Tuesday, September 17, 2024

Does Google's monopoly impact search results? Search quality under scrutiny

Search for something on Google these days, and you don't just see results, but a page topped with ads, often linking to websites built for turning views and clicks into cash. Now after a landmark US court finding, the advertising and tech titan is facing a reckoning. — Photo: Lukas Schulze/dpa

LOS ANGELES: The founders of Internet search and digital advertising giant Google wrote in a 1998 paper that goals for online advertising “do not always correspond” to useful Internet search results.

Now, after Google was found to hold an illegal search monopoly, critics suggest the company that became synonymous with Internet search has, as Sergey Brin and Larry Page feared, shifted “away from the needs of the consumers”.

Google, high-profile technology-industry critic Ed Zitron said in an interview, “got greedy”.

These days, those who put a search term into Google often find relevant information but also get a page topped with ads, frequently followed by links to websites with content built for turning views and clicks into cash. Lately, search results prominently feature e-commerce websites like Amazon and crowd-sourced sites like Reddit and Google’s own YouTube, recent research shows.

Google did not respond to questions about its search product and the monopoly finding in US federal court. In a blog post this year, the company said it has used “advanced spam-fighting systems” for decades, and in 2022 started adjusting its website ranking systems to “reduce unhelpful, unoriginal content and keep it at very low levels”. while “algorithmic enhancements” would help “surface the most helpful information”.

Last month’s blockbuster monopoly finding by Judge Amit P. Mehta in the US Department of Justice lawsuit against Google has spotlighted the Mountain View, California, company’s wildly popular search engine. Mehta, in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, said Google’s conclusion in a 2020 study that it would not lose search revenue if it slashed search quality is proof of illegal monopoly power.

On September 6, Mehta kicks off the next phase of the DOJ case against Google – which he said controls at least 90% of the US Internet search market – to strip its monopoly over search. The judge, in his 277-page ruling, zeroed in on the company’s payments to companies like Apple and Samsung to make Google the default search engine, saying “most devices in the United States come preloaded exclusively with Google”.

Critics argue that the company’s freedom from competition allows it to shirk quality while the money – US$238bil (RM1 trillion) in advertising revenue last year – rolls in.

Zitron, chief executive of San Francisco public relations firm EZPR and host of the iHeart podcast “Better Offline”, said internal Google emails revealed in the court case suggest a high-level management shift led to less user-friendly changes to search results.

Five years ago, top Google executives declared a “Code Yellow” emergency over falling growth in search queries and the hefty ad revenue they generate, the emails show. As Google bean counters sought fixes, search executives fretted over the conflict identified by founders Brin and Page. Search chief Ben Gomes complained his department was being pushed “too close to the money” and becoming “too involved with ads for the good of the product and company”.

A little more than a year later, Google lumped search and advertising into one unit under advertising head Prabhakar Raghavan. Gomes, after two decades building search, was exiled to education initiatives.

Google started prioritising the number of searches over the quality of results, “so they can show you as many ads as possible”, Zitron contended.

The company’s search-results page has in recent years grown top-heavy with ads labeled “sponsored” that may not help the user but are lucrative for Google. Spammers and marketers use keywords and content trickery to push certain websites higher in results, forcing Google to play catch-up while users pay in wasted time and frustration.

“I’ve never experienced as many people complaining or citing issues with Google’s results as I have in the last year,'” said Lily Ray, a vice president at marketing agency Amsive, which researches Google search trends. “I’m seeing a ton of spam in Google search results. It’s never been this visible to me”.

Mehta said “some evidence” shows Google’s search spending has declined, and in the rare instances that competition arose, the company quickly invested in improvements. But the judge said innovation can boost already dominant market share, and described Google as tech’s “highest quality search engine”.

However, Christopher Hockett, an adjunct professor at UC Berkeley’s law school, said “the backdrop of all this is that if you had more competition, then you would have higher quality".

