<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_29_010216</id>
	<title>The Need For Search Neutrality</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1262102820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>wilsone8 writes <i>"The New York Times includes an op-ed today arguing for <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28raff.html?\_r=1">Search Neutrality</a>:  'Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's new Bing have become the Internet's gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include search neutrality: the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>wilsone8 writes " The New York Times includes an op-ed today arguing for Search Neutrality : 'Today , search engines like Google , Yahoo and Microsoft 's new Bing have become the Internet 's gatekeepers , and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself .
The F.C.C .
needs to look beyond network neutrality and include search neutrality : the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive , impartial and based solely on relevance .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wilsone8 writes "The New York Times includes an op-ed today arguing for Search Neutrality:  'Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's new Bing have become the Internet's gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself.
The F.C.C.
needs to look beyond network neutrality and include search neutrality: the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579702</id>
	<title>Search Neutrality: Never an issue if....</title>
	<author>sazy</author>
	<datestamp>1262028420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We hadn't made getting here as easy as pushing an on/off switch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We had n't made getting here as easy as pushing an on/off switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We hadn't made getting here as easy as pushing an on/off switch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579120</id>
	<title>Too much money is involved</title>
	<author>BearRanger</author>
	<datestamp>1262021280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck legislating this.  When Microsoft can pay Verizon $500 million  to install a Bing search icon on their phones there's bound to be lots of push back and lobbying efforts to make sure this does not happen.  Truly "neutral" search will never be a reality unless there's some movement to disclose back room deals such as this.  But that can't happen, at least not easily.  And I'm not sure if it should.</p><p>At some point consumers of services have to be smart enough to look out for themselves.  The government won't be able to legislate away all risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck legislating this .
When Microsoft can pay Verizon $ 500 million to install a Bing search icon on their phones there 's bound to be lots of push back and lobbying efforts to make sure this does not happen .
Truly " neutral " search will never be a reality unless there 's some movement to disclose back room deals such as this .
But that ca n't happen , at least not easily .
And I 'm not sure if it should.At some point consumers of services have to be smart enough to look out for themselves .
The government wo n't be able to legislate away all risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck legislating this.
When Microsoft can pay Verizon $500 million  to install a Bing search icon on their phones there's bound to be lots of push back and lobbying efforts to make sure this does not happen.
Truly "neutral" search will never be a reality unless there's some movement to disclose back room deals such as this.
But that can't happen, at least not easily.
And I'm not sure if it should.At some point consumers of services have to be smart enough to look out for themselves.
The government won't be able to legislate away all risk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580014</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262119920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes. The old "they're not helping me spread my word, therefore they are suppressing me!" argument. Which, just like everytime it comes up on Slashdot, is complete hogwash.</p><p>Let me explain to the Foundem founder what has to be explained every time to Slashdot newbies: no one has an obligation to make sure that your site or opinion has to be heard by everyone. If Google would not exist, the Foundem founder would be faced with the exact same problem as now: no one knows about his site. And what solution exists to that? Marketing, of course.</p><p>In short, the Foundem founder is merely pissed that Google isn't doing his marketing for him. Fucking weenies and their sense of entitlement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes .
The old " they 're not helping me spread my word , therefore they are suppressing me !
" argument .
Which , just like everytime it comes up on Slashdot , is complete hogwash.Let me explain to the Foundem founder what has to be explained every time to Slashdot newbies : no one has an obligation to make sure that your site or opinion has to be heard by everyone .
If Google would not exist , the Foundem founder would be faced with the exact same problem as now : no one knows about his site .
And what solution exists to that ?
Marketing , of course.In short , the Foundem founder is merely pissed that Google is n't doing his marketing for him .
Fucking weenies and their sense of entitlement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes.
The old "they're not helping me spread my word, therefore they are suppressing me!
" argument.
Which, just like everytime it comes up on Slashdot, is complete hogwash.Let me explain to the Foundem founder what has to be explained every time to Slashdot newbies: no one has an obligation to make sure that your site or opinion has to be heard by everyone.
If Google would not exist, the Foundem founder would be faced with the exact same problem as now: no one knows about his site.
And what solution exists to that?
Marketing, of course.In short, the Foundem founder is merely pissed that Google isn't doing his marketing for him.
Fucking weenies and their sense of entitlement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580904</id>
	<title>Re:Why??</title>
	<author>axw</author>
	<datestamp>1262091600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lastly, there is NOTHING wrong with a biased search engine as long as the people using it understand the bias.</p></div><p>in a world where most of the population use phrase "to google something" as a literal synonym of web searching, understanding the bias or even knowing about it is very unlikely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lastly , there is NOTHING wrong with a biased search engine as long as the people using it understand the bias.in a world where most of the population use phrase " to google something " as a literal synonym of web searching , understanding the bias or even knowing about it is very unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lastly, there is NOTHING wrong with a biased search engine as long as the people using it understand the bias.in a world where most of the population use phrase "to google something" as a literal synonym of web searching, understanding the bias or even knowing about it is very unlikely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579448</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality versus Search Neutrality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262024940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Private companies want to shape traffic to maximize their profits. Slashdot "Regulate! Regulate!"
Private companies want to shape search results to maximize their profits. Slashdot "Don't Regulate! Don't Regulate"

Adoration of Google around here is sort of like the citizens of a planet in the Star Wars Universe cheering the Clone Army kicking off the Separatists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Private companies want to shape traffic to maximize their profits .
Slashdot " Regulate !
Regulate ! " Private companies want to shape search results to maximize their profits .
Slashdot " Do n't Regulate !
Do n't Regulate " Adoration of Google around here is sort of like the citizens of a planet in the Star Wars Universe cheering the Clone Army kicking off the Separatists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private companies want to shape traffic to maximize their profits.
Slashdot "Regulate!
Regulate!"
Private companies want to shape search results to maximize their profits.
Slashdot "Don't Regulate!
Don't Regulate"

Adoration of Google around here is sort of like the citizens of a planet in the Star Wars Universe cheering the Clone Army kicking off the Separatists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579142</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, that's great.</title>
	<author>Cronock</author>
	<datestamp>1262021460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will severely affect the makers of the Green Dam: American Edition.
<br>
Who will innovate in the field of competition-filtering network hardware and software?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will severely affect the makers of the Green Dam : American Edition .
Who will innovate in the field of competition-filtering network hardware and software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will severely affect the makers of the Green Dam: American Edition.
Who will innovate in the field of competition-filtering network hardware and software?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580258</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>kenshin33</author>
	<datestamp>1262081520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1 - it's sole Rule should be  impartiality.
<br>
2 -  is should held accountable for that .

<br> now if someone feels like discriminated against<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. there should be arbitration to see if (1) wasn't met to enforce 2</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 - it 's sole Rule should be impartiality .
2 - is should held accountable for that .
now if someone feels like discriminated against .. there should be arbitration to see if ( 1 ) was n't met to enforce 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 - it's sole Rule should be  impartiality.
2 -  is should held accountable for that .
now if someone feels like discriminated against .. there should be arbitration to see if (1) wasn't met to enforce 2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579082</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262020920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I dunno, will you tell me exactly why you feel you've been shortchanged by Google?</p></div><p>If it keeping moving, regulate it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , will you tell me exactly why you feel you 've been shortchanged by Google ? If it keeping moving , regulate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, will you tell me exactly why you feel you've been shortchanged by Google?If it keeping moving, regulate it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579096</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262021100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, I screwed up the quote.<br> <br>

If it keeps moving, regulate it.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I screwed up the quote .
If it keeps moving , regulate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I screwed up the quote.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579758</id>
	<title>What about PageRank?</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1262029860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard that Google weighs certain websites it deems more valuable over others, in addition to the default weight given by the PageRank algorithm. Can anyone confirm this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard that Google weighs certain websites it deems more valuable over others , in addition to the default weight given by the PageRank algorithm .
Can anyone confirm this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard that Google weighs certain websites it deems more valuable over others, in addition to the default weight given by the PageRank algorithm.
Can anyone confirm this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579072</id>
	<title>Thank you for playing</title>
	<author>Scareduck</author>
	<datestamp>1262020740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Here, there's this thing called the <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/" title="findlaw.com">First Amendment</a> [findlaw.com]. You may have heard of it.

