Regulate Google? Why not? It worked great for BP

A recent editorial in the New York Times argues that Google has become so important that it requires oversight to be sure its search engine algorithm is fair. But the Times fails to show that there are any problems at Google, or that government regulation would help.

In an editorial entitled "The Google Algorithm," the Times writes, "a case is building for some sort of oversight of the gatekeeper of the Internet."

It's a peculiarly mealymouthed editorial. The Times writers never come out and say Google needs government regulation, but the writers walk right up to that spot and point at it.

Certainly, the stakes are high. Great search ranking can be very rewarding for a business. However, search ranking is fickle, and a merchant that relies on search ranking for a business model has a broken business model. That's not Google's fault, it's the merchant's own failure. Search engine optimization needs to be part of a balanced marketing and public relations program.

The Times never makes a case that there is a problem. They never make the case that Google has abused its authority. And they never make the case that government regulation will fix the problem. Indeed, the Times itself notes that government oversight can stifle innovation, and that, in the search engine market, the competition is only a mouse click away.

"A terrible idea"

Government oversight of Google's editorial policy is "a terrible idea," writes Business Insider's Nick Saint. Google doesn't have a monopoly on search; its 63% market share is under the standard threshold for antitrust concerns. Google has strong competition from Microsoft Bing. And new competition for Google is coming up all the time: For example, the Blekko search engine, which is now in alpha, is getting ready to launch.

There's extreme irony in a newspaper calling for oversight of an organization's editorial policy, notes SearchEngineLand's Danny Sullivan. Newspaper content is protected by the First Amendment, and so are search engine results, according to court decisions, Sullivan notes.

And Google's Marissa Mayer wrote in Google's own defense. Search is complex, and forcing some kind of arbitrary standard of neutrality on search would make innovation impossible, she says.

The only voices calling for Google regulation are obscure competitors no one has heard of, like the shopping search engine Foundem, writes GigaOm's Matthew Ingram:

Could Google be rigging its search results? Perhaps — but as Sullivan mentions in his blog post, if there were significant signs that Google was favoring its own properties, wouldn’t large competitors such as Microsoft or Amazon or Yahoo have raised this issue before now, rather than a tiny handful of little-known European competitors? Maybe there is a case for government oversight of Google, but the New York Times has failed to make that case, and so have most of the others who have tried to do so to date.

It's an odd time for the Times to be calling for greater government regulation of private business. The Times's own headlines are filled every day with stories about failures of government regulation. The BP spill was a failure of government regulation of the oil industry, the current Great Recession is a failure of government oversight of Wall Street. It's wrong to ask government take on more responsibility, when it's clearly overwhelmed with the responsibility it already has.

Mitch Wagner is a freelance technology journalist and social media strategist.