Again: Search Engines

The comment by Juergen makes a good point. It is not just about having a critical public. We also have to institutionalize values of public interest in the operation of search engines. Above all there must be transparency. A search engine is a tool for selection. So I want to know what are the criteria for the selection. In the form of a disclosing requirement this could even be imposed on search engines run by private entities such as Google. Another – complementary - approach is to let the search engine be run by a public or quasi-public institution. Like every other activity of such institution the operation of a search engine must comply with the public interest standards set forth in the institution’s charter.
A good example is the BBCi search engine. The BBC is constitutionally established by a Royal Charter and an accompanying Agreement recognises its editorial independence and sets out its public obligations in detail. Twelve governors, appointed by the Queen on advice from ministers, act as trustees of the public interest and regulate the BBC, supervising the Executive Committee which runs the day-to-day business.The BBC governors differ from directors of public companies, whose primary responsibilities are to shareholders, whereas the governors represent the public interest, notably the interests of viewers and listeners.
To be sure, the BBCi engine filters. It filters some indecent stuff to make the results “family friendly”, and it favors UK sites in order to meet the preferences of the audience the BBC is mainly responsible to. But the point is: All this you can know before you type in your search. However, the real danger stems from opaque private machines. From the monopoly machines. From the machines holding a monopoly in the business of directing your mind!