This is nothing more than some dingbat whose business it isn't to insert his nose where it don't belong. Once you accept his premise, spammers can also force changes in Google etc. rankings based on their own notion of "relevance". ("see? We have tons of this keyword in our page. We MUST be relevant!")</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive , impartial and based solely on relevance .
Here , there 's this thing called the First Amendment [ findlaw.com ] .
You may have heard of it .
This is nothing more than some dingbat whose business it is n't to insert his nose where it do n't belong .
Once you accept his premise , spammers can also force changes in Google etc .
rankings based on their own notion of " relevance " .
( " see ? We have tons of this keyword in our page .
We MUST be relevant !
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.
Here, there's this thing called the First Amendment [findlaw.com].
You may have heard of it.
This is nothing more than some dingbat whose business it isn't to insert his nose where it don't belong.
Once you accept his premise, spammers can also force changes in Google etc.
rankings based on their own notion of "relevance".
("see? We have tons of this keyword in our page.
We MUST be relevant!
")
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580084</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing and Yahoo are already highly perverting search results.  These practices are indefensible and inexcusable!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing and Yahoo are already highly perverting search results .
These practices are indefensible and inexcusable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing and Yahoo are already highly perverting search results.
These practices are indefensible and inexcusable!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579512</id>
	<title>I told you asshats this would happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262025840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you all decided that network neutrality was such a great idea. Innovation is driven <i>by need in the marketplace</i>. The "war on marketplace need" is thus necessarily a war against innovation. What's the shortest route to the network <i>not being a monopoly?</i> A badly abused monopoly network! And we don't even freakin' have one of those! Practically everyone in the nation can get online via 3-4 of the following 5 media: satellite, cell network, short-range wireless, cable, or DSL. "Awww, but there's only one DSL provider and they charge $10/mo more than my brother gets charged in BigCity, BigState, and they throttle bittorrent and they <i>say</i> unlimited bandwidth but I heard they cut someone off at 700GB, and also my pussy hurts."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you all decided that network neutrality was such a great idea .
Innovation is driven by need in the marketplace .
The " war on marketplace need " is thus necessarily a war against innovation .
What 's the shortest route to the network not being a monopoly ?
A badly abused monopoly network !
And we do n't even freakin ' have one of those !
Practically everyone in the nation can get online via 3-4 of the following 5 media : satellite , cell network , short-range wireless , cable , or DSL .
" Awww , but there 's only one DSL provider and they charge $ 10/mo more than my brother gets charged in BigCity , BigState , and they throttle bittorrent and they say unlimited bandwidth but I heard they cut someone off at 700GB , and also my pussy hurts .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you all decided that network neutrality was such a great idea.
Innovation is driven by need in the marketplace.
The "war on marketplace need" is thus necessarily a war against innovation.
What's the shortest route to the network not being a monopoly?
A badly abused monopoly network!
And we don't even freakin' have one of those!
Practically everyone in the nation can get online via 3-4 of the following 5 media: satellite, cell network, short-range wireless, cable, or DSL.
"Awww, but there's only one DSL provider and they charge $10/mo more than my brother gets charged in BigCity, BigState, and they throttle bittorrent and they say unlimited bandwidth but I heard they cut someone off at 700GB, and also my pussy hurts.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579316</id>
	<title>it's the whole point, duh</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1262023260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>search engines are supposed to discriminate. they pick a winner and a loser and rank everything inbetween. so this guys site was like every other shitty fucking link aggregator out there and google weeded it out for it's users. fuck you very much thanks for playing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>search engines are supposed to discriminate .
they pick a winner and a loser and rank everything inbetween .
so this guys site was like every other shitty fucking link aggregator out there and google weeded it out for it 's users .
fuck you very much thanks for playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>search engines are supposed to discriminate.
they pick a winner and a loser and rank everything inbetween.
so this guys site was like every other shitty fucking link aggregator out there and google weeded it out for it's users.
fuck you very much thanks for playing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579656</id>
	<title>Re:I told you asshats this would happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262027640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What's the shortest route to the network not being a monopoly? A badly abused monopoly network!</i></p><p>Why? Oh right, because everyone will rush to the other evil company.  Or they'll bite the bullet and buy shitty low-bandwidth one-bar cellular wireless or expensive high-latency satellite links because those are <i>totally</i> substitute goods for wired lines.  Or they'll jump on a hotspot, plugged into one of those wired lines.</p><p><i>What's the shortest route to the network not being a monopoly? A badly abused monopoly network!</i></p><p>Or, you know, asking the ISPs to kindly stop threatening dicking with our internet traffic.  Funny how that's even shorter since, as you say, we're already at the destination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the shortest route to the network not being a monopoly ?
A badly abused monopoly network ! Why ?
Oh right , because everyone will rush to the other evil company .
Or they 'll bite the bullet and buy shitty low-bandwidth one-bar cellular wireless or expensive high-latency satellite links because those are totally substitute goods for wired lines .
Or they 'll jump on a hotspot , plugged into one of those wired lines.What 's the shortest route to the network not being a monopoly ?
A badly abused monopoly network ! Or , you know , asking the ISPs to kindly stop threatening dicking with our internet traffic .
Funny how that 's even shorter since , as you say , we 're already at the destination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the shortest route to the network not being a monopoly?
A badly abused monopoly network!Why?
Oh right, because everyone will rush to the other evil company.
Or they'll bite the bullet and buy shitty low-bandwidth one-bar cellular wireless or expensive high-latency satellite links because those are totally substitute goods for wired lines.
Or they'll jump on a hotspot, plugged into one of those wired lines.What's the shortest route to the network not being a monopoly?
A badly abused monopoly network!Or, you know, asking the ISPs to kindly stop threatening dicking with our internet traffic.
Funny how that's even shorter since, as you say, we're already at the destination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30581638</id>
	<title>Re:Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262099580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> As we have seen in recent years, Google's search results are getting worse and worse, being flooded by spammers and expertsexchange links that include a couple of search terms but either have nothing to do with the search or require registration to access.</p></div><p>Add this to your user CSS:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>li h3 a[HREF*="http://www.experts-exchange.com/"] {display : none ! important }<br>A[HREF*="http://www.experts-exchange.com/"]:after { content: " [IDIOT WARNING]"!important ; color: red }</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>First line hides expertsexchange links in Google search results.  Second adds a red idiot warning after any that you might come across elsewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we have seen in recent years , Google 's search results are getting worse and worse , being flooded by spammers and expertsexchange links that include a couple of search terms but either have nothing to do with the search or require registration to access.Add this to your user CSS : li h3 a [ HREF * = " http : //www.experts-exchange.com/ " ] { display : none !
important } A [ HREF * = " http : //www.experts-exchange.com/ " ] : after { content : " [ IDIOT WARNING ] " ! important ; color : red } First line hides expertsexchange links in Google search results .
Second adds a red idiot warning after any that you might come across elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As we have seen in recent years, Google's search results are getting worse and worse, being flooded by spammers and expertsexchange links that include a couple of search terms but either have nothing to do with the search or require registration to access.Add this to your user CSS: li h3 a[HREF*="http://www.experts-exchange.com/"] {display : none !
important }A[HREF*="http://www.experts-exchange.com/"]:after { content: " [IDIOT WARNING]"!important ; color: red } First line hides expertsexchange links in Google search results.
Second adds a red idiot warning after any that you might come across elsewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30585008</id>
	<title>Re:I like Net Neutrality, but this idea is crap.</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1262117400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By and large, I agree with what you say.  However, I've noticed (insert sarcastic "woooow") that Google's getting really really big, particularly in the web search area.</p><p>I think it's time thinking about whether Google is holding a monopoly (or whether they're approaching that), how they might use and abuse their monopoly position, and what can be done, should be done and is being done about it.</p><p>Just so we are well prepared if and when we ever need to turn our conclusions into actions.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I can change search engines on a whim. But *I don't want to.*</p></div><p>If people want to use IE6, I'm fine with that.  ( don't like that choice, but people have a right to make that choice, and I want to respect that right.</p><p>However, I want that choice to be made in a fair way---I want the outcome to be the result of peoples' choices, not monopoly abuse.  Even if people want Windows, I think there's a reasonable argument for the browser ballot thing.</p><p>(That doesn't preclude there being reasonable arguments against, of course; nor does it say whether "the net argument" is for or against.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, politicians like regulating things they have no business regulating.</p></div><p>They <em>do</em> have a business regulating monopolies and, more generally, eliminating market failures.</p><p>Now, if Google is never an abusive monopolist, this post is irrelevant<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  -- so let's argue about whether Google is a monopoly or not, and if so whether it's abusive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By and large , I agree with what you say .
However , I 've noticed ( insert sarcastic " woooow " ) that Google 's getting really really big , particularly in the web search area.I think it 's time thinking about whether Google is holding a monopoly ( or whether they 're approaching that ) , how they might use and abuse their monopoly position , and what can be done , should be done and is being done about it.Just so we are well prepared if and when we ever need to turn our conclusions into actions.I can change search engines on a whim .
But * I do n't want to .
* If people want to use IE6 , I 'm fine with that .
( do n't like that choice , but people have a right to make that choice , and I want to respect that right.However , I want that choice to be made in a fair way---I want the outcome to be the result of peoples ' choices , not monopoly abuse .
Even if people want Windows , I think there 's a reasonable argument for the browser ballot thing .
( That does n't preclude there being reasonable arguments against , of course ; nor does it say whether " the net argument " is for or against .
) Of course , politicians like regulating things they have no business regulating.They do have a business regulating monopolies and , more generally , eliminating market failures.Now , if Google is never an abusive monopolist , this post is irrelevant ; ) -- so let 's argue about whether Google is a monopoly or not , and if so whether it 's abusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By and large, I agree with what you say.
However, I've noticed (insert sarcastic "woooow") that Google's getting really really big, particularly in the web search area.I think it's time thinking about whether Google is holding a monopoly (or whether they're approaching that), how they might use and abuse their monopoly position, and what can be done, should be done and is being done about it.Just so we are well prepared if and when we ever need to turn our conclusions into actions.I can change search engines on a whim.
But *I don't want to.
*If people want to use IE6, I'm fine with that.
( don't like that choice, but people have a right to make that choice, and I want to respect that right.However, I want that choice to be made in a fair way---I want the outcome to be the result of peoples' choices, not monopoly abuse.
Even if people want Windows, I think there's a reasonable argument for the browser ballot thing.
(That doesn't preclude there being reasonable arguments against, of course; nor does it say whether "the net argument" is for or against.
)Of course, politicians like regulating things they have no business regulating.They do have a business regulating monopolies and, more generally, eliminating market failures.Now, if Google is never an abusive monopolist, this post is irrelevant ;)  -- so let's argue about whether Google is a monopoly or not, and if so whether it's abusive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579632</id>
	<title>Re:Once again...</title>
	<author>SnowZero</author>
	<datestamp>1262027280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Foundem is a UK site (foundem.co.uk) run by a UK company (Infederation Ltd).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Foundem is a UK site ( foundem.co.uk ) run by a UK company ( Infederation Ltd ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Foundem is a UK site (foundem.co.uk) run by a UK company (Infederation Ltd).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580710</id>
	<title>Re:Sour grapes</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1262088960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's taken him three years to notice that his site has disappeared from the search results. And it will probably take him another three years to actually recognize it was actually his fault.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's taken him three years to notice that his site has disappeared from the search results .
And it will probably take him another three years to actually recognize it was actually his fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's taken him three years to notice that his site has disappeared from the search results.
And it will probably take him another three years to actually recognize it was actually his fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579020</id>
	<title>.cn?</title>
	<author>cadeon</author>
	<datestamp>1262020320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China will love this idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China will love this idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China will love this idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30583010</id>
	<title>Who Cares About The Sour Grapes?</title>
	<author>tabdelgawad</author>
	<datestamp>1262108040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Credibility of your article nullified" - ad-hominem is irrelevant here.</p><p>To my mind, the article's main argument is that Google in the search market today is in the same position Microsoft was in the OS market in the 1990s (near monopoly of a critical technology).  This by itself is not sufficient grounds for regulation, but if Google starts to leverage this monopoly to choke competition in related areas (as Microsoft did), then we have a problem.  The article lists a couple of examples where Google might be doing this (mapping, real estate).</p><p>I don't think the evidence is sufficient to start talking about regulation, but the parallels to Microsoft aren't obviously false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Credibility of your article nullified " - ad-hominem is irrelevant here.To my mind , the article 's main argument is that Google in the search market today is in the same position Microsoft was in the OS market in the 1990s ( near monopoly of a critical technology ) .
This by itself is not sufficient grounds for regulation , but if Google starts to leverage this monopoly to choke competition in related areas ( as Microsoft did ) , then we have a problem .
The article lists a couple of examples where Google might be doing this ( mapping , real estate ) .I do n't think the evidence is sufficient to start talking about regulation , but the parallels to Microsoft are n't obviously false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Credibility of your article nullified" - ad-hominem is irrelevant here.To my mind, the article's main argument is that Google in the search market today is in the same position Microsoft was in the OS market in the 1990s (near monopoly of a critical technology).
This by itself is not sufficient grounds for regulation, but if Google starts to leverage this monopoly to choke competition in related areas (as Microsoft did), then we have a problem.
The article lists a couple of examples where Google might be doing this (mapping, real estate).I don't think the evidence is sufficient to start talking about regulation, but the parallels to Microsoft aren't obviously false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579138</id>
	<title>Once again...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262021400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...another clueless and arrogant American thinks that their morally declining country's FCC has jurisdiction over the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...another clueless and arrogant American thinks that their morally declining country 's FCC has jurisdiction over the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...another clueless and arrogant American thinks that their morally declining country's FCC has jurisdiction over the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580936</id>
	<title>Sounds like a solution...</title>
	<author>FarHat</author>
	<datestamp>1262092020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...looking for a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...looking for a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...looking for a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579732</id>
	<title>yeah right</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1262029320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The government can't come in and tell me how to run my own damn business, why should they tell Google?  Why should it be any different to force a very clearly non-monopoly market to be regulated so extensively?  If I don't want shirtless people coming into my store, they can't cuz I put up a sign.  If I don't want certain results displayed on my search engine's website at all, I can remove them.  It's ridiculous to treat search providers like utilities as if their operations are that critical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government ca n't come in and tell me how to run my own damn business , why should they tell Google ?
Why should it be any different to force a very clearly non-monopoly market to be regulated so extensively ?
If I do n't want shirtless people coming into my store , they ca n't cuz I put up a sign .
If I do n't want certain results displayed on my search engine 's website at all , I can remove them .
It 's ridiculous to treat search providers like utilities as if their operations are that critical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government can't come in and tell me how to run my own damn business, why should they tell Google?
Why should it be any different to force a very clearly non-monopoly market to be regulated so extensively?
If I don't want shirtless people coming into my store, they can't cuz I put up a sign.
If I don't want certain results displayed on my search engine's website at all, I can remove them.
It's ridiculous to treat search providers like utilities as if their operations are that critical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579182</id>
	<title>-1 Troll</title>
	<author>Bryan\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1262021940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has to be the worst idea ever put forth on slashdot....ever</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has to be the worst idea ever put forth on slashdot....ever</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has to be the worst idea ever put forth on slashdot....ever</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579128</id>
	<title>Google maps and preferential search treatment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262021400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of this article is sour grapes.</p><p>The statement that Google Maps beat Mapquest because of preferential search treatment is hilarious. When google introduced the satellite view I recall reading (Wall street journal maybe?) that a mapquest executive had said he couldn't envision any need for the satellite view in a mapping service. (I just looked for the quote and couldn't find it. Too bad. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Bad as it sounded then, it sounds unbelievably idiotic now.) Mapquest just got beat by better technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of this article is sour grapes.The statement that Google Maps beat Mapquest because of preferential search treatment is hilarious .
When google introduced the satellite view I recall reading ( Wall street journal maybe ?
) that a mapquest executive had said he could n't envision any need for the satellite view in a mapping service .
( I just looked for the quote and could n't find it .
Too bad .
Does this ring a bell with anyone ?
Bad as it sounded then , it sounds unbelievably idiotic now .
) Mapquest just got beat by better technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of this article is sour grapes.The statement that Google Maps beat Mapquest because of preferential search treatment is hilarious.
When google introduced the satellite view I recall reading (Wall street journal maybe?
) that a mapquest executive had said he couldn't envision any need for the satellite view in a mapping service.
(I just looked for the quote and couldn't find it.
Too bad.
Does this ring a bell with anyone?
Bad as it sounded then, it sounds unbelievably idiotic now.
) Mapquest just got beat by better technology.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579014</id>
