Connect with us

Broadband's Impact

TechFreedom Panel Criticizes Search Engine Bias Claims

WASHINGTON, June 15, 2011 – TechFreedom, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, assembled a panel of law professors gathered at the Capitol on Tuesday to discuss search engine bias and recent antitrust cases involving Google.

The recently-established conservative policy group moved the event to the Capitol building to make it more accessible for Senate staffers and private businessmen to attend.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, June 15, 2011 – TechFreedom, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, assembled a panel of law professors gathered at the Capitol on Tuesday to discuss search engine bias and recent antitrust cases involving Google.

The recently-established conservative policy group moved the event to the Capitol building to make it more accessible for Senate staffers and private businessmen to attend.

Each of the members of the panel came out largely against heavy antitrust regulation of search engines, particularly Google, due to their skepticism of whether fears of search engine bias were warranted. Search engine bias is when a search engine company promotes certain content over other content at the expense of competition.

“Google is a source of a significant amount of traffic, but it is possible for new sites to be discovered and to turn into very large things whether Google promotes them or not,” said panelist James Grimmelman, a professor at New York Law School.

Not everyone in attendance agreed with the panel.

“Just because we don’t know exactly what the remedy should be doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be investigating allegations and concerns,” said a Senate aide in attendance. “The remedy is what you decide once you know what the problem is.”

Scott Cleland, author of Search & Destroy: Why You Can’t Trust Google, Inc., did not feel that the panel represented a full spectrum of ideas surrounding the subject.

“By focusing the panel exclusively on a straw man remedy argument, which Google obviously feels most comfortable discussing because it puts them in the role of the victim and not the alleged antitrust offender, “ said Cleland. “The panel discussion thus started and stayed biased in favor of Google.”

Josh Peterson is a DC-based journalist with a professional writing portfolio that includes work on US foreign policy and international affairs, telecom policy and cyber security, religion, arts, and music. He is currently a journalism intern at The National Journalism Center in Washington, D.C. and a former tech and social media intern at The Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies & Citizenship. Peterson received his Bachelor of Arts in philosophy and religion with a minor concentration in music from Hillsdale College in 2008. When he is not writing, Peterson lives a double life as a web designer, social media strategist, photographer, musician and mixed martial artist.

Broadband's Impact

Fiber Broadband Association Kicks Off Fiber Connect 2021

The FBA doled out numerous awards during its first general session of the event.

Published

on

FBA's Gary Bolton speaking on stage during Fiber Connect 2021

WASHINGTON, June 15, 2011 – TechFreedom, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, assembled a panel of law professors gathered at the Capitol on Tuesday to discuss search engine bias and recent antitrust cases involving Google.

The recently-established conservative policy group moved the event to the Capitol building to make it more accessible for Senate staffers and private businessmen to attend.

Each of the members of the panel came out largely against heavy antitrust regulation of search engines, particularly Google, due to their skepticism of whether fears of search engine bias were warranted. Search engine bias is when a search engine company promotes certain content over other content at the expense of competition.

“Google is a source of a significant amount of traffic, but it is possible for new sites to be discovered and to turn into very large things whether Google promotes them or not,” said panelist James Grimmelman, a professor at New York Law School.

Not everyone in attendance agreed with the panel.

“Just because we don’t know exactly what the remedy should be doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be investigating allegations and concerns,” said a Senate aide in attendance. “The remedy is what you decide once you know what the problem is.”

Scott Cleland, author of Search & Destroy: Why You Can’t Trust Google, Inc., did not feel that the panel represented a full spectrum of ideas surrounding the subject.

“By focusing the panel exclusively on a straw man remedy argument, which Google obviously feels most comfortable discussing because it puts them in the role of the victim and not the alleged antitrust offender, “ said Cleland. “The panel discussion thus started and stayed biased in favor of Google.”

Continue Reading

Expert Opinion

Craig Settles: Libraries, Barbershops and Salons Tackle TeleHealthcare Gap

Craig Settles describes the important role that community institutions have played in promoting connectivity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Published

on

Photo of Urban Kutz Barbershops owner Waverly Willis getting his blood pressure checked used with permission

WASHINGTON, June 15, 2011 – TechFreedom, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, assembled a panel of law professors gathered at the Capitol on Tuesday to discuss search engine bias and recent antitrust cases involving Google.

The recently-established conservative policy group moved the event to the Capitol building to make it more accessible for Senate staffers and private businessmen to attend.

Each of the members of the panel came out largely against heavy antitrust regulation of search engines, particularly Google, due to their skepticism of whether fears of search engine bias were warranted. Search engine bias is when a search engine company promotes certain content over other content at the expense of competition.

“Google is a source of a significant amount of traffic, but it is possible for new sites to be discovered and to turn into very large things whether Google promotes them or not,” said panelist James Grimmelman, a professor at New York Law School.

Not everyone in attendance agreed with the panel.

“Just because we don’t know exactly what the remedy should be doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be investigating allegations and concerns,” said a Senate aide in attendance. “The remedy is what you decide once you know what the problem is.”

Scott Cleland, author of Search & Destroy: Why You Can’t Trust Google, Inc., did not feel that the panel represented a full spectrum of ideas surrounding the subject.

“By focusing the panel exclusively on a straw man remedy argument, which Google obviously feels most comfortable discussing because it puts them in the role of the victim and not the alleged antitrust offender, “ said Cleland. “The panel discussion thus started and stayed biased in favor of Google.”

Continue Reading

Education

Broadband Breakfast CEO Drew Clark and BroadbandNow’s John Busby Speak on Libraries and Broadband

Friday’s Gigabit Libraries Network conversation will feature Drew Clark of Broadband Breakfast and John Busby of BroadbandNow.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, June 15, 2011 – TechFreedom, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, assembled a panel of law professors gathered at the Capitol on Tuesday to discuss search engine bias and recent antitrust cases involving Google.

The recently-established conservative policy group moved the event to the Capitol building to make it more accessible for Senate staffers and private businessmen to attend.

Each of the members of the panel came out largely against heavy antitrust regulation of search engines, particularly Google, due to their skepticism of whether fears of search engine bias were warranted. Search engine bias is when a search engine company promotes certain content over other content at the expense of competition.

“Google is a source of a significant amount of traffic, but it is possible for new sites to be discovered and to turn into very large things whether Google promotes them or not,” said panelist James Grimmelman, a professor at New York Law School.

Not everyone in attendance agreed with the panel.

“Just because we don’t know exactly what the remedy should be doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be investigating allegations and concerns,” said a Senate aide in attendance. “The remedy is what you decide once you know what the problem is.”

Scott Cleland, author of Search & Destroy: Why You Can’t Trust Google, Inc., did not feel that the panel represented a full spectrum of ideas surrounding the subject.

“By focusing the panel exclusively on a straw man remedy argument, which Google obviously feels most comfortable discussing because it puts them in the role of the victim and not the alleged antitrust offender, “ said Cleland. “The panel discussion thus started and stayed biased in favor of Google.”

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

 

Trending