Research by Illinois-based Amsive shows Google’s updates in recent years made certain kinds of websites less visible, including those using stock images or photos grabbed from social media, or presenting AI-generated content, or lacking expertise, or containing intrusive ads or many cash-for-clicks links. But for product searches, many high-ranking product-comparison websites make money when a user clicks through to a brand’s site for a purchase, or, Ray noted, are “pay-to-play” operations that charge brands to be included on their site.

Changes Google made this year appear to have down-ranked product-review sites, while e-commerce stores, especially Amazon, appear up high, often along with YouTube, Amsive said. The New York Times’ popular Wirecutter website, with product reviews based on extensive testing, now frequently falls below Internet forum sites Reddit and Quora in best-product results, Ray said.

Reddit’s visibility leaped more than 1,000% this year over 2023, Amsive found. In July 2023, the Google search, “how to potty train a boy” generated only pregnancy and medical sites – plus YouTube – in the top 10 results, with the Mayo Clinic at No. 1. By July of this year, a five-year-old post from Reddit moved from 50th to 2nd position, higher than “authoritative sites like the Mayo Clinic", Amsive reported.

Google could have developed technology to seek out the most helpful answers to questions, but appears to have decided to “just put Reddit on there”, Zitron said.

Thousands of layoffs at Google in recent years have eroded institutional knowledge in search, Zitron said, and “they may have fired so many people that the thing doesn’t work anymore”.

Google’s race to compete in the generative AI frenzy kicked off by the release of ChatGPT in 2022 “might explain why some things have been left by the wayside” on search, Ray said. Also, she added, “They’re a monopoly. They’re the default search engine. Their stock is going up and up. What incentive do they have to fix it?”

Barry Schwartz, chief executive of New York software company RustyBrick and an editor at blogs Search Engine Land and Search Engine Roundtable, said Google is constantly innovating and experimenting in search. “I probably see five to 10 new things a day as far as testing,” Schwartz said. “Probably one of their top things that they focus on is making sure the content in the search results is useful.”

Still, Schwartz said, “If Google was under competitive fire and they had to do more, I think they would.” – tca/dpa

Source link

Google search result quality getting worse due to 'SEO spam'

US targets Google's online ad business monopoly

Microsoft to enhance search engine, browser

Huawei could end up challenging Google

TIGHTENING THE SCREW ON BIG TECH

The making of Malaysia, Challenges along the MA63 road

Almost 61 years on, many Malaysians still do not understand how Malaysia was formed, with the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) remaining a thorny issue for some, especially in Sabah and Sarawak.

Efforts are being made to realise the malaysia agreement 1963 and experts are stressing the need to honour the promises made to Sabah and Sarawak. Can we expect to see more of the agreement come to fruition?

On September 16, 1963, marked another historical moment when Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined the Federation of Malaya to form Malaysia. Singapore left the coalition two years later. This event initiated a new era to build and develop our country prior to the Independence gained in 1957. Since then, Malaysia Day is celebrated on September 16, every year to commemorate the establishment of Malaysia and as an event to continue creating a unified Malaysia.

Our country is well-known for its cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. Embracing and appreciating the beauty of differences make Malaysians grow fond of each other and stand together to become a great nation. Look at how strong we stand to combat the COVID-19 together, and continue to break the chain as ONE, we can survive and overcome this great challenge!

Wishing all Malaysians, a Happy Malaysia Day! Hope this day will keep us united with harmony!

The making of Malaysia

Six decades on, many Malaysians still do not understand how Malaysia was formed, with MA63 remaining a thorny issue.

RESOLVING demands in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) is more than just realising the key terms spelt out by Sabah and Sarawak when the two regions inked the paper six decades ago to form the Federation of Malaysia with Malaya.

Experts say it is also about honouring the Constitution upholding people’s rights.

Most agree that the 18- and 20-point list of terms made by Sarawak and Sabah respectively before signing the merger to create the new country remain relevant with regards to the two regions’ economic development and administration.

Today, despite the challenges after decades of efforts to uphold MA63, several notable milestones have been achieved; most notably the amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution in 2021 to elevate the status of Sabah and Sarawak as regions from their previous status as “states”.

Earlier this year, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Fadillah Yusof announced that nine basic demands based on the MA63 had also been met.

As of now, 14 demands are being looked into, including oil royalty, petroleum cash payments, the regions’ rights to the continental shelves, and an increase in civil service appointments in Sabah and Sarawak under the Federal Constitution’s Article 112.

Fadillah says it will take some time for the matters to be resolved due to various complexities and strings of reviews, among others. Nevertheless, in terms of progress, can we expect to see more of the key terms fulfilled and developments on the agreement soon?

Slow but steady progress

When asked about the notable progress following the amendments to the Constitution, experts express their takes with some caution instead of being comfortable with current developments.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Ethnic Studies Institute senior research fellow Assoc Prof Dr Zaini Othman says he would

prefer to “reflect and comfortably pen it out in the manner of ‘works in progress’.

“Things are still on the table and all parties involved, especially the newly elected federal government led by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which frequently pledges that they are working very hard to find a constructive method to resolve what I call ‘the politics of managing MA63’.

“It’s all about balancing ‘the idealist politics’ on one hand and ‘the real politics’ on the other.”

Institute of Borneo Studies’ Prof Datuk Dr Jayum Jawan from Universiti of Malaysia, Sarawak, says so far the public has not read much on what exactly has been accomplished.

This is other than “some increase in allocation, which does not need any Constitutional

amendments, and in fact, there is no guarantee that the next prime minister will follow through with

nd the same amount.”

Prof Jayum also says there has been no details about how Sarawak’s people will benefit from its negotiations with national oil and gas company PETRONAS over the sharing of oil revenue from the region’s offshores.

“In fact, why is Sarawak negotiating with PETRONAS? The latter is not a government body.

And post amendments made to the Constitution, he points out that the return of Bintulu Port to Sarawak’s authority will “benefit the state’s coffers”.

But how will all of this actually benefit Sarawak’s people?

Prof Jayum says there are many state-centric issues, including

infrastructure and development-related matters, that Sarawak needs to look into following the increase in state revenue.

“There are collapsed bridges in Kapit, while the former resettlement schemes of Nanga Tada, Nanga Ngungun, and Nanag Jagau as well as Sekuau are still lacking and lagging in infrastructure.

“Also, despite the Pan-borneo road’s construction, there is not enough increase in economic activities to sustain the livelihood of the resettled people in these four security resettlement schemes.

“My recent visit discovered major disappointment among the settlers, who felt that they have been abandoned, not given comprehensive help to chart their

future by either the federal or state government.”

Very relevant

It does not help that there are some who question the relevance of ongoing efforts to champion MA63.

Noting that calling for the realisation of MA63 is not about meeting the regions’ demands per se, Zaini stresses that this issue should not be raised at all, since it centres on honouring the Constitution and the rights of the country’s founders.

“To me, it is not about ‘how relevant’ (is the agreement). It is all about the concept and form of our country. On Sept 16, 1963, all parties and entities agreed to form a ‘federal state’ named ‘Persekutuan Malaysia’ (Federation of Malaysia).”

He says the concept of Malaysia’s federacy should already ascertain the standing of the key terms in MA63.

“The federation managed to exist under the auspicious agreement of MA63. It is under this particular ‘political philosophy and nuance’ that all Malaysians have to abide by ‘the federalist agreement’ as spelt out within the agreement, which is structurally manifested and enshrined in the Malaysia Constitution 1963.

“In other words, as long as Malaysia recognised herself as a ‘federal state’, no questions about ‘the relevancy’ of the MA63 should arise unless all parties agree to change the concept and form of the country from federal

to non-federal state.”

Ongoing talks

On Friday, Anwar sat with Sabah and Sarawak leaders to chair the MA63 Implementation Action Council in Kota Kinabalu. Those in the know say the meeting proceeded cordially, as the Prime Minister was already prepared to announce a piece of good news which some say signifies the Federal Government’s commitment to resolving the MA63 key terms.

Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor later expressed his elation after Anwar announced an Rm300mil increase in the interim special grant – now at Rm600mil – from the Federal Government for next year.

The special grant is made pending resolution of Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement.

Hajiji, in earlier reports, had said the fundamental Constitutional rights of the state concerning the 40% revenue special grant are under Articles 112C and 112D of the Constitution, and that the matter is now under the purview of the MA63 technical committee chaired by Fadillah.

Other than Hajiji, the meeting was also attended by Sarawak Premier Tan Sri Abang Johari Openg; both have agreed to enter into a high-level discussion on the regions’ respective claims, including the return of the continental shelf under the Territorial Sea Act 2012, royalties, and stamp duty.

But things are not completely easy and breezy. Fadillah says as of now, many technical issues cannot be resolved at the committee level due to differences in legal jurisdictions.

“For instance, Sabah and Sarawak view the land sales’ stamp duty as under their authority, but the Federal Government considers the matter as an instrument of sale under its prerogative.”

What’s next on the table?

When it comes to negotiations, Prof Jayum says that Sarawak leaders must stand on the right premise concerning talks with the Prime Minister.

“It is neither about demanding nor negotiating, but asking that Anwar’s government honour the long-abandoned agreement.”

It must also be pointed out that

“Sarawak need not wait to do better in managing its territory.

“For example, autonomy, it is already there. What else does the territory need? Sarawak has the power to filter unwanted elements from coming in and disturbing peace within Sarawak.

“On education, there is no need to ask for education autonomy. Sarawak already has the authority to set a foundation to help students.

“There is already sufficient power and authority given in the State List under the 9th Schedule

of the Federal Constitution.”

Zaini says there are several unresolved MA63 terms related to oil royalties and cash payments for petroleum, oil minerals and oil fields.

“Additionally, there are outstanding matters regarding the Territorial Sea Act 2012, rights over the continental shelf, and an increase in public service appointments in Sabah and Sarawak.”

Despite the latest developments, Zaini says people must realise that measures related to the 40% revenue entitlement for Sabah, for example, remain a work in progress.

“No specific measures have been announced as yet, despite the dissatisfaction expressed by the Sabah government over the slow progress and the ‘neither here nor there attitude’ of the Federal Government.”

Politics also play a role in ensuring MA63’S key terms are met, says Zaini. For instance, he says the political divisions in Sabah have affected negotiations.

“These divisions, in many ways have further marginalised and weakened the negotiating power between the state and federal leadership, and have been cited as major hurdles to realising the agreement’s objectives.

“Former Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia has emphasised that political unity is crucial to avoid external manipulation and ensure the effective restoration and implementation of the territory’s rights under MA63.”

Challenges along the MA63 road

THE road towards the creation of a country and honouring the Malaysia Agreement 1963 )MA63) is not without bumps, obviously.

For instance, the Kelantan government had on Sept 11, 1963 – four days before the announcement on the Federation of Malaysia – filed a suit to argue that the MA63 and its subsequent Act were not binding on Kelantan on the grounds that the latter had effectively abolished Malaya, contrary to the 1957 Malaya Agreement.

The state said any proposed changes would require the consent of each constituent state, which in the case of the formation of Malaysia, was not obtained. However, the suit was dismissed by then Chief Justice of Malaya James Thomson who ruled that no law or Constitution was violated. (See graphic on pages 24 and 25 for more.)

The announcement of the Federation of Malaysia as a new country then went on without a hitch. However, just 10 months later, on July 21, 1964, racial tensions erupted into violence during a procession celebrating the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday in Singapore.