	<title>That's impossible.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1262020260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And PS, keep the goddamned Feds out of search.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And PS , keep the goddamned Feds out of search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And PS, keep the goddamned Feds out of search.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30582250</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, that's great.</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1262103660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Licensing boards exist to maintain the status quo. Innovation is about changing the status quo.</p></div><p>You have built a straw-man by trying to define neutrality as the opposite of innovation.  Since those two words are not opposites, the problem you describe does not exist.</p><p>Fortunately, proponents of neutrality are not defining "neutral" in the way you describe.  No licensing is required, no license boards would be necessary.</p><p>Take your example search engine.  Did you take bribes from companies to get their rankings higher?  Did you artificially remove something from your search engine because you didn't like it?  In your example, you did not.  So no one would sue you.  If they tried, it would never make it to court since there would be no evidence.  All you did was index information based on a well-defined set of criteria.  That's completely neutral.</p><p>Another thing I'd like to point-out: Not all laws require a special regulatory board.  Most laws have no body that enforces them other than the courts.  Individuals sue, and judges make the decision.  Neutrality laws are the same way - nobody has to affirm that you are neutral.  You are neutral until someone can bring a court case proving you are not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Licensing boards exist to maintain the status quo .
Innovation is about changing the status quo.You have built a straw-man by trying to define neutrality as the opposite of innovation .
Since those two words are not opposites , the problem you describe does not exist.Fortunately , proponents of neutrality are not defining " neutral " in the way you describe .
No licensing is required , no license boards would be necessary.Take your example search engine .
Did you take bribes from companies to get their rankings higher ?
Did you artificially remove something from your search engine because you did n't like it ?
In your example , you did not .
So no one would sue you .
If they tried , it would never make it to court since there would be no evidence .
All you did was index information based on a well-defined set of criteria .
That 's completely neutral.Another thing I 'd like to point-out : Not all laws require a special regulatory board .
Most laws have no body that enforces them other than the courts .
Individuals sue , and judges make the decision .
Neutrality laws are the same way - nobody has to affirm that you are neutral .
You are neutral until someone can bring a court case proving you are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Licensing boards exist to maintain the status quo.
Innovation is about changing the status quo.You have built a straw-man by trying to define neutrality as the opposite of innovation.
Since those two words are not opposites, the problem you describe does not exist.Fortunately, proponents of neutrality are not defining "neutral" in the way you describe.
No licensing is required, no license boards would be necessary.Take your example search engine.
Did you take bribes from companies to get their rankings higher?
Did you artificially remove something from your search engine because you didn't like it?
In your example, you did not.
So no one would sue you.
If they tried, it would never make it to court since there would be no evidence.
All you did was index information based on a well-defined set of criteria.
That's completely neutral.Another thing I'd like to point-out: Not all laws require a special regulatory board.
Most laws have no body that enforces them other than the courts.
Individuals sue, and judges make the decision.
Neutrality laws are the same way - nobody has to affirm that you are neutral.
You are neutral until someone can bring a court case proving you are not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579286</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262023020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author of TFA is upset because despite his best efforts to aggregate other people's information to drive revenues for his site (ie, leech off the actual stores) Google apparently decided that "Foundem" was a worthless piece of affiliate-link-baiting crap. It's essentially one step above making nothing but blog posts about different sites prices, all conveniently linked to one affiliate account.</p><p>Any credibility the author of TFA *might* have had goes out the window when he claims that MapQuest was dethroned as leading map service because of Google's actions. Anybody who has actually tried to USE MapQuest knows why it lost - it SUCKS, much like the author's site.</p><p>If "search neutrality" actually happened, there would be two results: first, any site that implemented it would be instantly filled with spamblogs and garbage like Foundem, and second, providers like Google would move offshore while pursuing massive litigation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author of TFA is upset because despite his best efforts to aggregate other people 's information to drive revenues for his site ( ie , leech off the actual stores ) Google apparently decided that " Foundem " was a worthless piece of affiliate-link-baiting crap .
It 's essentially one step above making nothing but blog posts about different sites prices , all conveniently linked to one affiliate account.Any credibility the author of TFA * might * have had goes out the window when he claims that MapQuest was dethroned as leading map service because of Google 's actions .
Anybody who has actually tried to USE MapQuest knows why it lost - it SUCKS , much like the author 's site.If " search neutrality " actually happened , there would be two results : first , any site that implemented it would be instantly filled with spamblogs and garbage like Foundem , and second , providers like Google would move offshore while pursuing massive litigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author of TFA is upset because despite his best efforts to aggregate other people's information to drive revenues for his site (ie, leech off the actual stores) Google apparently decided that "Foundem" was a worthless piece of affiliate-link-baiting crap.
It's essentially one step above making nothing but blog posts about different sites prices, all conveniently linked to one affiliate account.Any credibility the author of TFA *might* have had goes out the window when he claims that MapQuest was dethroned as leading map service because of Google's actions.
Anybody who has actually tried to USE MapQuest knows why it lost - it SUCKS, much like the author's site.If "search neutrality" actually happened, there would be two results: first, any site that implemented it would be instantly filled with spamblogs and garbage like Foundem, and second, providers like Google would move offshore while pursuing massive litigation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580578</id>
	<title>Re:Fail.</title>
	<author>BlindRobin</author>
	<datestamp>1262087220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to be a pedant, but... <br>  While I largely agree with the (intended) content of your post, a certain grammatical error jumped out at me and I felt compelled to point it out as I would hate to see you embarrassed by similar errors in the future.<br>  Please check your grammar and spelling here: <i>The definition of relevance depends on entirely subjective criteron</i>(sic)<i>.</i>   In this sentence you have not only miss-spelled the word <b>criterion</b> but also miss-used it. Either you dropped an article or do not have sufficient command of Latin to be using the word criterion in an English sentence.<br>  Spelling aside, whether the reader understands what is meant is only part of the task of writing no matter the context. The other part is to have control of those things that you as the writer are communicating to the reader about your self.  One should always understand the words one uses and how to use them. Had you simply used the word <b>criteria</b> The sentence would have been grammatically and factually correct and not in the least pompous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to be a pedant , but... While I largely agree with the ( intended ) content of your post , a certain grammatical error jumped out at me and I felt compelled to point it out as I would hate to see you embarrassed by similar errors in the future .
Please check your grammar and spelling here : The definition of relevance depends on entirely subjective criteron ( sic ) .
In this sentence you have not only miss-spelled the word criterion but also miss-used it .
Either you dropped an article or do not have sufficient command of Latin to be using the word criterion in an English sentence .
Spelling aside , whether the reader understands what is meant is only part of the task of writing no matter the context .
The other part is to have control of those things that you as the writer are communicating to the reader about your self .
One should always understand the words one uses and how to use them .
Had you simply used the word criteria The sentence would have been grammatically and factually correct and not in the least pompous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to be a pedant, but...   While I largely agree with the (intended) content of your post, a certain grammatical error jumped out at me and I felt compelled to point it out as I would hate to see you embarrassed by similar errors in the future.
Please check your grammar and spelling here: The definition of relevance depends on entirely subjective criteron(sic).
In this sentence you have not only miss-spelled the word criterion but also miss-used it.
Either you dropped an article or do not have sufficient command of Latin to be using the word criterion in an English sentence.
Spelling aside, whether the reader understands what is meant is only part of the task of writing no matter the context.
The other part is to have control of those things that you as the writer are communicating to the reader about your self.
One should always understand the words one uses and how to use them.
Had you simply used the word criteria The sentence would have been grammatically and factually correct and not in the least pompous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579066</id>
	<title>MALNOURISHED MONKEYS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262020680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As Techdirt stated, this story was: <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091228/0304247512.shtml" title="techdirt.com">Vetted By Malnourished Monkeys</a> [techdirt.com].  Apparently the same this happened here.  Yay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Techdirt stated , this story was : Vetted By Malnourished Monkeys [ techdirt.com ] .
Apparently the same this happened here .
Yay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Techdirt stated, this story was: Vetted By Malnourished Monkeys [techdirt.com].
Apparently the same this happened here.
Yay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579654</id>
	<title>Re:Fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262027640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can't legislate these things. They're intangible.</i></p><p>There's always copyright. Lots of money in legislating that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't legislate these things .
They 're intangible.There 's always copyright .
Lots of money in legislating that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't legislate these things.
They're intangible.There's always copyright.
Lots of money in legislating that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30581636</id>
	<title>Re:I like Net Neutrality, but this idea is crap.</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1262099580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, there is plenty of reasons to have specialize search engines.  The problem is that foundem really is worthless as a search engine. And yes, I suspect that they have pulled a NUMBER of shady actions that has earned them their much lower place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there is plenty of reasons to have specialize search engines .
The problem is that foundem really is worthless as a search engine .
And yes , I suspect that they have pulled a NUMBER of shady actions that has earned them their much lower place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there is plenty of reasons to have specialize search engines.
The problem is that foundem really is worthless as a search engine.
And yes, I suspect that they have pulled a NUMBER of shady actions that has earned them their much lower place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30585142</id>
	<title>On left-wingers and government control</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1262118060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2.) Liberals love the idea of government control. It's the solution to absolutely everything.</p></div><p>Economic theory suggests that the Free Market Is Good.  It also suggests that sometimes it fails.  In those cases, Government Intrusion Is Good.</p><p>One case is public construction: in areas with very high fixed costs, it's more efficient to only build one of "them" and let everyone use it, rather than have several parties each build their own.  Good examples are roads, electricity, telephony, internet.</p><p>Another one is natural monopolies, most often seen with network effects, where the value of "owning it" increases with how many people also "owns it".  Again, roads, telephones, internet.  Also Facebook accounts, and other networks overlaid on the internet.</p><p>If government did its job well, government stepping in would actually be The Right Thing.</p><p>What (some hardcore) right-wingers don't acknowledge is the sound theory.  What (some hardcore) left-wingers don't acknowledge is the unsound practice of said theory.</p><p>If you want to know, empirically, how well the theory is converted into practice, I recommend the most recent episode of EconTalk (grab it at <a href="http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/12/winston\_on\_mark.html" title="econtalk.org">http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/12/winston\_on\_mark.html</a> [econtalk.org]), where the guest talks about exactly this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
) Liberals love the idea of government control .
It 's the solution to absolutely everything.Economic theory suggests that the Free Market Is Good .
It also suggests that sometimes it fails .
In those cases , Government Intrusion Is Good.One case is public construction : in areas with very high fixed costs , it 's more efficient to only build one of " them " and let everyone use it , rather than have several parties each build their own .
Good examples are roads , electricity , telephony , internet.Another one is natural monopolies , most often seen with network effects , where the value of " owning it " increases with how many people also " owns it " .
Again , roads , telephones , internet .
Also Facebook accounts , and other networks overlaid on the internet.If government did its job well , government stepping in would actually be The Right Thing.What ( some hardcore ) right-wingers do n't acknowledge is the sound theory .
What ( some hardcore ) left-wingers do n't acknowledge is the unsound practice of said theory.If you want to know , empirically , how well the theory is converted into practice , I recommend the most recent episode of EconTalk ( grab it at http : //www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/12/winston \ _on \ _mark.html [ econtalk.org ] ) , where the guest talks about exactly this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
) Liberals love the idea of government control.
It's the solution to absolutely everything.Economic theory suggests that the Free Market Is Good.
It also suggests that sometimes it fails.
In those cases, Government Intrusion Is Good.One case is public construction: in areas with very high fixed costs, it's more efficient to only build one of "them" and let everyone use it, rather than have several parties each build their own.
Good examples are roads, electricity, telephony, internet.Another one is natural monopolies, most often seen with network effects, where the value of "owning it" increases with how many people also "owns it".
Again, roads, telephones, internet.
Also Facebook accounts, and other networks overlaid on the internet.If government did its job well, government stepping in would actually be The Right Thing.What (some hardcore) right-wingers don't acknowledge is the sound theory.
What (some hardcore) left-wingers don't acknowledge is the unsound practice of said theory.If you want to know, empirically, how well the theory is converted into practice, I recommend the most recent episode of EconTalk (grab it at http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/12/winston\_on\_mark.html [econtalk.org]), where the guest talks about exactly this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579258</id>
	<title>So the advertisers become like lobbyists?</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1262022660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get it, just like everything else, it will be fair and impartial. The FCC just let Comcast buy NBC, so clearly they could do no evil.  OK sure I feel so much better... We can always trust laws to prevent unfairness and everyone will happy with what the money decides.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get it , just like everything else , it will be fair and impartial .
The FCC just let Comcast buy NBC , so clearly they could do no evil .
OK sure I feel so much better... We can always trust laws to prevent unfairness and everyone will happy with what the money decides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get it, just like everything else, it will be fair and impartial.
The FCC just let Comcast buy NBC, so clearly they could do no evil.
OK sure I feel so much better... We can always trust laws to prevent unfairness and everyone will happy with what the money decides.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579056</id>
	<title>I don't use those anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262020620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use <a href="http://www.startpage.com/" title="startpage.com" rel="nofollow">Start Page</a> [startpage.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Start Page [ startpage.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Start Page [startpage.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30583598</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>Stradivarius</author>
	<datestamp>1262110740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the editorial is not due to their ideological bent, but rather about big media's desire to reduce the power of search engines. Consider:</p><p>1. The big newspapers used to have little competition, as their markets were heavily localized.  The Internet, and specifically news search and aggregation services like Google, have reversed that dynamic.  Newspapers are now heavily dependent on companies like Google to drive online traffic (and thus ad revenue) to them, rather than to their many competitors.  They resent this loss of power greatly.</p><p>2.  The big newspapers would like to get back to the old model where their brand was central to the news consumer, rather than being just one of many commodity suppliers. This requires an assault on the operators of news search and aggregation.  Hence Ruport Murdoch's recent noises about how papers should collectively delist from Google.</p><p>3. But the newspapers realize that if they get in a battle with the major search engines, they could lose big. One, since the search engine is most people's first stop on the Internet, this gives the engines an incredibly powerful platform to push an editorial perspective, such as one critical of big media.  If not over-used, this could be an effective weapon that media companies would like the government to neutralize.  Second, if a big newspaper got in a fight with a big search engine, it would be trivial for the search engine to simply stop listing results from that site.  If Google stopped listing content from the NY Times on Google News or its search results, most Google users wouldn't care as there are still many other sources of the same information available.  But the NY Times would take a big hit to ad revenue.</p><p>That's why the NY Times is calling for government restrictions on search operators.  It's to neutralize the search companies' abilities to fight back in the upcoming conflict.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the editorial is not due to their ideological bent , but rather about big media 's desire to reduce the power of search engines .
Consider : 1. The big newspapers used to have little competition , as their markets were heavily localized .
The Internet , and specifically news search and aggregation services like Google , have reversed that dynamic .
Newspapers are now heavily dependent on companies like Google to drive online traffic ( and thus ad revenue ) to them , rather than to their many competitors .
They resent this loss of power greatly.2 .
The big newspapers would like to get back to the old model where their brand was central to the news consumer , rather than being just one of many commodity suppliers .
This requires an assault on the operators of news search and aggregation .
Hence Ruport Murdoch 's recent noises about how papers should collectively delist from Google.3 .
But the newspapers realize that if they get in a battle with the major search engines , they could lose big .
One , since the search engine is most people 's first stop on the Internet , this gives the engines an incredibly powerful platform to push an editorial perspective , such as one critical of big media .
If not over-used , this could be an effective weapon that media companies would like the government to neutralize .
Second , if a big newspaper got in a fight with a big search engine , it would be trivial for the search engine to simply stop listing results from that site .
If Google stopped listing content from the NY Times on Google News or its search results , most Google users would n't care as there are still many other sources of the same information available .
But the NY Times would take a big hit to ad revenue.That 's why the NY Times is calling for government restrictions on search operators .
It 's to neutralize the search companies ' abilities to fight back in the upcoming conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the editorial is not due to their ideological bent, but rather about big media's desire to reduce the power of search engines.
Consider:1. The big newspapers used to have little competition, as their markets were heavily localized.
The Internet, and specifically news search and aggregation services like Google, have reversed that dynamic.
Newspapers are now heavily dependent on companies like Google to drive online traffic (and thus ad revenue) to them, rather than to their many competitors.
They resent this loss of power greatly.2.
The big newspapers would like to get back to the old model where their brand was central to the news consumer, rather than being just one of many commodity suppliers.
This requires an assault on the operators of news search and aggregation.
Hence Ruport Murdoch's recent noises about how papers should collectively delist from Google.3.
But the newspapers realize that if they get in a battle with the major search engines, they could lose big.
One, since the search engine is most people's first stop on the Internet, this gives the engines an incredibly powerful platform to push an editorial perspective, such as one critical of big media.
If not over-used, this could be an effective weapon that media companies would like the government to neutralize.
Second, if a big newspaper got in a fight with a big search engine, it would be trivial for the search engine to simply stop listing results from that site.
If Google stopped listing content from the NY Times on Google News or its search results, most Google users wouldn't care as there are still many other sources of the same information available.
But the NY Times would take a big hit to ad revenue.That's why the NY Times is calling for government restrictions on search operators.
It's to neutralize the search companies' abilities to fight back in the upcoming conflict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579936</id>
	<title>Re:What an absurd idea</title>
	<author>WGFCrafty</author>
	<datestamp>1262118960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree, governments find that things which disagree with them are not relevant.
<br> <br>
Do we want our google to be China's google?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree , governments find that things which disagree with them are not relevant .
Do we want our google to be China 's google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree, governments find that things which disagree with them are not relevant.
Do we want our google to be China's google?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</id>
	<title>Huh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262020140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA:<blockquote><div><p>For three years, my company's vertical search and price-comparison site,

