Is Google’s new search site illegal?

Google is a very popular search engine. Recently, Google created a new search engine that gathers information from Google+, a social media site similar to that of Facebook. But the problem lies not with the creation of the new site, but with how it searches.

This new site, titled, Search Plus Your World, is Google's latest innovation. The site is designed to filter the results that it gives you so that it fits exactly what you are searching for. The problem, however, is that Google is only gathering information from Google+. That means if you search a persons name, you will not find their Facebook profile, Twitter account, or any other website that links that person to a social media website. This all seems fine to an average person, but Google+'s main competitors (Facebook, Twitter, ect.) are not happy with this at all. They feel that Google is essentially monopolizing the search engine industry and is preventing information from such sites to be shown to the masses. The only way that a Facebook or Twitter account could be found using this new search site would be if those companies were to join forces with Google+ (Horizontal integration (Brownie points?)).

A quote from comScore states, “Is Google a monopoly? With control of two-thirds of the U.S. search market, it is legally within the realm.” With this said, Google may be defined as a monopoly in this particular situation. The question is , however, whether this can be definitively proven in a court of law.

More information can be found here:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/technology/google_search/index.htm

My question to you is: Because Google is such a popular search engine, do you think that the site could actually be deemed a monopoly? If so, what do you think would come of the site?

Should Capitalism Play A Role In Democracy?

Article Title: Sean Parker and Al Gore discuss 'Occupy' Democracy' and the 'hacking' of U.S. politics at South by Southwest

Author: Melissa Bell

Website: www.washingtonpost.com

My current event was about how Al Gore and Napster co-founder Sean Parker believe that big businesses and corporations play too large of a role in the democratic process. Many thing that politicians, especially presidential candidates, are spending too much money on advertising and not on major political decisions, which leads people to believe that our democratic system is corrupted. Some politicians will spend any amount of money to get a vote, and Parker and Gore discussed how to try and remove money from the election process. A new website has emerged called Votizen, which tries to bring candidates and voters closer and spread more information without the use of advertisement or the complications of money. A Supreme Court case called Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission occurred in early 2010 when the organization Citizens United wanted to show a critical movie of Hillary Clinton in the days leading up to an election, in the hopes people would not vote for her. They argue that the First Amendment stops the government from limiting political-related spendings by businesses and corporations. It was found that corporations have the same rights as people under the First Amendment and stated that they can use their money for political based ventures.

Article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sean-parker-and-al-gore-discuss-occupy-democracy-and-the-hacking-of-us-politics-at-south-by-southwest/2012/03/12/gIQAp04S8R_story.html

Probing Question:

Do you think that money should play as large of a role in presidential campaigns/elections and politics in general as it does today?