, ,

The New York Times had an editorial a few months ago on an idea floating through the hall of Comgress, and splattered out there by the “Paper of Record”: “search neutrality“… If this doesn’t sound scary to you, you need to think some more on it, or remember this — eventually, you’re people will be out of power and someone else will have access to those organs of government you set up.

Here’s the gist: Google,which is a massive Democratic Party supporter, managed to get a bunch of halfwitted Progressives into office. They were one of the major forces behind “net neutrality”, a staggeringly bad idea couched in terms of “freedom” and “fairness” (mostly the latter, since it would limit the former), and designed to benefit smaller bandwidth sites Vis-a-vis larger ones. In other words, it’s a subsidy for smaller sites (political ones, if you hadn’t gotten the inference) that can’t compete. This support wouldn’t go to me, for instance…I’ll still have to pay my ISP and put up with service transfer limits, high as they are. If I want to take my blog here big time, I have to pay for a swankier site, a domain name.

No, this is for the political websites — the DNC supported sites, the small opinion maker sites, and other groups that want a free ride competing in the marketplace of ideas. And guess who gets to decide what’s fair in this marketplace? It’s the electronic Fairness Doctrine, and the pushers of Net Neutrality hope to strengthen their hold on the political and historical narrative with it.

Now comes along “search neutrality”, which is touted as aiding smaller sites to be seen on Google’s search engine. Right now, you can pay to have your site be a banner result, or the engine occasionally throws up a few likely websites you’re looking for based on your previous search history. But that doesn’t get government funded or subsidized companies in the top slots of the search returns, and it doesn’t let less innovative or motivated companies do the same (think the small oil companies that couldn’t compete with Standard Oil…answer: have your Comgressman attack Standard Oil.) It also doesn’t get you to politically approved sites for the information you are looking for. There’s to much chance you might wind up on a blog or site that do not have the correct political persuasion and might cause you to question the wisdom of certain policies or politicians.

Search Neutrality is a cudgel to quash free speech and competition, as is net neutrality, wrapped in the promise of “fairness”. It also ignores the fact that Google has competition in the search engine market. Bing has become a popular engine for those looking to escape the data mining and sales activities of Google. There’s Start Page, Dogpile (which used to be fantastic and was my go-to for years.). Why does Google have such a good market share on searching? They do it better than their competition!

Google was none too fond of China curtailing their activities; it should be a lesson for the company: government regulation always comes at a cost. Think about that, the next time you’re pushing some “neutrality plot”, boys.