Foundem, was effectively "disappeared" from the Internet in this way.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Inability to explain why. Credibility of your article nullified. Samzenpus is trolling.</p><blockquote><div><p>Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to penalize competitors

while placing its own services at the top of its search results, Google has a virtually

unassailable competitive advantage.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Google, a company based in America, has an autocomplete-style guessing algorithm which

showed "Michelle Obama monkey" as the first choice when one typed in "michelle". It was so

fair that they had to alter their own results and provide a disclaimer for the sake of

political correctness. Apparently that wasn't even the first time they'd dealt with that

situation. I'd say Google is fair until assholes like article author started bitching and

moaning.</p><blockquote><div><p>Google's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development

of our innovative search technology.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Try teaming up with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaCrawler" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Metacrawler</a> [wikipedia.org], they

are many times as powerful as google.</p><blockquote><div><p>Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines behind

Google's meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions:</p></div></blockquote><p>

Yeah, Toyota also borrowed the wheel from somebody. It's only a matter of time until they're

sued in the East district of Texas.</p><blockquote><div><p>Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality

that truly protects equal access to the Internet?</p></div></blockquote><p>

I dunno, will you tell me exactly why you feel you've been shortchanged by Google?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA : For three years , my company 's vertical search and price-comparison site , Foundem , was effectively " disappeared " from the Internet in this way .
Inability to explain why .
Credibility of your article nullified .
Samzenpus is trolling.Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to penalize competitors while placing its own services at the top of its search results , Google has a virtually unassailable competitive advantage .
Google , a company based in America , has an autocomplete-style guessing algorithm which showed " Michelle Obama monkey " as the first choice when one typed in " michelle " .
It was so fair that they had to alter their own results and provide a disclaimer for the sake of political correctness .
Apparently that was n't even the first time they 'd dealt with that situation .
I 'd say Google is fair until assholes like article author started bitching and moaning.Google 's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology .
Try teaming up with Metacrawler [ wikipedia.org ] , they are many times as powerful as google.Even AdWords and AdSense , the phenomenally efficient economic engines behind Google 's meteoric success , are essentially borrowed inventions : Yeah , Toyota also borrowed the wheel from somebody .
It 's only a matter of time until they 're sued in the East district of Texas.Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality that truly protects equal access to the Internet ?
I dunno , will you tell me exactly why you feel you 've been shortchanged by Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA:For three years, my company's vertical search and price-comparison site,

Foundem, was effectively "disappeared" from the Internet in this way.
Inability to explain why.
Credibility of your article nullified.
Samzenpus is trolling.Because of its domination of the global search market and ability to penalize competitors

while placing its own services at the top of its search results, Google has a virtually

unassailable competitive advantage.
Google, a company based in America, has an autocomplete-style guessing algorithm which

showed "Michelle Obama monkey" as the first choice when one typed in "michelle".
It was so

fair that they had to alter their own results and provide a disclaimer for the sake of

political correctness.
Apparently that wasn't even the first time they'd dealt with that

situation.
I'd say Google is fair until assholes like article author started bitching and

moaning.Google's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development

of our innovative search technology.
Try teaming up with Metacrawler [wikipedia.org], they

are many times as powerful as google.Even AdWords and AdSense, the phenomenally efficient economic engines behind

Google's meteoric success, are essentially borrowed inventions:

Yeah, Toyota also borrowed the wheel from somebody.
It's only a matter of time until they're

sued in the East district of Texas.Will it embrace search neutrality as the logical extension to net neutrality

that truly protects equal access to the Internet?
I dunno, will you tell me exactly why you feel you've been shortchanged by Google?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30604442</id>
	<title>Re:Why??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262268840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I presume you used Ask.com for your search, interestingly, when I tried that search on Google, the own price search engine was not even on the first page, so where is the bias from Google?  It didn't show up on the first page of Yahoo's results either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I presume you used Ask.com for your search , interestingly , when I tried that search on Google , the own price search engine was not even on the first page , so where is the bias from Google ?
It did n't show up on the first page of Yahoo 's results either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I presume you used Ask.com for your search, interestingly, when I tried that search on Google, the own price search engine was not even on the first page, so where is the bias from Google?
It didn't show up on the first page of Yahoo's results either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579022</id>
	<title>Sure, that's great.</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1262020380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's go ahead and regulate the living crap out of everything online... that's sure to do wonders for innovation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's go ahead and regulate the living crap out of everything online... that 's sure to do wonders for innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's go ahead and regulate the living crap out of everything online... that's sure to do wonders for innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580780</id>
	<title>Re:Sour grapes</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262089980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4. The algorithm had a bug which multiplied a few scores too high and it got fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
The algorithm had a bug which multiplied a few scores too high and it got fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
The algorithm had a bug which multiplied a few scores too high and it got fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579112</id>
	<title>Article debunked here</title>
	<author>Jim Buzbee</author>
	<datestamp>1262021220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a good debunking of the article  <a href="http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/12/nyt\_runs\_quack.html" title="kedrosky.com">here</a> [kedrosky.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a good debunking of the article here [ kedrosky.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a good debunking of the article  here [kedrosky.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579158</id>
	<title>The money quote:</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1262021760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://econsultancy.com/blog/4456-foundem-vs-google-a-case-study-in-seo-fail" title="econsultancy.com">
The last word on this goes to Ciaran Norris, who says: "I have to wonder whether the fact that Foundem apparently continues to rank well in Bing and Yahoo isn't in fact a perfect example of why those sites currently struggle to manage 10\% market share between them."</a> [econsultancy.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last word on this goes to Ciaran Norris , who says : " I have to wonder whether the fact that Foundem apparently continues to rank well in Bing and Yahoo is n't in fact a perfect example of why those sites currently struggle to manage 10 \ % market share between them .
" [ econsultancy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The last word on this goes to Ciaran Norris, who says: "I have to wonder whether the fact that Foundem apparently continues to rank well in Bing and Yahoo isn't in fact a perfect example of why those sites currently struggle to manage 10\% market share between them.
" [econsultancy.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580748</id>
	<title>Re:Sour grapes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262089500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) He spent significant effort on his site.<br>2) His site sucks.<br>3) He has yet to realize that (1) and (2) are not mutually exclusive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) He spent significant effort on his site.2 ) His site sucks.3 ) He has yet to realize that ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) are not mutually exclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) He spent significant effort on his site.2) His site sucks.3) He has yet to realize that (1) and (2) are not mutually exclusive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579262</id>
	<title>Why is this such a bad idea?</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1262022720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am surprised everyone seems so against this idea.
<br> <br>
I do not know about anyone else but i do not go about trying addresses in the address bar and hoping to get a relevant site. if it does not show up on the first page of google chances are I will never visit the web page.
<br> <br>
But, from what I have seen google does not seen to do much censoring, so i am not really worried at this point.
<br> <br>
and I would consider it important not to be censored from any part of the internet.
<br>
Not that they should not edit out the people that try to artificially raise their relevant lvl, but web pages should not be filtered because some religions/ethnic group has a problem with the material.
<br> <br>
Not that we necessarily need laws and the government to regulate it, if their are enough people around that consider it important hopefully their will always be censor free searches around.
<br> <br>
While the article might contain some parts that sound like they come from someone upset that their business failed and are just blaming google because it is easy to do so, I believe the fundamental idea of search neutrality is something to want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am surprised everyone seems so against this idea .
I do not know about anyone else but i do not go about trying addresses in the address bar and hoping to get a relevant site .
if it does not show up on the first page of google chances are I will never visit the web page .
But , from what I have seen google does not seen to do much censoring , so i am not really worried at this point .
and I would consider it important not to be censored from any part of the internet .
Not that they should not edit out the people that try to artificially raise their relevant lvl , but web pages should not be filtered because some religions/ethnic group has a problem with the material .
Not that we necessarily need laws and the government to regulate it , if their are enough people around that consider it important hopefully their will always be censor free searches around .
While the article might contain some parts that sound like they come from someone upset that their business failed and are just blaming google because it is easy to do so , I believe the fundamental idea of search neutrality is something to want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am surprised everyone seems so against this idea.
I do not know about anyone else but i do not go about trying addresses in the address bar and hoping to get a relevant site.
if it does not show up on the first page of google chances are I will never visit the web page.
But, from what I have seen google does not seen to do much censoring, so i am not really worried at this point.
and I would consider it important not to be censored from any part of the internet.
Not that they should not edit out the people that try to artificially raise their relevant lvl, but web pages should not be filtered because some religions/ethnic group has a problem with the material.
Not that we necessarily need laws and the government to regulate it, if their are enough people around that consider it important hopefully their will always be censor free searches around.
While the article might contain some parts that sound like they come from someone upset that their business failed and are just blaming google because it is easy to do so, I believe the fundamental idea of search neutrality is something to want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580636</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262087760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google, a company based in America, has an autocomplete-style guessing algorithm which<br>showed "Michelle Obama monkey" as the first choice when one typed in "michelle".</p></div><p>That's an insult to monkeys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , a company based in America , has an autocomplete-style guessing algorithm whichshowed " Michelle Obama monkey " as the first choice when one typed in " michelle " .That 's an insult to monkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, a company based in America, has an autocomplete-style guessing algorithm whichshowed "Michelle Obama monkey" as the first choice when one typed in "michelle".That's an insult to monkeys.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580814</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262090460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess Foundem's idea of "search neutrality" is "search rsults filled with spam" (well, moreso than they already are).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess Foundem 's idea of " search neutrality " is " search rsults filled with spam " ( well , moreso than they already are ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess Foundem's idea of "search neutrality" is "search rsults filled with spam" (well, moreso than they already are).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579860</id>
	<title>Maybe everything should be neutral</title>
	<author>WGFCrafty</author>
	<datestamp>1262118060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the <b>Neutral Planet</b>.<p><div class="quote"><p> <i>(when dying)</i>
<br>
I want you to tell my wife, hello.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the Neutral Planet .
( when dying ) I want you to tell my wife , hello .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the Neutral Planet.
(when dying)

