated.

    I have three responses regarding your analogy to Oprah:

    1) Although the Hippsley Letter from the FTC to search engines strongly suggested they separate editorial content from advertising, I don’t believe it has the force of law of, say, a legislative rule. Here’s news on that letter:

    http://www.clickz.com/1379491

    Now imagine someone starts suspecting that Google or a similar company is selling off top spaces on the “organic results”–or, more likely, that being a Google customer for paid results is going to lead to better treatment in the organic rankings. Will such a case ever get definitively settled? Two things would prevent such a public legal determination: a) Google’s assertion of a First Amendment right to order information however it chooses, and b) Google’s assertion of trade secrecy in the algorithm used to produce the results.

    So I guess I would say that affording search results only weak First Amendment protection is essential to the kind of self-corrective measures you envision.

    2) Here’s a good point from Jack Balkin on the basis of media regulation in a “post-scarcity” era:

    http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/08/fairness-doctrine-part-ii.html

    “To know whether . . . broadcast regulation . . . is constitutional, we have to know the theory that justifies its regulation. For many years that theory was scarcity. The airwaves were scarce, the argument went; threrefore government could decide who could use them; and therefore government could require broadcasters to act as trustees for the public, who actually owned the airwaves.”

    “The scarcity theory is spurious. All resources are scarce. Moreover, it is also misleading to say that the public ‘owns’ spectrum. Spectrum refers the range of frequencies that radio waves may take. Government may create exclusive or nonexclusive rights to operate technologies that broadcast at certain frequencies, but that is not the same thing as saying that one owns those frequencies.”

    So what is the real constitutional basis of regulation?

    “The government’s authority to regulate broadcasting derives from its authority to solve a coordination problem in the use of this resource. At its most basic, broadcast regulation is a kind of zoning.”

    ***

    “The Supreme Court has frequently stated that the purpose of a renewable licensing system in broadcasting is to ensure ‘the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.’ That is to say, broadcasting policy is a form of information policy. It seeks to give incentives for private actors to produce information that will be useful to the public. Because information is a public good, valuable and useful information will likely be underproduced by market forces acting alone, so government investments in and regulations of information production can help make up the slack, as long as they do not otherwise violate the First Amendment. Therefore the government may impose conditions on licensees if they help promote this goal.”

    Here is my (very rough) take on why search results are like spectrum. From a Benklerian perspective on peer-produced knowledge, search results are essentially a reflection of mass collective intelligence in sorting materials on the web. We the people have effectively created this resource, with initial coordination by search engines like Google and Yahoo.

    Search engines deserve a great deal of credit for catalyzing and coordinating that production of knowledge. But I do not believe they are entitled to carte blanche control over all that occurs on the platforms they’ve set up. Given how cannily they’ve disclaimed being media companies in other contexts, I don’t believe they have reasonable investment-backed expectations to complete control there. Moreover, I don’t believe such platforms deserve such control, as I suggest here:

    http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/04/is_myspace_expl.html

    You may object that licensing and/or regulation is outdated in a “post-scarcity” era–anyone can start a search engine, right? But in a co-authored piece “Federal Search Commission,” we try to show how hard that is.

    Moreover, socially induced scarcity is just about as worrisome as technologically induced scarcity. If very few search engines dominate the search market, that situation strikes me as very similar to a situation where very few broadcasters dominate the market. You may say the latter outcome is more the result of state action than the former–but I see the types of IP and cyberlaw rights and immunities search engines have been granted as an important form of state action. And I doubt that, for First Amendment purposes, search engines are all that different from the cable companies that have been forced to comply with must-carry requirements.

    Perhaps search oligopolists are “off the hook” antitrust-wise if their market dominance developed “naturally.” But they need not be left wholly unregulated as a consequence.

    The ideas that I’ve proposed for regulating search have revolved around something like a “right-of-reply” for those harmed by their results, and some due process in the case of suspect rankings shake-ups. At least the former has some parallel in broadcast regulation, the “fairness doctrine.” Here is Balkin on that concept:

    “Finally, we come to the fairness doctrine. Remember, it has two prongs. The first prong states that licensees must cover issues of public concern regularly. This has a clear nexus to the information policy goals of broadcasting regulation. The second prong says that when licensees cover issues of public concern, they must do so fairly while giving attention to competing points of view. This is a content based regulation, but it is not a viewpoint based regulation. It says that if you have a viewpoint, whatever your viewpoint is, you must offer contrasting perspectives so that the audience can judge for itself. A rule that said that the doctrine only applied if you took a particular position would be both content based and viewpoint based.”

    “The purpose of the fairness doctrine is clearly connected to the purposes for the licensing system: promoting the dissemination of diverse and antagonistic sources of information, particularly about issues of public concern. It performs this function, but not all that well, in my opinion. As I noted in my first posting, I don’t believe the fairness doctrine is good public policy. But the constitutional question is whether there is a reasonable nexus to the underlying goal. It is hard for me to say that the nexus is not there.”

    3) Finally, I guess matters get even more complicated if Google itself becomes a carrier, as this post suggests:

    http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-09-21-n66.html

  3. Eric Goldman - September 24, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    I actually partially agree with the direction you’re going. The Net Neutrality discussion is tricky for Google, because it is trying to make a case why neutrality is required at the infrastructure layer but discrimination is required at the content/application layer. I know it can offer rationales to distinguish these, but its arguments are susceptible to a high risk of confusion and misinterpretation. Eric.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Kelli A. Alces
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ryan Calo
Claire Hill
Jay Kesten
William McGeveran
Meredith Render
Aaron Saiger
David L. Schwartz
Olivier Sylvain
Charles K. Whitehead
Aaron Zelinsky


















Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Derek Bambauer
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Khiara Bridges
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Gabriella Coleman
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
andré douglas pond cummings
Allison Danner
Laura DeNardis
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Susan Freiwald
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Vivian E. Hamilton
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Angela Harris
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Tayyab Mahmud
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Janai Nelson
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
David Opderback
David Orentlicher
Michael O'Shea
Kristen Osenga
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
William Reynolds
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Brishen Rogers
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schleicher
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Lea Shaver
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Peter Swire
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Joseph Turow
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Elizabeth A. Wilson
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
Privacy and Security Training
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress