"Fairness" in Search Results?
In case anyone needed reminding that conservatives are not interested in a free economy.
In case anyone needed reminding that conservatives are not interested in a free economy:
Here's a news bulletin for Mr. Crampton: Google didn't become big by giving incomplete search results and it won't remain big by earning a reputation for doing so. Aside from the fact that the problem will take care of itself in an unregulated Internet, it is wrong for the government to be regulating (or running) utilities in the first place. Government intereference with any business, large or small, violates everyone's right to production and trade, prevailing practices to the contrary.
And besides. Considering all the "hate speech" laws and other multiculturalist legislation, the end result of the government getting into the act of deciding what constitutes a "good search result" would probably be even worse than anything Google would dare, boot-licking accomplice of totalitarian regimes that it already is. And once in the business of dictating standards for search results, the government would not be content to tell Google alone how to filter them. And then we'll have a de facto monopoly in place, just like we did in the business of news and commentary over the airwaves in the bad old days of the "Fairness" Doctrine. And remember how "unbiased" and "useful" that was? (Even some conservatives still do.)
As much as Google deserves to have a pack of Steve Cramptons unleashed upon it, we should oppose such a move for the sake of our economic and intellectual freedom.
An attorney with a prominent conservative Christian group says he is troubled by the recent announcement that the popular Internet search engine Google has dumped news sites criticizing radical Islam...So far so good -- except that he's not done yet.
..."[Users are essentially saying] 'I'll do the decision-making -- the discriminating, if you will -- as to which articles I want to read and which ones I don't,'" says [Steve] Crampton [, chief counsel of the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy]. "But when you retrieve only left-leaning articles or only articles that are favorable to the religion of Islam, you're not really providing news. You're providing a slanted view of the world." [one link dropped, one added]
When you consider how large this entity has become, you start to get into a realm where an argument could be made that perhaps this entity now becomes sort of like a public utility to the extent that the people rely on Google and Google alone," the attorney states. "There may be an argument that the government can step in and regulate Google in a way that it couldn't otherwise regulate a private entity." [bold added]And what argument is that? "That obedience to precedent trumps a long-overdue changing of the ways?"
Here's a news bulletin for Mr. Crampton: Google didn't become big by giving incomplete search results and it won't remain big by earning a reputation for doing so. Aside from the fact that the problem will take care of itself in an unregulated Internet, it is wrong for the government to be regulating (or running) utilities in the first place. Government intereference with any business, large or small, violates everyone's right to production and trade, prevailing practices to the contrary.
And besides. Considering all the "hate speech" laws and other multiculturalist legislation, the end result of the government getting into the act of deciding what constitutes a "good search result" would probably be even worse than anything Google would dare, boot-licking accomplice of totalitarian regimes that it already is. And once in the business of dictating standards for search results, the government would not be content to tell Google alone how to filter them. And then we'll have a de facto monopoly in place, just like we did in the business of news and commentary over the airwaves in the bad old days of the "Fairness" Doctrine. And remember how "unbiased" and "useful" that was? (Even some conservatives still do.)
As much as Google deserves to have a pack of Steve Cramptons unleashed upon it, we should oppose such a move for the sake of our economic and intellectual freedom.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine often presents views that we do not entirely agree with, because they may still contain information of value to our readers. Excerpts are limited to 250 words, so long as the source and link are provided to the original article. Otherwise, reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Gus Van Horn is a scientist residing in Houston, Texas. He is the author of a popular pro-reason, pro-individual rights political and cultural blog.
Gus Van Horn is a scientist residing in Houston, Texas. He is the author of a popular pro-reason, pro-individual rights political and cultural blog.
Dollars and Crosses
- Jane Orient on Quitting Medicare
- Ayn Rand’s Essay “To Whom It May Concern” Now Online
- Uses and Sources of Gold
- New Book: How to be Profitable and Moral: A Rational Egoist Approach to Business
- Democracy and Self Determination of Peoples: Euphenisms for Mob Rule in the Middle East
- Private Schools for the Poor
- Holleran on Anti-Hero Worship
- Salsman on the Anti-Capitalist Conservatives
- New Website: Checking Premises
- Job Creators: Who Do those Immigrants Think They Are?
CapMag.com | Contact Us