I want you to tell my wife, hello.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579206</id>
	<title>How about "News Neutrality"?</title>
	<author>khchung</author>
	<datestamp>1262022180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Today, news media like New York Times, Fox News, CNN have become the news gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in dictating what news is prominently visible to the people means they are now an essential component of the society. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond freedom of the press (freedom to publish your own newspaper) and include news neutrality: the principle that news media should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance."</p><p>I don't think it will happen in my lifetime though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Today , news media like New York Times , Fox News , CNN have become the news gatekeepers , and the crucial role they play in dictating what news is prominently visible to the people means they are now an essential component of the society .
The F.C.C .
needs to look beyond freedom of the press ( freedom to publish your own newspaper ) and include news neutrality : the principle that news media should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive , impartial and based solely on relevance .
" I do n't think it will happen in my lifetime though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Today, news media like New York Times, Fox News, CNN have become the news gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in dictating what news is prominently visible to the people means they are now an essential component of the society.
The F.C.C.
needs to look beyond freedom of the press (freedom to publish your own newspaper) and include news neutrality: the principle that news media should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.
"I don't think it will happen in my lifetime though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30581074</id>
	<title>ah that Nice Mr Murdoch</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1262093700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>is using his papers to bash his competitiors - welcom the the UK media where Murdocs papers regulualy run articles trashhing the oposition and plugging Sky. Private Eye a satirical mag even has a section dedecated to this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is using his papers to bash his competitiors - welcom the the UK media where Murdocs papers regulualy run articles trashhing the oposition and plugging Sky .
Private Eye a satirical mag even has a section dedecated to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is using his papers to bash his competitiors - welcom the the UK media where Murdocs papers regulualy run articles trashhing the oposition and plugging Sky.
Private Eye a satirical mag even has a section dedecated to this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579090</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, that's great.</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1262021040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Care to explain to me what "innovation" can't take place with neutrality rules in play?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to explain to me what " innovation " ca n't take place with neutrality rules in play ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to explain to me what "innovation" can't take place with neutrality rules in play?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579432</id>
	<title>the media has never been neutral</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262024820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for example, the idea that right wing media versus left wing media is a new development, and in the past the media was neutral is downright laughable. look up "yellow journalism". point being: bias in media will never go away, and you simply should learn to develop a good bullshit meter</p><p>therefore, in the future, i fully expect search engines to develop a subtle or not so subtle bias. not that they don't have it already, just that this becomes part of their identity and common wisdom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for example , the idea that right wing media versus left wing media is a new development , and in the past the media was neutral is downright laughable .
look up " yellow journalism " .
point being : bias in media will never go away , and you simply should learn to develop a good bullshit metertherefore , in the future , i fully expect search engines to develop a subtle or not so subtle bias .
not that they do n't have it already , just that this becomes part of their identity and common wisdom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for example, the idea that right wing media versus left wing media is a new development, and in the past the media was neutral is downright laughable.
look up "yellow journalism".
point being: bias in media will never go away, and you simply should learn to develop a good bullshit metertherefore, in the future, i fully expect search engines to develop a subtle or not so subtle bias.
not that they don't have it already, just that this becomes part of their identity and common wisdom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30591336</id>
	<title>The Pot and the Kettle</title>
	<author>yogiguru</author>
	<datestamp>1259831520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it laughably ironic that a completely liberal-biased rag like the New York Times is calling for search engines to be neutral. Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind or is it "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it laughably ironic that a completely liberal-biased rag like the New York Times is calling for search engines to be neutral .
Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind or is it " people who live in glass houses should not throw stones ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it laughably ironic that a completely liberal-biased rag like the New York Times is calling for search engines to be neutral.
Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind or is it "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579030</id>
	<title>Fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262020380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.</p></div><p>The definition of comprehensive depends on the computational resources of the provider.<br>The definition of impartiality depends on the morality of the observer.<br>The definition of relevance depends on entirely subjective criteron.</p><p>You can't legislate these things. They're intangible. And besides, Google (and many other search engines) rely on the ability to edit their results to defeat attempts to game the algorithms they use. Legislation that limits that would ironically worsen the very attribute it is attempting to improve! It would allow search engine spammers free reign. The solution here is not to regulate... If a search engine sucks, it'll be replaced by a vendor that offers an alternative that sucks less. But if you must legislate, I would take a minimalist approach -- only regulate that which is proven harmful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive , impartial and based solely on relevance.The definition of comprehensive depends on the computational resources of the provider.The definition of impartiality depends on the morality of the observer.The definition of relevance depends on entirely subjective criteron.You ca n't legislate these things .
They 're intangible .
And besides , Google ( and many other search engines ) rely on the ability to edit their results to defeat attempts to game the algorithms they use .
Legislation that limits that would ironically worsen the very attribute it is attempting to improve !
It would allow search engine spammers free reign .
The solution here is not to regulate... If a search engine sucks , it 'll be replaced by a vendor that offers an alternative that sucks less .
But if you must legislate , I would take a minimalist approach -- only regulate that which is proven harmful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.The definition of comprehensive depends on the computational resources of the provider.The definition of impartiality depends on the morality of the observer.The definition of relevance depends on entirely subjective criteron.You can't legislate these things.
They're intangible.
And besides, Google (and many other search engines) rely on the ability to edit their results to defeat attempts to game the algorithms they use.
Legislation that limits that would ironically worsen the very attribute it is attempting to improve!
It would allow search engine spammers free reign.
The solution here is not to regulate... If a search engine sucks, it'll be replaced by a vendor that offers an alternative that sucks less.
But if you must legislate, I would take a minimalist approach -- only regulate that which is proven harmful.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579568</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, that's great.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262026440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree, look what it did for all those totalitarian governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree , look what it did for all those totalitarian governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree, look what it did for all those totalitarian governments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580346</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262083020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to understand that:</p><p>1.)  The New York Times is full of liberals.<br>2.)  Liberals love the idea of government control.  It's the solution to absolutely everything.</p><p>Now, on top of regulating internet traffic, they want governments controlling what you can search as well.  Somehow, politicians are supposed to be less biased and corrupt than sysadmins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to understand that : 1 .
) The New York Times is full of liberals.2 .
) Liberals love the idea of government control .
It 's the solution to absolutely everything.Now , on top of regulating internet traffic , they want governments controlling what you can search as well .
Somehow , politicians are supposed to be less biased and corrupt than sysadmins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to understand that:1.
)  The New York Times is full of liberals.2.
)  Liberals love the idea of government control.
It's the solution to absolutely everything.Now, on top of regulating internet traffic, they want governments controlling what you can search as well.
Somehow, politicians are supposed to be less biased and corrupt than sysadmins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579058</id>
	<title>telcos have been granted a natural monopoly</title>
	<author>seanadams.com</author>
	<datestamp>1262020620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and in exchange, they deserve that we regulate the fuck out of them to just sell us the bits.</p><p>Google's search is a free service with multiple competitors and negligible customer lock-in. See the difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and in exchange , they deserve that we regulate the fuck out of them to just sell us the bits.Google 's search is a free service with multiple competitors and negligible customer lock-in .
See the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and in exchange, they deserve that we regulate the fuck out of them to just sell us the bits.Google's search is a free service with multiple competitors and negligible customer lock-in.
See the difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579910</id>
	<title>I don't want search neutrality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would I want search nutrality?  I don't want all search engines to return essentially the same results.  I want Bing to return more Microsoft-centric results, and I want Google to return Google-centric results.  I want community-oriented search engines to return community-centric results, and I want product-oriented search engines to return product-centric results.</p><p>When I want MSDN documentation, I want to go to Bing, search for javascript, and get the msdn javascript reference -- above the mozilla one.</p><p>You know, like when you want a science book, you went to a science book store.  And when you wanted a book by a british author, you called a british book store.</p><p>It's all a part of considering the source -- in all senses of the words.  I don't want everything to be the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would I want search nutrality ?
I do n't want all search engines to return essentially the same results .
I want Bing to return more Microsoft-centric results , and I want Google to return Google-centric results .
I want community-oriented search engines to return community-centric results , and I want product-oriented search engines to return product-centric results.When I want MSDN documentation , I want to go to Bing , search for javascript , and get the msdn javascript reference -- above the mozilla one.You know , like when you want a science book , you went to a science book store .
And when you wanted a book by a british author , you called a british book store.It 's all a part of considering the source -- in all senses of the words .
I do n't want everything to be the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would I want search nutrality?
I don't want all search engines to return essentially the same results.
I want Bing to return more Microsoft-centric results, and I want Google to return Google-centric results.
I want community-oriented search engines to return community-centric results, and I want product-oriented search engines to return product-centric results.When I want MSDN documentation, I want to go to Bing, search for javascript, and get the msdn javascript reference -- above the mozilla one.You know, like when you want a science book, you went to a science book store.
And when you wanted a book by a british author, you called a british book store.It's all a part of considering the source -- in all senses of the words.
I don't want everything to be the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579508</id>
	<title>Bah.  Need to enforce NXDomain!</title>
	<author>bingemaster</author>
	<datestamp>1262025720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya know, if a better competitor (from the public's POV, not from "Foundem" biased viewpoint) appears, Google will fade.

Anyone remember:<ul>
  <li>wwww.com - the world wide web worm?</li>
  <li>lycos?</li>
  <li>yahoo?</li>
  <li>altavista?</li>
</ul><p>

I'm sure that Google will innovate/improve to keep that from happening, but it's not as if I don't have a choice between any search provider.
OTOH -- I set that in my browser.  Having the ISP (I'm looking at you, Charter) hijaack the NXDOMAIN to go to their own engine is causing me serious heartburn (especially since I'm trying to *telnet* to a <b>valhalla.private</b> address!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know , if a better competitor ( from the public 's POV , not from " Foundem " biased viewpoint ) appears , Google will fade .
Anyone remember : wwww.com - the world wide web worm ?
lycos ? yahoo ?
altavista ? I 'm sure that Google will innovate/improve to keep that from happening , but it 's not as if I do n't have a choice between any search provider .
OTOH -- I set that in my browser .
Having the ISP ( I 'm looking at you , Charter ) hijaack the NXDOMAIN to go to their own engine is causing me serious heartburn ( especially since I 'm trying to * telnet * to a valhalla.private address !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know, if a better competitor (from the public's POV, not from "Foundem" biased viewpoint) appears, Google will fade.
Anyone remember:
  wwww.com - the world wide web worm?
lycos?
  yahoo?
altavista?


I'm sure that Google will innovate/improve to keep that from happening, but it's not as if I don't have a choice between any search provider.
OTOH -- I set that in my browser.
Having the ISP (I'm looking at you, Charter) hijaack the NXDOMAIN to go to their own engine is causing me serious heartburn (especially since I'm trying to *telnet* to a valhalla.private address!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579344</id>
	<title>NY Times Should Practice Some Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>Ron Bennett</author>
	<datestamp>1262023560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In order to access our Web site, your Web browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com. More information.</p></div></blockquote><p>Another NY Times article that I won't be reading.</p><p>The concept of "neutrality" is best applied to things that tend to be natural monopolies, such as infrastructure, including high-speed internet connectivity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to access our Web site , your Web browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com .
More information.Another NY Times article that I wo n't be reading.The concept of " neutrality " is best applied to things that tend to be natural monopolies , such as infrastructure , including high-speed internet connectivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to access our Web site, your Web browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com.
More information.Another NY Times article that I won't be reading.The concept of "neutrality" is best applied to things that tend to be natural monopolies, such as infrastructure, including high-speed internet connectivity.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30583624</id>
	<title>Re:I like Net Neutrality, but this idea is crap.</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1262110860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find your assertion of a natural monopoly for ISP's dubious.  I could, currently, pick from any of three types of service; sat, DSL, cable, and all of them could be up and running at my home within 48 hours.  Further, I have multiple choices within sat and DSL service.  Since the current market environment is also producing additional services, cell and wi-max among others.  Please reformulate your argument for net neutrality with another premise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find your assertion of a natural monopoly for ISP 's dubious .
I could , currently , pick from any of three types of service ; sat , DSL , cable , and all of them could be up and running at my home within 48 hours .
Further , I have multiple choices within sat and DSL service .
Since the current market environment is also producing additional services , cell and wi-max among others .
Please reformulate your argument for net neutrality with another premise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find your assertion of a natural monopoly for ISP's dubious.
I could, currently, pick from any of three types of service; sat, DSL, cable, and all of them could be up and running at my home within 48 hours.
Further, I have multiple choices within sat and DSL service.
Since the current market environment is also producing additional services, cell and wi-max among others.
Please reformulate your argument for net neutrality with another premise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579156</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1262021700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.  If you take a look at the site in question, there doesn't seem to be anything about it that jumps out as being novel.  It looks like the author created a mediocre search/link site and expected to be in the top results.  The telling bit about the whole affair is that the author claims that the site was virtually off the net in terems of searches for three years yet that would largely require the top two or three search engines to do essentially the same thing which probably more than anything leads one to suspect that there's something about the site its self rather than multiple search engines that is the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
If you take a look at the site in question , there does n't seem to be anything about it that jumps out as being novel .
It looks like the author created a mediocre search/link site and expected to be in the top results .
The telling bit about the whole affair is that the author claims that the site was virtually off the net in terems of searches for three years yet that would largely require the top two or three search engines to do essentially the same thing which probably more than anything leads one to suspect that there 's something about the site its self rather than multiple search engines that is the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
If you take a look at the site in question, there doesn't seem to be anything about it that jumps out as being novel.
It looks like the author created a mediocre search/link site and expected to be in the top results.
The telling bit about the whole affair is that the author claims that the site was virtually off the net in terems of searches for three years yet that would largely require the top two or three search engines to do essentially the same thing which probably more than anything leads one to suspect that there's something about the site its self rather than multiple search engines that is the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579900</id>
	<title>Re:telcos have been granted a natural monopoly</title>
	<author>psulonen</author>
	<datestamp>1262118540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... and in exchange, they deserve that we regulate the fuck out of them to just sell us the bits.</p><p>Google's search is a free service with multiple competitors and negligible customer lock-in. See the difference?</p></div><p>Actually, Google reads my mail, handles my appointments, hosts my blog, and even has a few ads on my site. The upshot is that transitioning all that away from Google would be somewhat more annoying than transitioning from one OS to another. From where I'm at, that amounts to a quite a bit of lock-in. Google's position on the search market is as dominant as Microsoft's on the OS market, at least.

IOW, while I have my doubts about TFA, and I don't think enforcing "search neutrality" through regulation is the answer, this isn't something we should just pooh-pooh away either. The markets only do their magic under specific conditions, and I'm not sure the conditions apply here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and in exchange , they deserve that we regulate the fuck out of them to just sell us the bits.Google 's search is a free service with multiple competitors and negligible customer lock-in .
See the difference ? Actually , Google reads my mail , handles my appointments , hosts my blog , and even has a few ads on my site .
The upshot is that transitioning all that away from Google would be somewhat more annoying than transitioning from one OS to another .
From where I 'm at , that amounts to a quite a bit of lock-in .
Google 's position on the search market is as dominant as Microsoft 's on the OS market , at least .
IOW , while I have my doubts about TFA , and I do n't think enforcing " search neutrality " through regulation is the answer , this is n't something we should just pooh-pooh away either .
The markets only do their magic under specific conditions , and I 'm not sure the conditions apply here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and in exchange, they deserve that we regulate the fuck out of them to just sell us the bits.Google's search is a free service with multiple competitors and negligible customer lock-in.
See the difference?Actually, Google reads my mail, handles my appointments, hosts my blog, and even has a few ads on my site.
The upshot is that transitioning all that away from Google would be somewhat more annoying than transitioning from one OS to another.
From where I'm at, that amounts to a quite a bit of lock-in.
Google's position on the search market is as dominant as Microsoft's on the OS market, at least.
IOW, while I have my doubts about TFA, and I don't think enforcing "search neutrality" through regulation is the answer, this isn't something we should just pooh-pooh away either.
The markets only do their magic under specific conditions, and I'm not sure the conditions apply here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579010</id>
	<title>Surprise, surprise...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262020260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the mouthpiece for the State clamoring for MORE State control.</p><p>Shocking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the mouthpiece for the State clamoring for MORE State control.Shocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the mouthpiece for the State clamoring for MORE State control.Shocking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579100</id>
	<title>Monopolies and the purview of the FCC</title>
	<author>Pfhorrest</author>
	<datestamp>1262021100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Infrastructure is a natural monopoly. Broadcast spectrum even more so.<br><br>The FCC's original mandate was to govern allocation of broadcast spectrum; the naturally monopolistic tendencies of wired infrastructure (the need for eminent domain to build it, mostly) provides a reasonable justification for extending its purview to that as well.<br><br>But search engines are not natural monopolies. Anyone can come along, do it better than the other guys, and run off with their lunch money, so to speak. Just like Google did to all the search engines that they put out of business or pushed to the sidelines when they debuted. Sure, overturning a very popular brand like Google in the minds of users will be difficult, but that's mostly because Google is good enough for most people; if it sucked, people would be happy to try something new, and if a competitor search engine can't even carve out a little niche for itself to compete in, it obviously has nothing of significant benefit to offer.<br><br>And unlike the inevitable Microsoft comparison, switching away from Google to another search engine costs the users absolutely nothing, compared to not only the cost of acquiring an alternative operating system, but of learning it and changing over almost all of your apps which depend on it. If switching from Windows to Linux or OSX or BSD or what have you were as cheap and easy as switching from Google to Yahoo or vice versa, I suspect MS wouldn't have nearly the stranglehold it has on the operating system market.<br><br>Point being, there's absolutely no need to regulate search engines, because this is about one of the clearest examples of where the free market can handle itself best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Infrastructure is a natural monopoly .
Broadcast spectrum even more so.The FCC 's original mandate was to govern allocation of broadcast spectrum ; the naturally monopolistic tendencies of wired infrastructure ( the need for eminent domain to build it , mostly ) provides a reasonable justification for extending its purview to that as well.But search engines are not natural monopolies .
Anyone can come along , do it better than the other guys , and run off with their lunch money , so to speak .
Just like Google did to all the search engines that they put out of business or pushed to the sidelines when they debuted .
Sure , overturning a very popular brand like Google in the minds of users will be difficult , but that 's mostly because Google is good enough for most people ; if it sucked , people would be happy to try something new , and if a competitor search engine ca n't even carve out a little niche for itself to compete in , it obviously has nothing of significant benefit to offer.And unlike the inevitable Microsoft comparison , switching away from Google to another search engine costs the users absolutely nothing , compared to not only the cost of acquiring an alternative operating system , but of learning it and changing over almost all of your apps which depend on it .
If switching from Windows to Linux or OSX or BSD or what have you were as cheap and easy as switching from Google to Yahoo or vice versa , I suspect MS would n't have nearly the stranglehold it has on the operating system market.Point being , there 's absolutely no need to regulate search engines , because this is about one of the clearest examples of where the free market can handle itself best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Infrastructure is a natural monopoly.
Broadcast spectrum even more so.The FCC's original mandate was to govern allocation of broadcast spectrum; the naturally monopolistic tendencies of wired infrastructure (the need for eminent domain to build it, mostly) provides a reasonable justification for extending its purview to that as well.But search engines are not natural monopolies.
Anyone can come along, do it better than the other guys, and run off with their lunch money, so to speak.
Just like Google did to all the search engines that they put out of business or pushed to the sidelines when they debuted.
Sure, overturning a very popular brand like Google in the minds of users will be difficult, but that's mostly because Google is good enough for most people; if it sucked, people would be happy to try something new, and if a competitor search engine can't even carve out a little niche for itself to compete in, it obviously has nothing of significant benefit to offer.And unlike the inevitable Microsoft comparison, switching away from Google to another search engine costs the users absolutely nothing, compared to not only the cost of acquiring an alternative operating system, but of learning it and changing over almost all of your apps which depend on it.
If switching from Windows to Linux or OSX or BSD or what have you were as cheap and easy as switching from Google to Yahoo or vice versa, I suspect MS wouldn't have nearly the stranglehold it has on the operating system market.Point being, there's absolutely no need to regulate search engines, because this is about one of the clearest examples of where the free market can handle itself best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580598</id>
	<title>Oh, search neutrality is important..guess for whom</title>
	<author>Tanuki64</author>
	<datestamp>1262087460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is sued right and left for whatever reasons. Publishing companies lobby governments to have google pay for the "right" to make them visible. Of course, this only works well if Google is taken the power to retaliate by removing certain sites from their results at will. So search neutrality generally sounds good, but who benefits most from it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is sued right and left for whatever reasons .
Publishing companies lobby governments to have google pay for the " right " to make them visible .
Of course , this only works well if Google is taken the power to retaliate by removing certain sites from their results at will .
So search neutrality generally sounds good , but who benefits most from it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is sued right and left for whatever reasons.
Publishing companies lobby governments to have google pay for the "right" to make them visible.
Of course, this only works well if Google is taken the power to retaliate by removing certain sites from their results at will.
So search neutrality generally sounds good, but who benefits most from it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579822</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1262117460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you google for "Foundem", the first site you'll find is... Foundem.<br>What you get when you visit this site is a prize comparison site just like all the other ones you already knew.<br>Perhaps the reason google doesn't list it that high is because there is nothing really special about this site; it isn't more relevant than it's competitors.</p><p>When you search for "price comparison", you'll find pages full of price comparison sites or articles about price comparison, all perfectly valid search results.<br>Foundem is on top of page 6, so it can be found. Add "uk" to the search and it pops up on page 2.<br>Unless Foundem can somehow proof their site is more relevant than those other sites, they are just bad losers.</p><p>By the way, their "about us" contains a really funny graph which seems to make no sense at all. It just claims "We're perfect, everybody else sucks". Really, I'd like to see the science behind that one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you google for " Foundem " , the first site you 'll find is... Foundem.What you get when you visit this site is a prize comparison site just like all the other ones you already knew.Perhaps the reason google does n't list it that high is because there is nothing really special about this site ; it is n't more relevant than it 's competitors.When you search for " price comparison " , you 'll find pages full of price comparison sites or articles about price comparison , all perfectly valid search results.Foundem is on top of page 6 , so it can be found .
Add " uk " to the search and it pops up on page 2.Unless Foundem can somehow proof their site is more relevant than those other sites , they are just bad losers.By the way , their " about us " contains a really funny graph which seems to make no sense at all .
It just claims " We 're perfect , everybody else sucks " .
Really , I 'd like to see the science behind that one : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you google for "Foundem", the first site you'll find is... Foundem.What you get when you visit this site is a prize comparison site just like all the other ones you already knew.Perhaps the reason google doesn't list it that high is because there is nothing really special about this site; it isn't more relevant than it's competitors.When you search for "price comparison", you'll find pages full of price comparison sites or articles about price comparison, all perfectly valid search results.Foundem is on top of page 6, so it can be found.
Add "uk" to the search and it pops up on page 2.Unless Foundem can somehow proof their site is more relevant than those other sites, they are just bad losers.By the way, their "about us" contains a really funny graph which seems to make no sense at all.
It just claims "We're perfect, everybody else sucks".
Really, I'd like to see the science behind that one :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30582364</id>
	<title>if wishes were neutral ...</title>
	<author>glebovitz</author>
	<datestamp>1262104380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Search Engines should be neutral, legislators should not receive funds from corporations and special interests, and if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.</p><p>Good luck with that !!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Search Engines should be neutral , legislators should not receive funds from corporations and special interests , and if wishes were horses , then beggars would ride.Good luck with that ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Search Engines should be neutral, legislators should not receive funds from corporations and special interests, and if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.Good luck with that !!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579250</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1262022600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is my rationale:<blockquote><div><p>Google's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

If Foundem was a search company worth their salt then they'd at least have an explanation as to how "The Man" was holdin' 'em down. Just sounds like a shill of another pissed-off advertising company who wasn't good enough to be bought out by Google. There are an awful lot of those out on Madison Avenue. As proof, I'll read to you a quote from the Oct 12, 2009 issue of The New Yorker magazine. The article begins on page 46 and depicts Page and Brin windsurfing:</p><blockquote><div><p>As the C.O.O. of Viacom, Karamzin represented one of the world's largest media companies...Of more interest to Karamazin was the companie's advertising business...To turn this lucrative system over to over to a mechanized auction posed a serious threat...The Google executives thought Karmazin's method manipulated emotions and cheated advertisers...Karmazin looked at his Google hosts and proclaimed, only half in jest, "You're fucking with the magic!"</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is my rationale : Google 's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology .
If Foundem was a search company worth their salt then they 'd at least have an explanation as to how " The Man " was holdin ' 'em down .
Just sounds like a shill of another pissed-off advertising company who was n't good enough to be bought out by Google .
There are an awful lot of those out on Madison Avenue .
As proof , I 'll read to you a quote from the Oct 12 , 2009 issue of The New Yorker magazine .
The article begins on page 46 and depicts Page and Brin windsurfing : As the C.O.O .
of Viacom , Karamzin represented one of the world 's largest media companies...Of more interest to Karamazin was the companie 's advertising business...To turn this lucrative system over to over to a mechanized auction posed a serious threat...The Google executives thought Karmazin 's method manipulated emotions and cheated advertisers...Karmazin looked at his Google hosts and proclaimed , only half in jest , " You 're fucking with the magic !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is my rationale:Google's treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology.
If Foundem was a search company worth their salt then they'd at least have an explanation as to how "The Man" was holdin' 'em down.
Just sounds like a shill of another pissed-off advertising company who wasn't good enough to be bought out by Google.
There are an awful lot of those out on Madison Avenue.
As proof, I'll read to you a quote from the Oct 12, 2009 issue of The New Yorker magazine.
The article begins on page 46 and depicts Page and Brin windsurfing:As the C.O.O.
of Viacom, Karamzin represented one of the world's largest media companies...Of more interest to Karamazin was the companie's advertising business...To turn this lucrative system over to over to a mechanized auction posed a serious threat...The Google executives thought Karmazin's method manipulated emotions and cheated advertisers...Karmazin looked at his Google hosts and proclaimed, only half in jest, "You're fucking with the magic!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579264</id>
	<title>I like Net Neutrality, but this idea is crap.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262022720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He probably broke Google's rules by doing shady SEO tricks and his site just isn't that popular.  Why would people want to search for other search engines, anyhow?  I want to find actual results, not endless pages filled with "searches" that lead to other searches but never have actual results.</p><p>Anyhow, although I agree with net neutrality (because we *can't* easily change ISPs, due to their natural monopoly), this "search neutrality" is utter crap.  I can change search engines on a whim.  But *I don't want to.*  If I don't like the way Google does things, I will drop them.  It won't be the first time, either.  I used to use Altavista, back when it was the most comprehensive.  I still remember, and would use, other search engines, but thanks to Google... I just don't need to.</p><p>If you want to get people to visit your site, <i>make it something people want</i>.  Don't just whine if the search engines ignore you.  You don't have any natural right to a certain ranking on search results (no matter how important it is to your bottom line), and I have to think that this would be an incredibly stupid thing to regulate.</p><p>Of course, politicians like regulating things they have no business regulating.  *sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He probably broke Google 's rules by doing shady SEO tricks and his site just is n't that popular .
Why would people want to search for other search engines , anyhow ?
I want to find actual results , not endless pages filled with " searches " that lead to other searches but never have actual results.Anyhow , although I agree with net neutrality ( because we * ca n't * easily change ISPs , due to their natural monopoly ) , this " search neutrality " is utter crap .
I can change search engines on a whim .
But * I do n't want to .
* If I do n't like the way Google does things , I will drop them .
It wo n't be the first time , either .
I used to use Altavista , back when it was the most comprehensive .
I still remember , and would use , other search engines , but thanks to Google... I just do n't need to.If you want to get people to visit your site , make it something people want .
Do n't just whine if the search engines ignore you .
You do n't have any natural right to a certain ranking on search results ( no matter how important it is to your bottom line ) , and I have to think that this would be an incredibly stupid thing to regulate.Of course , politicians like regulating things they have no business regulating .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He probably broke Google's rules by doing shady SEO tricks and his site just isn't that popular.
Why would people want to search for other search engines, anyhow?
I want to find actual results, not endless pages filled with "searches" that lead to other searches but never have actual results.Anyhow, although I agree with net neutrality (because we *can't* easily change ISPs, due to their natural monopoly), this "search neutrality" is utter crap.
I can change search engines on a whim.
But *I don't want to.
*  If I don't like the way Google does things, I will drop them.
It won't be the first time, either.
I used to use Altavista, back when it was the most comprehensive.
I still remember, and would use, other search engines, but thanks to Google... I just don't need to.If you want to get people to visit your site, make it something people want.
Don't just whine if the search engines ignore you.
You don't have any natural right to a certain ranking on search results (no matter how important it is to your bottom line), and I have to think that this would be an incredibly stupid thing to regulate.Of course, politicians like regulating things they have no business regulating.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579062</id>
	<title>What an absurd idea</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1262020620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If "relevance" is a requirement, then the government will have to produce a definition of "relevance." Wow, I love this idea. Instead of allowing the advancement of technology, we have to conform to a government definition, and if we rank our search results contrary to that definition, our search engine is ILLEGAL. And I'm sure the government won't abuse their ability to declare certain results orderings to be illegal.</p><p>Stay the hell away from my search engines. If I'm not happy with the one I'm using, I'll switch to another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If " relevance " is a requirement , then the government will have to produce a definition of " relevance .
" Wow , I love this idea .
Instead of allowing the advancement of technology , we have to conform to a government definition , and if we rank our search results contrary to that definition , our search engine is ILLEGAL .
And I 'm sure the government wo n't abuse their ability to declare certain results orderings to be illegal.Stay the hell away from my search engines .
If I 'm not happy with the one I 'm using , I 'll switch to another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If "relevance" is a requirement, then the government will have to produce a definition of "relevance.
" Wow, I love this idea.
Instead of allowing the advancement of technology, we have to conform to a government definition, and if we rank our search results contrary to that definition, our search engine is ILLEGAL.
And I'm sure the government won't abuse their ability to declare certain results orderings to be illegal.Stay the hell away from my search engines.
If I'm not happy with the one I'm using, I'll switch to another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579296</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1262023080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is just a wahhhhhh my internet company didn't work lets blame google for everything piece. atleast slashdot is consistently SHIT</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is just a wahhhhhh my internet company did n't work lets blame google for everything piece .
atleast slashdot is consistently SHIT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is just a wahhhhhh my internet company didn't work lets blame google for everything piece.
atleast slashdot is consistently SHIT</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580170</id>
	<title>The only search engines that might vaguely</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1262079540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>be reasonable to have search standards applied to them are the DNS NXDOMAIN search redirects, such as those used by comcast.</p><p>Since they are being forced upon their users, and those users are forced by regional monopolies to use that ISP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>be reasonable to have search standards applied to them are the DNS NXDOMAIN search redirects , such as those used by comcast.Since they are being forced upon their users , and those users are forced by regional monopolies to use that ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be reasonable to have search standards applied to them are the DNS NXDOMAIN search redirects, such as those used by comcast.Since they are being forced upon their users, and those users are forced by regional monopolies to use that ISP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579240</id>
	<title>Have "some" faith in the people...</title>
	<author>dominatenashville</author>
	<datestamp>1262022540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While admittedly people are lazy and wait until the last minute to make radical changes, I believe there will always be choices when it comes to the internet.

