Regulation is likely to create results from all search engines standardized, decreasing the volume of competition and further stifling innovation.

Before, you start with an editorial, there has been much disagreement regarding whether or not the government should provide some sort of regulation on search motors. An article points out that when Google stated that they were a just informational resource, providing an objective opinion of the most relevant sites of the web. Over time, nevertheless, Google’s enterprises have enlarged enormously, with maps, shopping, paid email advertisements and litanies of auxiliary endeavors. Google now has a reason to market their services above their competitors, and it is a conflict of interest when, apparently, you’re managing a target site, while industry expansion is obviously a fantastic thing.

Most of us probably think of search engines as tools that we use on daily basis, but the fact of the matter is the search engines are a booming company, and the market is being dominated by Google having almost two-thirds of all searches.

How can the federal government decide if search results are”fair”?

If search engines, like https://bing.com, have to disclose their proprietary calculations, it’ll be easier for people to manipulate the system. Ordinarily, businesses like Google would be forced to deliver a better service than their competitors, including as for example Yahoo! and Bing. However, since Google could be the defacto search engine for virtually everyone else and has a huge market share, there’s little pressure out of the competition that could force any of their practices to change.

With the arcane nature of online regulation, when the government ever does do it will probably be years off. In the meantime, it’s important to use discretion when searching doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the ideal and to realize that Google and other search engines are not a celestial authority.

Legislation prohibits experimentation and competition, which consequently prohibits innovation and growth. Google happens to be under analysis in Europe for violating antitrust regulations, and the company expects a similar question from the united states following their purchase of ITA, a flight advice computer software firm. You might be asking yourself on what reasons that the government will have the ability to regulate other search engines and Google. The solution is simple: the internet market is driven by Google. Being ranked highly in Google’s organic listings means dollars for organizations, therefore it can mean substantial financial losses if Google unfairly ranks their own material or other companies.

Clearly, the process for any law is how exactly to do it professionally and fairly, which is particularly challenging when working with all proprietary advice as an algorithm and also the vastness of the internet.


How frequently, in the past few decades, has the news agitated and made you feel anxious about where America is going? Whether you read news online via https://bing.com, watch it on the television or read the daily paper, do you ask yourself, are these politicians serving you, or they appear to be only serving their private political agendas and self-interests?  What makes the electorate continue to vote, in accordance with their prejudices and biases, empty promises of celebrities over than individuals with experience, expertise, exhibited judgment, and a degree of intellect, that offer viable, appropriate, sustainable options?

Isn’t it, about time we prioritized the greater good, defending America’s liberties and dignity?

The right to vote.

The Presidential election of 2016 when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Donald Trump emerged victorious in the Electoral College – we find that more Americans decided to not take good advantage of their responsibility to vote. Today, we see many citizens expressing their disappointment towards President Trump, but were not these folks who did not vote one of the main causes? Mr. Trump won the election for a wide variety of motivations, and I believe, some of those primary ones, comprised: a) many did not like Hillary Clinton, b) voters believed his empty promises even though he didn’t give the public a clear plan or solution for the nation’s problems, c) they shared Trump’s vision of the US, as well as his biases and prejudices.

Respect for the man sitting in the office is different from respect for the man himself.

We should honor the office of the President as the highest in the nation, however, there is a fine line between ignorantly following the leader, especially when his actions does not respect the ideals, freedoms, and liberties of this nation. Unless citizens of the United States choose their officials responsibly, they will only see rights being abused in the future. Everything will remain the same until voters realize enough is enough.