Throughout the remainder of 1964 and into 1965, political and economic disputes between Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party and Umno intensified. The protracted disagreements led to Singapore being expelled from Malaysia on Aug 9, 1965 (though some argue Singapore left of its own accord).

And later as Malaysia stepped into the 1970s, Sabah and Sarawak faced significant challenges in asserting their rights as spelt out in the MA63.

Among others, the Petroleum Development Act of 1974 was mooted to centralise the control of oil and gas resources under

PETRONAS, sparking disputes over revenue sharing and resource management. Both states felt the centralisation unfairly disadvantaged them.

Sabah and Sarawak have also long sought greater autonomy in areas like education and healthcare, clashing with federal policies that they feel do not address their unique needs. Economic disparities have been a major issue, with complaints about inadequate development funds and unfair revenue distribution.

However, as the country moves forward, a change in government in the 14th General Election renewed the calls for honouring the agreement, which had also been listed under the then Pakatan Harapan’s manifesto.

But again, hurdles remained when the Pakatan government failed to obtain the two-thirds Parliament majority it needed to amend Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution during a sitting on Aug 9, 2019.

A two-thirds vote majority, which amounts to 148 out of the 222 seats in the Dewan Rakyat, is needed to amend the Constitution. Pakatan managed to secure 138 votes, with no lawmakers disagreeing. However, 59 MPS abstained from voting.

Former federal minister (now Sarawak Yang Di-pertua Negeri) Tun Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar criticised PH government’s proposed constitutional amendment on Sabah and Sarawak, labeling it as a “political ploy.” He said Sarawak’s ruling coalition, Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS), had proposed an amendment that explicitly referenced MA63 in Article 1(2).

Their proposed changes aimed to clarify the status of the states in relation to MA63.

Nevertheless, on Dec 14, 2021, the government successfully made the constitutional amendment to re-establish Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners with Peninsular Malaysia (nee Malaya).

The Bill passed with 199 MPS voting in favour and 21 absent. Wan Junaidi said the amendment places MA63 alongside the Federal Agreements of 1948 and 1957, ensuring these states are acknowledged as autonomous entities within Malaysia.article 160(2) now includes MA63, reflecting the formation of Malaysia more accurately. The amendment also officially designates Sept 16, 1963, as Malaysia Day, correcting the Constitution’s previous focus on Malayan Independence. This change ensures that Sabah and Sarawak’s demands are now part of the Federal Constitution.

15 Sep 2024

Monday, September 16, 2024

Engagement is vital

Chinese Coast Guard vessels fire water cannons towards a Philippine resupply vessel Unaizah May 4 on its way to a resupply mission at Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea in March. — Reuters

THE South China Sea is a bustling waterway with growing freight and naval passages, combining widespread commercial and military interests.

More than 80% of world trade exceeding US$5 trillion (RM21.67 trillion) in value traverses these much-contested waters each year, fusing high economics with heated geopolitics.

Not least, the South China Sea sees a convergence of intemperate conduct by some claimant countries alongside some hard-nosed commonsensical prudence. Most claimants to these waters including Malaysia opt for the latter approach.

Brunei, China, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam are the contending claimants to part or all of the Spratlys, a group of rocks, reefs, shoals and other maritime features in the South China Sea.

Indonesia and China have rival claims to the Natuna Islands at the southern end of the sea, on the cusp of the Natuna Sea. Indonesia has renamed the area the North Natuna Sea, but whether that helps solidify its stake is unclear.

Among Malaysia’s claims are Luconia Shoals, at the mid-point between Sarawak’s shore and the fullest extent of Malaysia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 200 nautical miles from shore.

On August 29, the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper reported that China had sent a diplomatic note to the Malaysian Embassy in Beijing protesting Malaysia’s oil exploration activities at Luconia Shoals.

Such official notes between governments are nothing new, but always confidential or classified. How it leaked for the Inquirer to expose it to the world should be investigated, and Malaysia is doing that.

Context can help explain the newspaper’s motivation. Among all the claimant parties, the Philippines backed by its US ally’s military forces is the most assertive in trying to face down China on the high seas.

Until the first half of this year, Vietnam seemed to be an informal partner of the Philippines in confronting China over its claims. Then after an abrupt change of President and a Deputy Prime Minister, Vietnam warmed to China again and the Philippines was left without an Asean partner.

Exploiting the release of China’s diplomatic note could provoke Malaysia, or some Malaysians, to seek a tougher line with Beijing.

The news report described China’s mild note to Malaysia as a “warning”, just when China and Malaysia are on the best of terms marking the 50th anniversary of their diplomatic relations this year.

Rival claims between China, Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines are more conflated with one another than with Malaysia’s and Brunei’s limited claims further south. Philippine claims may be more troubling for Malaysia because of its on-off claims to Sabah and the implications on maritime territory off Borneo’s north coast.

On Dec 12, 2019, Malaysia filed its claim to an extended continental shelf with the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf off northern Sabah. Both China and the Philippines were upset, but Manila displayed far more drama.

Beijing sent a delegation to Kuala Lumpur to seek clarification. In an unofficial capacity, I explained that Malaysia’s act was consistent with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), which China and Malaysia had signed and ratified.

The delegation asked follow-up questions, took notes, and left without any complaint, argument or “warning”. The Philippines was particularly stung because Malaysia’s move undermined its claim to the entire Kalayaan Island Group between northern Sabah and southern Mindanao, and to Sabah itself, both of which Malaysia rejects.

The Marcos Jr government is not pressing Manila’s claim to Sabah, relegating it to a “private matter” among Sulu claimants. However, as long as their illegitimate claim to Sabah is not fully revoked and annulled, Philippine-Malaysia relations will remain constrained and their rival claims in the South China Sea will stay complicated.

Manila’s confrontational approach towards China is unlikely to gain traction from other Asean nations favouring pragmatism on at least five key issues.

First, the South China Sea disputes should see a conclusive resolution sooner or later, but preferably sooner rather than later.

Second, that resolution must be political and diplomatic, not military. There can be no military “solution” of any kind, so posturing on the high seas makes any resolution harder or impossible to achieve.

Third, naval brinkmanship begets naval brinkmanship. Residual goodwill, if any, disappears while the prospect of a peaceful settlement diminishes.

Fourth, avoiding force and confrontation in seeking a solution does not mean abandoning the search for solutions. Instead it reflects a thoughtful maturity enabling real solutions to be reached jointly, fully consistent with Asean’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation that claimant parties already accept.

Fifth, talking to another claimant is to engage the other party in meaningful discussion. It does not imply accepting the other party’s rival claims unconditionally.

China’s nine-dash line in the South China Sea began as an 11-dash line of a 1947 official map by the Nationalist Government under Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang Party. It lost the 1949 civil war and escaped to Taiwan, whose 11-dash line today still claims virtually all the South China Sea.

In 1952 Vietnam negotiated with China to remove two of the 11 dashes close to its coast. Later Taiwan’s provocations resulted in Beijing declaring a 10th-dash line off the island’s east coast but not in the South China Sea.

China’s nine-dash line claim covers such features as banks, cays, reefs and shoals in the area but not the international waters between them. Two important lessons from these developments are clear.

One, peaceful negotiations can result in a revision of the precise scope of China’s maritime claims. The Taiwan Strait and Taiwan, which claims more of the South China Sea than China, are “more core” to Beijing than the legacy claims of lines whose exact coordinates Chinese cartographers themselves are uncertain about.

Two, confrontations are much more likely to worsen the situation. In the headlong rush into military posturing threatening a war with no winners, the choice of which is the better, saner approach is obvious enough.

Bunn Nagara is BRI director and senior fellow as well as Perak Academy honorary fellow. The views expressed here are solely his own.