Should Google control everything? Hell no.  There should people that step up and take the same innovative risks that they do.

Should the government be regulating them?  Are we in China?  Double Hell no!

BING, YAHOO, CUIL, ASK, etc... should sack up and start innovating.  Reinvest their earnings back into their business.

As a capitalist, the idea of having a monopoly is quite intriguing (and perhaps desirable). As a Libertarian, or is it Librarian?

As they say, the toothpaste is out of the tube... trying to stuff it back in will do nothing... people will "vote" with their search bars.  If Google continues to drive relevant content, the people will be served.  There is no profit long term in trying to force feed a result to the user.  That is simply, killing the golden goose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While admittedly people are lazy and wait until the last minute to make radical changes , I believe there will always be choices when it comes to the internet .
Should Google control everything ?
Hell no .
There should people that step up and take the same innovative risks that they do .
Should the government be regulating them ?
Are we in China ?
Double Hell no !
BING , YAHOO , CUIL , ASK , etc... should sack up and start innovating .
Reinvest their earnings back into their business .
As a capitalist , the idea of having a monopoly is quite intriguing ( and perhaps desirable ) .
As a Libertarian , or is it Librarian ?
As they say , the toothpaste is out of the tube... trying to stuff it back in will do nothing... people will " vote " with their search bars .
If Google continues to drive relevant content , the people will be served .
There is no profit long term in trying to force feed a result to the user .
That is simply , killing the golden goose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While admittedly people are lazy and wait until the last minute to make radical changes, I believe there will always be choices when it comes to the internet.
Should Google control everything?
Hell no.
There should people that step up and take the same innovative risks that they do.
Should the government be regulating them?
Are we in China?
Double Hell no!
BING, YAHOO, CUIL, ASK, etc... should sack up and start innovating.
Reinvest their earnings back into their business.
As a capitalist, the idea of having a monopoly is quite intriguing (and perhaps desirable).
As a Libertarian, or is it Librarian?
As they say, the toothpaste is out of the tube... trying to stuff it back in will do nothing... people will "vote" with their search bars.
If Google continues to drive relevant content, the people will be served.
There is no profit long term in trying to force feed a result to the user.
That is simply, killing the golden goose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30588244</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>LOLLinux</author>
	<datestamp>1262088360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2.) Liberals love the idea of government control. It's the solution to absolutely everything.</p></div><p>As opposed to conservatives who want the government and the police to patrol what two consenting adults are doing in their own bedrooms?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
) Liberals love the idea of government control .
It 's the solution to absolutely everything.As opposed to conservatives who want the government and the police to patrol what two consenting adults are doing in their own bedrooms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
) Liberals love the idea of government control.
It's the solution to absolutely everything.As opposed to conservatives who want the government and the police to patrol what two consenting adults are doing in their own bedrooms?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579576</id>
	<title>in two words</title>
	<author>magical liopleurodon</author>
	<datestamp>1262026560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>government sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>government sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>government sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579052</id>
	<title>Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262020560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Encarta, possibly the most successful commercial digital encyclopedia of all time is based on the old Funk and Wagnalls encyclopedia which unfortunately was subpar to Brittanica and World Book by miles.</p><p>Microsoft took that shoddy encyclopedia, added content, added <i>media</i>, added hyperlinks, and turned the paper volumes into the best digital encyclopedia you could (at that time) buy.</p><p>But facts are facts. You can't really alter the information of an encyclopedia without someone calling you on it. In the same way, search engines categorize and comb through volumes of information and return data as best it can. Sometimes that data is useless (spam), but other times it is very pertinent (vanity searches).</p><p>If Google or Bing can't restrict what is shown in their search results, the value of the search tool is reduced. As we have seen in recent years, Google's search results are getting worse and worse, being flooded by spammers and expertsexchange links that include a couple of search terms but either have nothing to do with the search or require registration to access.</p><p>Leave the right to determine what they will return to the search providers. Guarantee that the tool remains useful by allowing them to cull the results responsibly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Encarta , possibly the most successful commercial digital encyclopedia of all time is based on the old Funk and Wagnalls encyclopedia which unfortunately was subpar to Brittanica and World Book by miles.Microsoft took that shoddy encyclopedia , added content , added media , added hyperlinks , and turned the paper volumes into the best digital encyclopedia you could ( at that time ) buy.But facts are facts .
You ca n't really alter the information of an encyclopedia without someone calling you on it .
In the same way , search engines categorize and comb through volumes of information and return data as best it can .
Sometimes that data is useless ( spam ) , but other times it is very pertinent ( vanity searches ) .If Google or Bing ca n't restrict what is shown in their search results , the value of the search tool is reduced .
As we have seen in recent years , Google 's search results are getting worse and worse , being flooded by spammers and expertsexchange links that include a couple of search terms but either have nothing to do with the search or require registration to access.Leave the right to determine what they will return to the search providers .
Guarantee that the tool remains useful by allowing them to cull the results responsibly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encarta, possibly the most successful commercial digital encyclopedia of all time is based on the old Funk and Wagnalls encyclopedia which unfortunately was subpar to Brittanica and World Book by miles.Microsoft took that shoddy encyclopedia, added content, added media, added hyperlinks, and turned the paper volumes into the best digital encyclopedia you could (at that time) buy.But facts are facts.
You can't really alter the information of an encyclopedia without someone calling you on it.
In the same way, search engines categorize and comb through volumes of information and return data as best it can.
Sometimes that data is useless (spam), but other times it is very pertinent (vanity searches).If Google or Bing can't restrict what is shown in their search results, the value of the search tool is reduced.
As we have seen in recent years, Google's search results are getting worse and worse, being flooded by spammers and expertsexchange links that include a couple of search terms but either have nothing to do with the search or require registration to access.Leave the right to determine what they will return to the search providers.
Guarantee that the tool remains useful by allowing them to cull the results responsibly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30582612</id>
	<title>Re:I like Net Neutrality, but this idea is crap.</title>
	<author>drkwatr</author>
	<datestamp>1262105700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>-- I want to find actual results, not endless pages filled with "searches" that lead to other searches but never have actual results.<br> <br>
Well, I for one get these kinds of results in all my searches including Google's. I'm not impressed with any of the search engines we have nowadays. I for one get really irritated when it tries to figure out what I'm searching for and even changes the keywords I have entered. Even including them in quotes has no effect. Also pagerank has no relevance to the content of the page/content I'm looking for. It just means more sites have linked to it, and is probably why when I am looking for something recent I usually end up getting news 6 months old in my Google results right off the bat. They are all junk.<br>
When I first heard of the term SEO I thought it meant a way to help you find the information you wanted better. Oh was I wrong. The fact that there can be this kind of manipulation leads me to believe that their system is fundamentally flawed. <br>
I for one don't want anymore government intervention. Just like the recent health care stuff them bumbling bunch of baboons can't get anything right they get their hands into so just leave it partly broke rather than completely. Besides the more the system becomes awful the easier it will be to replace it one day without the government's help. We need to start figuring out how to do more for ourselves rather than depending on them. I know there could be better technology, and await the day we can have true innovation rather than incrementally accepted profit loss to justify advancement.<br> <br>
Regardless of the author's griping there is the fact that there is information that will never see the light of day, and that is the main issue to address.</htmltext>
<tokenext>-- I want to find actual results , not endless pages filled with " searches " that lead to other searches but never have actual results .
Well , I for one get these kinds of results in all my searches including Google 's .
I 'm not impressed with any of the search engines we have nowadays .
I for one get really irritated when it tries to figure out what I 'm searching for and even changes the keywords I have entered .
Even including them in quotes has no effect .
Also pagerank has no relevance to the content of the page/content I 'm looking for .
It just means more sites have linked to it , and is probably why when I am looking for something recent I usually end up getting news 6 months old in my Google results right off the bat .
They are all junk .
When I first heard of the term SEO I thought it meant a way to help you find the information you wanted better .
Oh was I wrong .
The fact that there can be this kind of manipulation leads me to believe that their system is fundamentally flawed .
I for one do n't want anymore government intervention .
Just like the recent health care stuff them bumbling bunch of baboons ca n't get anything right they get their hands into so just leave it partly broke rather than completely .
Besides the more the system becomes awful the easier it will be to replace it one day without the government 's help .
We need to start figuring out how to do more for ourselves rather than depending on them .
I know there could be better technology , and await the day we can have true innovation rather than incrementally accepted profit loss to justify advancement .
Regardless of the author 's griping there is the fact that there is information that will never see the light of day , and that is the main issue to address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-- I want to find actual results, not endless pages filled with "searches" that lead to other searches but never have actual results.
Well, I for one get these kinds of results in all my searches including Google's.
I'm not impressed with any of the search engines we have nowadays.
I for one get really irritated when it tries to figure out what I'm searching for and even changes the keywords I have entered.
Even including them in quotes has no effect.
Also pagerank has no relevance to the content of the page/content I'm looking for.
It just means more sites have linked to it, and is probably why when I am looking for something recent I usually end up getting news 6 months old in my Google results right off the bat.
They are all junk.
When I first heard of the term SEO I thought it meant a way to help you find the information you wanted better.
Oh was I wrong.
The fact that there can be this kind of manipulation leads me to believe that their system is fundamentally flawed.
I for one don't want anymore government intervention.
Just like the recent health care stuff them bumbling bunch of baboons can't get anything right they get their hands into so just leave it partly broke rather than completely.
Besides the more the system becomes awful the easier it will be to replace it one day without the government's help.
We need to start figuring out how to do more for ourselves rather than depending on them.
I know there could be better technology, and await the day we can have true innovation rather than incrementally accepted profit loss to justify advancement.
Regardless of the author's griping there is the fact that there is information that will never see the light of day, and that is the main issue to address.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579516</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, that's great.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262025840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With neutrality rules in place, every search engine will:</p><p>(1) Need a license or certificate showing that they have been tested and validated.  This, in itself, is a barrier to entry.</p><p>(2) Results of the search engine will expect to follow the pre-existing norms.  Anything innovative, original or experimental will not likely fit into the existing set of regulations and will automatically be out-of-compliance.</p><p>Supposed if I wanted to develop a search engine to promote free and open source software.  It's not really intended to be a "general purpose" search engine but, instead, is designed to find free alternatives to commercial software.  The idea is that you can search for "excel" and it will find you info about Open Office, koffice, etc.  It's my own website that I'm paying for at my expense to promote my own personal beliefs.</p><p>Along comes Microsoft, a licensed search company.  They are, to be sure, not happy that a search engine helps people find alternatives to their software.  They complain to the license board that I don't have a license and my site is shut down.  Or, I suppose, I could get a license (and have to pass certification on topics unrelated to my search niche).  And since the goal of this license is "neutrality," I can't have results that leave out proprietary software.  In fact, my search engine can't even legally endorse free software.</p><p>Licensing boards exist to maintain the status quo.  Innovation is about changing the status quo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With neutrality rules in place , every search engine will : ( 1 ) Need a license or certificate showing that they have been tested and validated .
This , in itself , is a barrier to entry .
( 2 ) Results of the search engine will expect to follow the pre-existing norms .
Anything innovative , original or experimental will not likely fit into the existing set of regulations and will automatically be out-of-compliance.Supposed if I wanted to develop a search engine to promote free and open source software .
It 's not really intended to be a " general purpose " search engine but , instead , is designed to find free alternatives to commercial software .
The idea is that you can search for " excel " and it will find you info about Open Office , koffice , etc .
It 's my own website that I 'm paying for at my expense to promote my own personal beliefs.Along comes Microsoft , a licensed search company .
They are , to be sure , not happy that a search engine helps people find alternatives to their software .
They complain to the license board that I do n't have a license and my site is shut down .
Or , I suppose , I could get a license ( and have to pass certification on topics unrelated to my search niche ) .
And since the goal of this license is " neutrality , " I ca n't have results that leave out proprietary software .
In fact , my search engine ca n't even legally endorse free software.Licensing boards exist to maintain the status quo .
Innovation is about changing the status quo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With neutrality rules in place, every search engine will:(1) Need a license or certificate showing that they have been tested and validated.
This, in itself, is a barrier to entry.
(2) Results of the search engine will expect to follow the pre-existing norms.
Anything innovative, original or experimental will not likely fit into the existing set of regulations and will automatically be out-of-compliance.Supposed if I wanted to develop a search engine to promote free and open source software.
It's not really intended to be a "general purpose" search engine but, instead, is designed to find free alternatives to commercial software.
The idea is that you can search for "excel" and it will find you info about Open Office, koffice, etc.
It's my own website that I'm paying for at my expense to promote my own personal beliefs.Along comes Microsoft, a licensed search company.
They are, to be sure, not happy that a search engine helps people find alternatives to their software.
They complain to the license board that I don't have a license and my site is shut down.
Or, I suppose, I could get a license (and have to pass certification on topics unrelated to my search niche).
And since the goal of this license is "neutrality," I can't have results that leave out proprietary software.
In fact, my search engine can't even legally endorse free software.Licensing boards exist to maintain the status quo.
Innovation is about changing the status quo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579552</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1262026320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be happy to have strong network neutrality strongly enforced.  Search neutrality is nice but nearly unworkable in any reasonable sense it seems.</p><p>Instead of saying these companies have to be neutral I think it would be better to require them to show their work.  Post in a database what they are scoring up or down and why and perhaps provide some reasonable method of recourse for parties who believe they have been unfairly targeted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be happy to have strong network neutrality strongly enforced .
Search neutrality is nice but nearly unworkable in any reasonable sense it seems.Instead of saying these companies have to be neutral I think it would be better to require them to show their work .
Post in a database what they are scoring up or down and why and perhaps provide some reasonable method of recourse for parties who believe they have been unfairly targeted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be happy to have strong network neutrality strongly enforced.
Search neutrality is nice but nearly unworkable in any reasonable sense it seems.Instead of saying these companies have to be neutral I think it would be better to require them to show their work.
Post in a database what they are scoring up or down and why and perhaps provide some reasonable method of recourse for parties who believe they have been unfairly targeted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579154</id>
	<title>Re:Huh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262021700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Inability to explain why. Credibility of your article nullified.</p></div><p>Agreed.</p><p>But to play Devil's advocate for a second, let's assume that the author's company <i>really was</i> legitimate, and <i>really was</i> being "discriminated against" (whether deliberately, or because someone at Google mistook them for search-engine spammers.)</p><p>OK, so we have a legitimate company that has been "discriminated against".  That still doesn't explain why Google needs to be regulated...  there are thousands of scammers who <i>aren't</i> legitimate, and would *love* to be able to game search engines with impunity, making them all but useless.</p><p>You are 100\% correct to say 'prove your claims', because even if the claims were true, reality still doesn't support the ends they're suggesting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Inability to explain why .
Credibility of your article nullified.Agreed.But to play Devil 's advocate for a second , let 's assume that the author 's company really was legitimate , and really was being " discriminated against " ( whether deliberately , or because someone at Google mistook them for search-engine spammers .
) OK , so we have a legitimate company that has been " discriminated against " .
That still does n't explain why Google needs to be regulated... there are thousands of scammers who are n't legitimate , and would * love * to be able to game search engines with impunity , making them all but useless.You are 100 \ % correct to say 'prove your claims ' , because even if the claims were true , reality still does n't support the ends they 're suggesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inability to explain why.
Credibility of your article nullified.Agreed.But to play Devil's advocate for a second, let's assume that the author's company really was legitimate, and really was being "discriminated against" (whether deliberately, or because someone at Google mistook them for search-engine spammers.
)OK, so we have a legitimate company that has been "discriminated against".
That still doesn't explain why Google needs to be regulated...  there are thousands of scammers who aren't legitimate, and would *love* to be able to game search engines with impunity, making them all but useless.You are 100\% correct to say 'prove your claims', because even if the claims were true, reality still doesn't support the ends they're suggesting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30581270</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, that's great.</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1262096400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just remember, if Google was not allowed to manually tweak it's search results, we'd forever have the system that lets us know that Target fails to carry products catering to male self-stimulation needs:<br><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=site\%3Atarget.com+\%2B\%22We+could+not+find+matches+for\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=site\%3Atarget.com+\%2B\%22We+could+not+find+matches+for\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just remember , if Google was not allowed to manually tweak it 's search results , we 'd forever have the system that lets us know that Target fails to carry products catering to male self-stimulation needs : http : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;q = site \ % 3Atarget.com + \ % 2B \ % 22We + could + not + find + matches + for \ % 22&amp;aq = f&amp;oq = &amp;aqi = [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just remember, if Google was not allowed to manually tweak it's search results, we'd forever have the system that lets us know that Target fails to carry products catering to male self-stimulation needs:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=site\%3Atarget.com+\%2B\%22We+could+not+find+matches+for\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi= [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30584018</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, that's great.</title>
	<author>Stradivarius</author>
	<datestamp>1262112660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Take your example search engine. Did you take bribes from companies to get their rankings higher? Did you artificially remove something from your search engine because you didn't like it?</p> </div><p>Few people would object to restricting bribery.  Bribery is well-defined, it's easy to avoid violating such a rule, and the rule would do little to restrict innovation.</p><p>But your next sentence illustrates the potential pitfalls of a regulatory scheme on search.  What constitutes "artificially removing" something - is it human intervention?  What type of not-liking a result is permissible grounds for action -  for example, what if the human intervention is making the results more relevant to the intended audience?  Who gets to define the intended audience? Who gets to define relevancy or quality of results? Who gets to determine whether the intervention was appropriate? If we define the offense as human interference with the algorithmic results, then what about an algorithmic tweak that accomplishes the same result?  You can usually devise some algorithm to get the result you want. Can someone sue you every time your intervention drops their rankings?  Even if they would lose the case, you still spend vast sums of money on your legal defense.</p><p>Once you get lawyers involved in micromanaging technology, you force technology companies to spend their limited resources hiring lawyers to understand increasingly complex rules, hiring lawyers to defend against inevitable lawsuits, hiring lawyers to lobby the regulators for more favorable terms, buying legal insurance, employing burdensome processes and procedures to ensure compliance with either the law, or certification regimes intended to reduce the risk of violating a regulation, etc.  All these are ways of spending money on things that don't create innovations or products people want.</p><p>Regulations are best-suited to circumstances that don't change frequently and that have demonstrated serious problems society needs to address.  Search is neither - it's a space that is continually innovating and changing, and lacks any significant cases of search engines abusing their positions.  Regulating search would thus be a solution in search of a problem, likely to create more headaches than it solves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take your example search engine .
Did you take bribes from companies to get their rankings higher ?
Did you artificially remove something from your search engine because you did n't like it ?
Few people would object to restricting bribery .
Bribery is well-defined , it 's easy to avoid violating such a rule , and the rule would do little to restrict innovation.But your next sentence illustrates the potential pitfalls of a regulatory scheme on search .
What constitutes " artificially removing " something - is it human intervention ?
What type of not-liking a result is permissible grounds for action - for example , what if the human intervention is making the results more relevant to the intended audience ?
Who gets to define the intended audience ?
Who gets to define relevancy or quality of results ?
Who gets to determine whether the intervention was appropriate ?
If we define the offense as human interference with the algorithmic results , then what about an algorithmic tweak that accomplishes the same result ?
You can usually devise some algorithm to get the result you want .
Can someone sue you every time your intervention drops their rankings ?
Even if they would lose the case , you still spend vast sums of money on your legal defense.Once you get lawyers involved in micromanaging technology , you force technology companies to spend their limited resources hiring lawyers to understand increasingly complex rules , hiring lawyers to defend against inevitable lawsuits , hiring lawyers to lobby the regulators for more favorable terms , buying legal insurance , employing burdensome processes and procedures to ensure compliance with either the law , or certification regimes intended to reduce the risk of violating a regulation , etc .
All these are ways of spending money on things that do n't create innovations or products people want.Regulations are best-suited to circumstances that do n't change frequently and that have demonstrated serious problems society needs to address .
Search is neither - it 's a space that is continually innovating and changing , and lacks any significant cases of search engines abusing their positions .
Regulating search would thus be a solution in search of a problem , likely to create more headaches than it solves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take your example search engine.
Did you take bribes from companies to get their rankings higher?
Did you artificially remove something from your search engine because you didn't like it?
Few people would object to restricting bribery.
Bribery is well-defined, it's easy to avoid violating such a rule, and the rule would do little to restrict innovation.But your next sentence illustrates the potential pitfalls of a regulatory scheme on search.
What constitutes "artificially removing" something - is it human intervention?
What type of not-liking a result is permissible grounds for action -  for example, what if the human intervention is making the results more relevant to the intended audience?
Who gets to define the intended audience?
Who gets to define relevancy or quality of results?
Who gets to determine whether the intervention was appropriate?
If we define the offense as human interference with the algorithmic results, then what about an algorithmic tweak that accomplishes the same result?
You can usually devise some algorithm to get the result you want.
Can someone sue you every time your intervention drops their rankings?
Even if they would lose the case, you still spend vast sums of money on your legal defense.Once you get lawyers involved in micromanaging technology, you force technology companies to spend their limited resources hiring lawyers to understand increasingly complex rules, hiring lawyers to defend against inevitable lawsuits, hiring lawyers to lobby the regulators for more favorable terms, buying legal insurance, employing burdensome processes and procedures to ensure compliance with either the law, or certification regimes intended to reduce the risk of violating a regulation, etc.
All these are ways of spending money on things that don't create innovations or products people want.Regulations are best-suited to circumstances that don't change frequently and that have demonstrated serious problems society needs to address.
Search is neither - it's a space that is continually innovating and changing, and lacks any significant cases of search engines abusing their positions.
Regulating search would thus be a solution in search of a problem, likely to create more headaches than it solves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30582250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30584180</id>
	<title>Re:Fail.</title>
	<author>onemorechip</author>
	<datestamp>1262113440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and not in the least pompous.</p></div><p>he said ironically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and not in the least pompous.he said ironically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and not in the least pompous.he said ironically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579394</id>
	<title>terrible idea, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262024160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must admit I get a kick out of seeing Google being attacked from the geek left.  They've made fortunes for themselves and their founders playing their holier-than-thou positioning vis-a-vis Microsoft (the whipping boy representative of the old guard).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must admit I get a kick out of seeing Google being attacked from the geek left .
They 've made fortunes for themselves and their founders playing their holier-than-thou positioning vis-a-vis Microsoft ( the whipping boy representative of the old guard ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must admit I get a kick out of seeing Google being attacked from the geek left.
They've made fortunes for themselves and their founders playing their holier-than-thou positioning vis-a-vis Microsoft (the whipping boy representative of the old guard).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579636</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, that's great.</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1262027400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was going to make a bigger reply, but <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1491920&amp;cid=30579320" title="slashdot.org">this post</a> [slashdot.org] already summed up most of what I would have said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to make a bigger reply , but this post [ slashdot.org ] already summed up most of what I would have said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to make a bigger reply, but this post [slashdot.org] already summed up most of what I would have said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579272</id>
	<title>nutrition neutrality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262022840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what would be great? Nutrition neutrality. Screw search engines...that's just the tip of the iceberg.  It's not fair that my triple cheeseburger makes me fatter than whatever skinny people are eating these days, so I want Congress to pass a law ensuring that every food tastes just as good and is just as healthy as every other food.  With that and the law that makes Brad Pitt just as ugly as me and one more that makes Stephen Hawking just as dumb as me, I'm certain we'd all be happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what would be great ?
Nutrition neutrality .
Screw search engines...that 's just the tip of the iceberg .
It 's not fair that my triple cheeseburger makes me fatter than whatever skinny people are eating these days , so I want Congress to pass a law ensuring that every food tastes just as good and is just as healthy as every other food .
With that and the law that makes Brad Pitt just as ugly as me and one more that makes Stephen Hawking just as dumb as me , I 'm certain we 'd all be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what would be great?
Nutrition neutrality.
Screw search engines...that's just the tip of the iceberg.
It's not fair that my triple cheeseburger makes me fatter than whatever skinny people are eating these days, so I want Congress to pass a law ensuring that every food tastes just as good and is just as healthy as every other food.
With that and the law that makes Brad Pitt just as ugly as me and one more that makes Stephen Hawking just as dumb as me, I'm certain we'd all be happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579084</id>
	<title>Sour grapes</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1262020980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is the motivation for the article:<blockquote><div><p>For three years, my company's vertical search and price-comparison site, Foundem, was effectively "disappeared" from the Internet in this way.</p></div></blockquote><p>
What are the options?</p><p>
1. His site just never had enough incoming links to raise it in the rankings.<br>
2. His site employed tricks to artificially raise its ranking and was penalized for this.<br>
3. Google marked down his site for other reasons (competitive?)<br> <br>
Really, what is the most likely answer? For yet another price comparison website?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the motivation for the article : For three years , my company 's vertical search and price-comparison site , Foundem , was effectively " disappeared " from the Internet in this way .
What are the options ?
1. His site just never had enough incoming links to raise it in the rankings .
2. His site employed tricks to artificially raise its ranking and was penalized for this .
3. Google marked down his site for other reasons ( competitive ?
) Really , what is the most likely answer ?
For yet another price comparison website ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the motivation for the article:For three years, my company's vertical search and price-comparison site, Foundem, was effectively "disappeared" from the Internet in this way.
What are the options?
1. His site just never had enough incoming links to raise it in the rankings.
2. His site employed tricks to artificially raise its ranking and was penalized for this.
3. Google marked down his site for other reasons (competitive?
) 
Really, what is the most likely answer?
For yet another price comparison website?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579006</id>
	<title>mouahahah!</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1262020200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But now it's too late, my plan worked perfectly five years ago!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But now it 's too late , my plan worked perfectly five years ago !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But now it's too late, my plan worked perfectly five years ago!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579338</id>
	<title>Government keep your paws off the Internet!</title>
	<author>flajann</author>
	<datestamp>1262023500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Government should stay out of dictating to Google and the other search engines how they rank the searches. Period. <p>

If Google screws around, there are always rival search engines that would give you the content you are looking for.</p><p>

The real danger is that the Government might tell Google and other search engines to filter out what the Government considers to be "dangerous information", "State Secrets", or other nonsense.</p><p>

Basically, we are talking Search Censorship.</p><p>

EFF and others should lobby hard against *any* government interference into how online services conduct their service. We can decide for ourselves if the Search Engines are being fair, and if not, we can launch new search engines and watch the big ones loose market share.</p><p>

KEEP THE INTERNET FREE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government should stay out of dictating to Google and the other search engines how they rank the searches .
Period . If Google screws around , there are always rival search engines that would give you the content you are looking for .
The real danger is that the Government might tell Google and other search engines to filter out what the Government considers to be " dangerous information " , " State Secrets " , or other nonsense .
Basically , we are talking Search Censorship .
EFF and others should lobby hard against * any * government interference into how online services conduct their service .
We can decide for ourselves if the Search Engines are being fair , and if not , we can launch new search engines and watch the big ones loose market share .
KEEP THE INTERNET FREE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government should stay out of dictating to Google and the other search engines how they rank the searches.
Period. 

If Google screws around, there are always rival search engines that would give you the content you are looking for.
The real danger is that the Government might tell Google and other search engines to filter out what the Government considers to be "dangerous information", "State Secrets", or other nonsense.
Basically, we are talking Search Censorship.
EFF and others should lobby hard against *any* government interference into how online services conduct their service.
We can decide for ourselves if the Search Engines are being fair, and if not, we can launch new search engines and watch the big ones loose market share.
KEEP THE INTERNET FREE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580182</id>
	<title>FCC = Power And Freq's  NOT THE WEB!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262079780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FCC = Power And Freq's  NOT THE WEB! or internet (sic) I hate the word internet.</p><p><b>I don't want the FCC doing anything but getting back to their missing "mission statement"</b>   People need a damn protection from oath breaking office appointments like the FCC . <i>Seen the FCC's original mission statement? Neither have I</i> Why is the "public spectrum" corporate owned? That's not FCC management from an FCC engineer's standpoint. It's also their mission statement FAILURE!!!  Whoops .  NOt. it's on purpose!</p><p>As for Local Stations.<br>Why aren't all their public files online by now?<br>It couldn't be the vague unfinished crappy language at the FCC could it? Couldn't be they don't want to put some "sting" (License, Frequency Allocation Forfeit) into bad public files with lots of condemnation from the public.</p><p>Local stations have websites, but not their public file available. (they claim it's to costly - Utter Nonsense, they also claim video and p2p are eating up the spectrum there too. Both can't be true.)</p><p>We need to start facing down our shitty corrupt officials. 65 trillion bucks into a cds blackhole and still only a handful of fuckers are in jail? Instead we (I mean they) are hiding the sausage with doctored reports.  They're about out of things to do and the bill is going to come due</p><p>Communications are pretty much hosed in the US.</p><p>Corruption - Oath Breaking - Monetary Failure - War</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FCC = Power And Freq 's NOT THE WEB !
or internet ( sic ) I hate the word internet.I do n't want the FCC doing anything but getting back to their missing " mission statement " People need a damn protection from oath breaking office appointments like the FCC .
Seen the FCC 's original mission statement ?
Neither have I Why is the " public spectrum " corporate owned ?
That 's not FCC management from an FCC engineer 's standpoint .
It 's also their mission statement FAILURE ! ! !
Whoops .
NOt. it 's on purpose ! As for Local Stations.Why are n't all their public files online by now ? It could n't be the vague unfinished crappy language at the FCC could it ?
Could n't be they do n't want to put some " sting " ( License , Frequency Allocation Forfeit ) into bad public files with lots of condemnation from the public.Local stations have websites , but not their public file available .
( they claim it 's to costly - Utter Nonsense , they also claim video and p2p are eating up the spectrum there too .
Both ca n't be true .
) We need to start facing down our shitty corrupt officials .
65 trillion bucks into a cds blackhole and still only a handful of fuckers are in jail ?
Instead we ( I mean they ) are hiding the sausage with doctored reports .
They 're about out of things to do and the bill is going to come dueCommunications are pretty much hosed in the US.Corruption - Oath Breaking - Monetary Failure - War</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FCC = Power And Freq's  NOT THE WEB!
or internet (sic) I hate the word internet.I don't want the FCC doing anything but getting back to their missing "mission statement"   People need a damn protection from oath breaking office appointments like the FCC .
Seen the FCC's original mission statement?
Neither have I Why is the "public spectrum" corporate owned?
That's not FCC management from an FCC engineer's standpoint.
It's also their mission statement FAILURE!!!
Whoops .
NOt. it's on purpose!As for Local Stations.Why aren't all their public files online by now?It couldn't be the vague unfinished crappy language at the FCC could it?
Couldn't be they don't want to put some "sting" (License, Frequency Allocation Forfeit) into bad public files with lots of condemnation from the public.Local stations have websites, but not their public file available.
(they claim it's to costly - Utter Nonsense, they also claim video and p2p are eating up the spectrum there too.
Both can't be true.
)We need to start facing down our shitty corrupt officials.
65 trillion bucks into a cds blackhole and still only a handful of fuckers are in jail?
Instead we (I mean they) are hiding the sausage with doctored reports.
They're about out of things to do and the bill is going to come dueCommunications are pretty much hosed in the US.Corruption - Oath Breaking - Monetary Failure - War</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30604180</id>
	<title>Re:Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262263380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ExpertsExchange doesn't require registration, you just need to scroll down to the bottom to see the answer.  It doesn't come up too often in my searches, but when it does it is relevant.</p><p>And facts may be facts, but I haven't trusted Encarta since I found a fact in it that I knew to be wrong.  I think it was in 95, at least the new school computers had Win95 and Encarta on them, so I decided to look up the FA Cup finalists (that's the English FA Cup) since at that time I supported Crystal Palace and I was quite annoyed to find they listed Wimbledon as having played Manchester United in the 1989-90 FA Cup final when it was in-fact Crystal Palace, and I was actually at that game, so I know for sure which teams were playing. I know it is only a trivial thing, but it still annoyed me.  If anyone has a newer copy of Encarta perhaps they can check whether this was ever corrected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ExpertsExchange does n't require registration , you just need to scroll down to the bottom to see the answer .
It does n't come up too often in my searches , but when it does it is relevant.And facts may be facts , but I have n't trusted Encarta since I found a fact in it that I knew to be wrong .
I think it was in 95 , at least the new school computers had Win95 and Encarta on them , so I decided to look up the FA Cup finalists ( that 's the English FA Cup ) since at that time I supported Crystal Palace and I was quite annoyed to find they listed Wimbledon as having played Manchester United in the 1989-90 FA Cup final when it was in-fact Crystal Palace , and I was actually at that game , so I know for sure which teams were playing .
I know it is only a trivial thing , but it still annoyed me .
If anyone has a newer copy of Encarta perhaps they can check whether this was ever corrected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ExpertsExchange doesn't require registration, you just need to scroll down to the bottom to see the answer.
It doesn't come up too often in my searches, but when it does it is relevant.And facts may be facts, but I haven't trusted Encarta since I found a fact in it that I knew to be wrong.
I think it was in 95, at least the new school computers had Win95 and Encarta on them, so I decided to look up the FA Cup finalists (that's the English FA Cup) since at that time I supported Crystal Palace and I was quite annoyed to find they listed Wimbledon as having played Manchester United in the 1989-90 FA Cup final when it was in-fact Crystal Palace, and I was actually at that game, so I know for sure which teams were playing.
I know it is only a trivial thing, but it still annoyed me.
If anyone has a newer copy of Encarta perhaps they can check whether this was ever corrected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30597440</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want search neutrality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know, like when you want a science book, you went to a science book store. And when you wanted a book by a british author, you called a british book store.</p></div><p>Actually, I just go to Amazon.  Find it all there.</p><p>And, I don't want Google returning results that are more Google-centric unless those results are truly the best.  If you are searching for MSDN documentation, it should come in any general engine that you use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , like when you want a science book , you went to a science book store .
And when you wanted a book by a british author , you called a british book store.Actually , I just go to Amazon .
Find it all there.And , I do n't want Google returning results that are more Google-centric unless those results are truly the best .
If you are searching for MSDN documentation , it should come in any general engine that you use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, like when you want a science book, you went to a science book store.
And when you wanted a book by a british author, you called a british book store.Actually, I just go to Amazon.
Find it all there.And, I don't want Google returning results that are more Google-centric unless those results are truly the best.
If you are searching for MSDN documentation, it should come in any general engine that you use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579118</id>
	<title>Why??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262021280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>First<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. the person writing the op-ed had been penalized by Google and is biased. They don't mention why, but probably from breaking some of the search engine rules regarding gateway pages or meta tags or something else.  Anyone with any web skills could have contacted Google, found out why, and corrected the problem.
<br> <br>
Secondly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Google got where they are because the majority of people probably like they way their search engine works, and how it is integrated with other tools.  Just like Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. it didn't get to be the largest software by having the best software, just the one that most people used. If google was biased politically, I doubt that would have been the case.  This guy is upset because his business was impacted because he didn't follow Google's rules and didn't bother to contact them.
<br> <br>
Lastly, there is NOTHING wrong with a biased search engine as long as the people using it understand the bias. Business, environmental, left wing, right wing, socialist, communist,  capitalist and what-ever-ists might like to have a search engine that gives them results according to their political views. WHY does a search engine have to be non-biased?? Because this guy didn't follow the rules, was too lazy to fix it, and got hurt??? That's one of the reasons I think the Fairness doctrine is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. unfair. Why can't I find a media source that has the same bias as I do so I don't have to read all the tripe from those that disagree with me.  Free speech doesn't mean I have to listen to it. Free choice in search engines means I don't have to use those that don't return the results I want to see.
<br> <br>
Foundem is a SEARCH ENGINE.  So I typed in 'price search engine'.  Interestingly enough, Google was fourth on the list.....I couldn't find Foundem in the first 4 pages. Here are the meta tags on Foundem's home page ---<p><div class="quote"><p>vertical search, price comparison, compare prices, flight search, hotel search, shop, buy, online, compare, best deals, best buy, prices, electronics, reviews, computers, job search, property search.</p></div><p>
Wow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no wonder they don't show up. They don't do anything UNIQUE. There are hundreds of companies doing the same thing. I guess they still haven't figured out how to get placement on a search engine.
<br> <br>
Personally, I will discount this op-ed piece as little more than whining by some company too lazy to figure out what their market is, create a unique product, and spend the time and effort to get it to show up on Goggle's search engine.  Lots of other companies do that just fine.....they must have skilled web staff working for them.
<br> <br>
Or they figured if Google can't drive traffic to their web site, maybe the Times will. Seems the only advertising they want is 'free'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First .. the person writing the op-ed had been penalized by Google and is biased .
They do n't mention why , but probably from breaking some of the search engine rules regarding gateway pages or meta tags or something else .
Anyone with any web skills could have contacted Google , found out why , and corrected the problem .
Secondly .. Google got where they are because the majority of people probably like they way their search engine works , and how it is integrated with other tools .
Just like Microsoft .. it did n't get to be the largest software by having the best software , just the one that most people used .
If google was biased politically , I doubt that would have been the case .
This guy is upset because his business was impacted because he did n't follow Google 's rules and did n't bother to contact them .
Lastly , there is NOTHING wrong with a biased search engine as long as the people using it understand the bias .
Business , environmental , left wing , right wing , socialist , communist , capitalist and what-ever-ists might like to have a search engine that gives them results according to their political views .
WHY does a search engine have to be non-biased ? ?
Because this guy did n't follow the rules , was too lazy to fix it , and got hurt ? ? ?
That 's one of the reasons I think the Fairness doctrine is .. well .. unfair. Why ca n't I find a media source that has the same bias as I do so I do n't have to read all the tripe from those that disagree with me .
Free speech does n't mean I have to listen to it .
Free choice in search engines means I do n't have to use those that do n't return the results I want to see .
Foundem is a SEARCH ENGINE .
So I typed in 'price search engine' .
Interestingly enough , Google was fourth on the list.....I could n't find Foundem in the first 4 pages .
Here are the meta tags on Foundem 's home page ---vertical search , price comparison , compare prices , flight search , hotel search , shop , buy , online , compare , best deals , best buy , prices , electronics , reviews , computers , job search , property search .
Wow ... no wonder they do n't show up .
They do n't do anything UNIQUE .
There are hundreds of companies doing the same thing .
I guess they still have n't figured out how to get placement on a search engine .
Personally , I will discount this op-ed piece as little more than whining by some company too lazy to figure out what their market is , create a unique product , and spend the time and effort to get it to show up on Goggle 's search engine .
Lots of other companies do that just fine.....they must have skilled web staff working for them .
Or they figured if Google ca n't drive traffic to their web site , maybe the Times will .
Seems the only advertising they want is 'free' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First .. the person writing the op-ed had been penalized by Google and is biased.
They don't mention why, but probably from breaking some of the search engine rules regarding gateway pages or meta tags or something else.
Anyone with any web skills could have contacted Google, found out why, and corrected the problem.
Secondly .. Google got where they are because the majority of people probably like they way their search engine works, and how it is integrated with other tools.
Just like Microsoft .. it didn't get to be the largest software by having the best software, just the one that most people used.
If google was biased politically, I doubt that would have been the case.
This guy is upset because his business was impacted because he didn't follow Google's rules and didn't bother to contact them.
Lastly, there is NOTHING wrong with a biased search engine as long as the people using it understand the bias.
Business, environmental, left wing, right wing, socialist, communist,  capitalist and what-ever-ists might like to have a search engine that gives them results according to their political views.
WHY does a search engine have to be non-biased??
Because this guy didn't follow the rules, was too lazy to fix it, and got hurt???
That's one of the reasons I think the Fairness doctrine is .. well .. unfair. Why can't I find a media source that has the same bias as I do so I don't have to read all the tripe from those that disagree with me.
Free speech doesn't mean I have to listen to it.
Free choice in search engines means I don't have to use those that don't return the results I want to see.
Foundem is a SEARCH ENGINE.
So I typed in 'price search engine'.
Interestingly enough, Google was fourth on the list.....I couldn't find Foundem in the first 4 pages.
Here are the meta tags on Foundem's home page ---vertical search, price comparison, compare prices, flight search, hotel search, shop, buy, online, compare, best deals, best buy, prices, electronics, reviews, computers, job search, property search.
Wow ... no wonder they don't show up.
They don't do anything UNIQUE.
There are hundreds of companies doing the same thing.
I guess they still haven't figured out how to get placement on a search engine.
Personally, I will discount this op-ed piece as little more than whining by some company too lazy to figure out what their market is, create a unique product, and spend the time and effort to get it to show up on Goggle's search engine.
Lots of other companies do that just fine.....they must have skilled web staff working for them.
Or they figured if Google can't drive traffic to their web site, maybe the Times will.
Seems the only advertising they want is 'free'.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580398</id>
	<title>Bing and Yahoo?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1262084340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's new Bing have become the Internet's gatekeepers</p></div><p>To be an "internet gatekeeper," don't you need people to actually visit your site first?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today , search engines like Google , Yahoo and Microsoft 's new Bing have become the Internet 's gatekeepersTo be an " internet gatekeeper , " do n't you need people to actually visit your site first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's new Bing have become the Internet's gatekeepersTo be an "internet gatekeeper," don't you need people to actually visit your site first?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30582714</id>
	<title>government run and funded</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1262106240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The search would have to be government run and funded. It costs big money to run a search engine thats why cooperations like yahoo, google, MS run them. Lets also not forget how google really got big, and that is because of its image ads free home page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The search would have to be government run and funded .
It costs big money to run a search engine thats why cooperations like yahoo , google , MS run them .
Lets also not forget how google really got big , and that is because of its image ads free home page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The search would have to be government run and funded.
It costs big money to run a search engine thats why cooperations like yahoo, google, MS run them.
Lets also not forget how google really got big, and that is because of its image ads free home page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579140</id>
	<title>When do anti-trust laws kick-in?</title>
	<author>nagarjun</author>
	<datestamp>1262021460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>With 71 percent of the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google&rsquo;s dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming control.</p></div></blockquote><p>So Google is a monopoly then. Won't they hear from  anti-trust regulators if they abuse that position and try to gain an advantage in other markets like comparison shopping?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With 71 percent of the United States search market ( and 90 percent in Britain ) , Google    s dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming control.So Google is a monopoly then .
Wo n't they hear from anti-trust regulators if they abuse that position and try to gain an advantage in other markets like comparison shopping ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With 71 percent of the United States search market (and 90 percent in Britain), Google’s dominance of both search and search advertising gives it overwhelming control.So Google is a monopoly then.
Won't they hear from  anti-trust regulators if they abuse that position and try to gain an advantage in other markets like comparison shopping?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579328</id>
	<title>Statism Masquerading as Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>anglophobe\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1262023320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason it's so important for net neutrality laws to prevent ISP's from filtering or throttling traffic is because they have such a stranglehold on the market, and that monopoly/cartel is mostly government-protected. There's no way to bypass your ISP except via proxy or by switching ISP's, and many people have neither the technical knowledge to do the first, nor the availability of the second option. If you don't like the way a particular search engine behaves, just don't use a search engine, or switch to another. Telecoms are almost as impervious to market swings as the government itself, whereas there are new search engines popping up every day. Take cuil for instance. Besides, how are they going to regulate different types of search engines, for instance Bing vs. Google vs. Wolfram Alpha. Each of these engines has a very different idea of what is "relevant", even if you strip away any manipulation done for ulterior motives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason it 's so important for net neutrality laws to prevent ISP 's from filtering or throttling traffic is because they have such a stranglehold on the market , and that monopoly/cartel is mostly government-protected .
There 's no way to bypass your ISP except via proxy or by switching ISP 's , and many people have neither the technical knowledge to do the first , nor the availability of the second option .
If you do n't like the way a particular search engine behaves , just do n't use a search engine , or switch to another .
Telecoms are almost as impervious to market swings as the government itself , whereas there are new search engines popping up every day .
Take cuil for instance .
Besides , how are they going to regulate different types of search engines , for instance Bing vs. Google vs. Wolfram Alpha .
Each of these engines has a very different idea of what is " relevant " , even if you strip away any manipulation done for ulterior motives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason it's so important for net neutrality laws to prevent ISP's from filtering or throttling traffic is because they have such a stranglehold on the market, and that monopoly/cartel is mostly government-protected.
There's no way to bypass your ISP except via proxy or by switching ISP's, and many people have neither the technical knowledge to do the first, nor the availability of the second option.
If you don't like the way a particular search engine behaves, just don't use a search engine, or switch to another.
Telecoms are almost as impervious to market swings as the government itself, whereas there are new search engines popping up every day.
Take cuil for instance.
Besides, how are they going to regulate different types of search engines, for instance Bing vs. Google vs. Wolfram Alpha.
Each of these engines has a very different idea of what is "relevant", even if you strip away any manipulation done for ulterior motives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579668</id>
	<title>Re:Why??</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1262027820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lastly, there is NOTHING wrong with a biased search engine as long as the people using it understand the bias. Business, environmental, left wing, right wing, socialist, communist, capitalist and what-ever-ists might like to have a search engine that gives them results according to their political views.</p></div></blockquote><p>Exactly.  And it should be the FTC that regulates it, not the FCC.  FDR <a href="http://mises.org/story/1496" title="mises.org">created the FCC to censor political speech</a> [mises.org] under the guise of allocating limited spectrum.  Since the Internet is not restricted by limited spectrum, the facade has been thrown off and the FCC is only about censorship in relation to the Internet.</p><p>As I've <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=585837&amp;cid=23818627" title="slashdot.org">argued before here</a> [slashdot.org], bias is good, as long it is disclosed.  It was the Progressive Era that ushered in "neutrality", as if there could ever be such a thing, which has only allowed biased views to masquerade as unbiased views.</p><p>What is Google's bias?  For starters, they should more prominently disclose their association with the federal government.  I still remember Google <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040628014545/www.underreported.com/modules.php?op=modload&amp;name=News&amp;file=article&amp;sid=80&amp;mode=thread&amp;order=0&amp;thold=0" title="archive.org">censoring</a> [archive.org] my AdWords in 2002 for "anti-GOP views" (at a time when Bush was leading the U.S. into a an unjust war).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lastly , there is NOTHING wrong with a biased search engine as long as the people using it understand the bias .
Business , environmental , left wing , right wing , socialist , communist , capitalist and what-ever-ists might like to have a search engine that gives them results according to their political views.Exactly .
And it should be the FTC that regulates it , not the FCC .
FDR created the FCC to censor political speech [ mises.org ] under the guise of allocating limited spectrum .
Since the Internet is not restricted by limited spectrum , the facade has been thrown off and the FCC is only about censorship in relation to the Internet.As I 've argued before here [ slashdot.org ] , bias is good , as long it is disclosed .
It was the Progressive Era that ushered in " neutrality " , as if there could ever be such a thing , which has only allowed biased views to masquerade as unbiased views.What is Google 's bias ?
For starters , they should more prominently disclose their association with the federal government .
I still remember Google censoring [ archive.org ] my AdWords in 2002 for " anti-GOP views " ( at a time when Bush was leading the U.S. into a an unjust war ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lastly, there is NOTHING wrong with a biased search engine as long as the people using it understand the bias.
Business, environmental, left wing, right wing, socialist, communist, capitalist and what-ever-ists might like to have a search engine that gives them results according to their political views.Exactly.
And it should be the FTC that regulates it, not the FCC.
FDR created the FCC to censor political speech [mises.org] under the guise of allocating limited spectrum.
Since the Internet is not restricted by limited spectrum, the facade has been thrown off and the FCC is only about censorship in relation to the Internet.As I've argued before here [slashdot.org], bias is good, as long it is disclosed.
It was the Progressive Era that ushered in "neutrality", as if there could ever be such a thing, which has only allowed biased views to masquerade as unbiased views.What is Google's bias?
For starters, they should more prominently disclose their association with the federal government.
I still remember Google censoring [archive.org] my AdWords in 2002 for "anti-GOP views" (at a time when Bush was leading the U.S. into a an unjust war).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579340</id>
	<title>"neutral search engine" is an oxymoron.</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1262023500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You use a search engine to pair down listings based on arbitrary criteria, and you want those results to be relevant. This means intelligent algorithms which are by their nature non-neutral.</p><p>Given that the internet is 99\% porn, I think its a very, very bad idea to ban such relevance sorting.  I'm sure parents will be happy with their congressman after their kid enters "jupiter" for a science project and gets 10 pages of XXX to sort through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You use a search engine to pair down listings based on arbitrary criteria , and you want those results to be relevant .
This means intelligent algorithms which are by their nature non-neutral.Given that the internet is 99 \ % porn , I think its a very , very bad idea to ban such relevance sorting .
I 'm sure parents will be happy with their congressman after their kid enters " jupiter " for a science project and gets 10 pages of XXX to sort through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You use a search engine to pair down listings based on arbitrary criteria, and you want those results to be relevant.
This means intelligent algorithms which are by their nature non-neutral.Given that the internet is 99\% porn, I think its a very, very bad idea to ban such relevance sorting.
I'm sure parents will be happy with their congressman after their kid enters "jupiter" for a science project and gets 10 pages of XXX to sort through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30582250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30584018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30583598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30583010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30585142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30584180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30581638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30604442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30581636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30583624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30585008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30582612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30588244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30604180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30597440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_010216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30581270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30588244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30583598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30585142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30583624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30585008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30582612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30581636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30583010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30597440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30604442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30584180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30604180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30581638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30580780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_010216.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30581270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30579516
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30582250
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_010216.30584018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
