NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Google and the Controversial Case of the Vanishing Vitamins
Google and the Controversial Case of the Vanishing Vitamins
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000984.html
For well over a week now, my inbox (always replete with Google-related
queries) has been overflowing with questions, concerns, complaints --
and in some cases very upset commentaries -- regarding a supposed case
of Google censorship.
What is supposedly being censored, you might ask?
Is it political speech? Sexual imagery? Some unsavory combination of
these categories?
No.
Folks are filling my disks with concerns about the apparent removal of
vitamins, dietary supplements, and other related "natural products"
merchandise from Google Shopping.
Most of the complaints date back to this posting in "Natural News" on
19 August: http://j.mp/Nv64Og (Natural News).
A much angrier essay from yesterday demonstrates the depth of feelings
involved in some quarters: http://j.mp/Nv694g (HSI).
Even before those articles were published and most definitely since
then, I've received many independent anecdotal reports about this from
Google users -- unable to get any answers directly from Google --
asking what's actually going on.
Unsurprisingly, in the absence of accurate information on this score,
an "evil Google censorship" meme has been flourishing.
What's really going on?
First, it's important to stipulate that we're talking about Google
Shopping, not the primary Google Search. It was recently announced
that Google Shopping would be switching to a fully merchant-fee based
system, with quality control over listed items being a primary focus.
I think this may be our first clue regarding the controversy at issue.
What does Google have to say about all this?
I spoke with them at some length yesterday. The word is that very
shortly, perhaps even within the next couple of weeks, many of what I
would term to be associated "foundational" products should be
returning to Google Shopping.
Vitamin C, shampoos -- things like that.
Google is currently engaged in the technical process of categorizing
the kinds of merchandise that will return, and arranging for
deployment.
But what of the remaining types of products that have reportedly
vanished and apparently will not be returning at this time? Why were
they removed in the first place?
Google won't say directly. And while as we've discussed many times in
the past Google still really needs to improve its communications
transparency (within the bounds of avoiding people "gaming" the
system), I believe it is possible to read between the lines a bit in
this case.
Think about it. People claiming "evil censorship" by Google aren't
making any sense.
Why would Google drop products if they didn't feel there was some
really important reason? What is the possible benefit of actually
refusing to accept the significant income that could come from such
listings if they were permitted? And remember, Google's competitors
are still reportedly carrying the kinds of listings that Google has
dropped. Google isn't going to put itself in a competitive
disadvantage in these product categories in an illogical manner.
Google doesn't act randomly. There must be some logical explanation.
And I'm guessing that it essentially boils down to the old idiom,
"Once bitten, twice shy."
You'll recall that almost exactly a year ago, it cost Google something
like $500 million to settle the AdWords "illegal pharmacy listings"
case with the U.S. government.
While Google's actual culpability in this matter always struck me as
highly questionable, the bottom line is that they did agree to the
settlement, and a situation like this is likely to cause one to be
extremely careful about anything that might be considered to be even
remotely similar in the future.
The settlement apparently didn't mandate that Google not list
supplements or related products.
But again, think about it.
Once we get beyond the category of those "foundation" products I
mentioned above -- that will be returning to Google Shopping
shortly -- you move quickly into the realm of supplements and products that
make all manner of often unproven and unsupported health claims. Even
fans of "natural products" know how such claims can easily push into
the realm of the old "patent medicine" barkers.
And especially with Google Shopping moving to an all-paid model, what
possible incentive -- particularly in light of the pharmacies
settlement -- would Google see to entangle Google Shopping with this
specific category of products going forward?
Frankly, I'd likely take the same approach if I were Google.
Maybe my analysis is completely wrong. But it seems logical, and
appears to fit the facts and the timing.
It's not entirely clear to me why Google is unwilling to say more
about this now, but I Am Not a Lawyer, and I'd bet there are quite
rational legal considerations that come into play.
Above all, we can safely assume that Google isn't being irrationally
arbitrary about this situation.
There's no reason to assume that they "hate" supplements and other
natural products, or that they'd walk away from potential income from
listing such items if there weren't really solid considerations for
doing so.
So it's very clear that the term "censorship" is not at all an
appropriate label for this matter, and if anyone or anything is really
to blame, perhaps what many observers felt to be the overzealous
prosecution of Google in the pharmacy case deserves particular note.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
- Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
nnsquad mailing list
http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad