I agree with you in general that the precise nature of Google’s influence is not fully appreciated by those concerned about making a fair playing field. Your post is interesting, but I suppose that posting this on Friday (and seeing a dozen posts on this blog come afterwards) might have diminished its impact.

But I disagree with you on a few points. I do not think there is a realistic case to be made that Google’s success was based largely on the luck of favorable regulatory decisions. For one, unlike many Internet companies, Google relied on intensive, non-trivial computation engineering. Secondly, and most important, how would you explain that such decisions uniquely helped Google and not anyone search engine?

As for CDA 230, I don’t think it’s correct to say that it was “originally intended for carriers.” The act specified “interactive computer services”; it had come in the wake of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. (If one wanted to be a cynic, one could state that many laws were “originally intended for whatever big business will fill the niche.”

That said, I agree with you on the point that it’s a bit unbalanced for Google to be pushing for neutrality in the network area, with no comparable effort to bring some neutrality into the search area. I have stated in one forum or another that the public appears to be siding with Google because they are the providers of free stuff whereas the telcos and the studios are not.

I can comment further on practical remedies subsequently here or in email.

Jon