Connect with us

SEO

Why Gonzalez v. Google Matters

Published

on

Why Gonzalez v. Google Matters

Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a case involving Section 230.

The outcome of this case could potentially reshape the internet.

Why?

Section 230 is a federal law that says tech platforms aren’t liable for their users posts.

Gonzalez v. Google is a case in which the family of a man killed in an ISIS attack is suing Google.

Advertisement

The Gonzalez family argues that Google is responsible for promoting ISIS content through its algorithms.

If the court rules in favor of the Gonzalez family, it could set a precedent that would make tech companies liable for the content promoted by their algorithms.

Tech companies would have to invest more in content moderation and develop new algorithms to detect and remove harmful content, potentially limiting free speech and expression.

On the other hand, if the court rules in favor of Google, it could reaffirm Section 230 and ensure that tech companies continue to enjoy broad protection from liability.

Some experts fear that the court isn’t well-equipped to rule in this area as it historically hasn’t been great at grappling with new technology.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan stated today that they’re not “the nine greatest experts on the Internet.”

Advertisement

A decision will be reached this summer. Here’s what we learned from today’s opening arguments.

Gonzalez v Google: Oral Arguments

Coming out of today’s opening arguments, the Supreme Court justices are concerned about the unintended consequences of allowing websites to be sued for recommending user content.

Attorneys representing different parties were asked questions about how to protect innocuous content while holding harmful content recommendations accountable.

Advertisement

Additionally, the justices worry about the impact of such a decision on individual users of YouTube, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

Concerns are that narrowing Section 230 could lead to a wave of lawsuits against websites alleging antitrust violations, discrimination, defamation, and infliction of emotional distress.

In Defence Of Google

Lisa Blatt, a lawyer representing Google in this case, argues that tech companies aren’t liable for what their algorithms promote because they aren’t responsible for the choices and interests of their users.

Algorithms are designed to surface content based on what users have expressed interest in seeing, not to promote harmful or illegal content.

Google and other tech companies don’t create content or control users’ posts. They provide a platform for users to share their thoughts, ideas, and opinions.

Holding tech companies liable for the content promoted by their algorithms would have a chilling effect on free speech and expression.

Advertisement

It would force tech companies to engage in more aggressive content moderation, potentially limiting the free flow of ideas and information online.

This could stifle innovation and creativity, undermining the essence of the internet as an open space for communication and collaboration.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was designed to protect tech companies from this liability.

It recognizes the importance of free expression and the impossibility of policing content posted by millions of users.

Google’s attorney argues that the courts should respect this precedent and not create new rules that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of the internet.

Arguments Against Google

Eric Schnapper, representing the plaintiffs in this case, argues that Google and other tech companies should be held liable because they can influence what users see on their platforms.

Advertisement

Algorithms aren’t neutral or objective. They’re designed to maximize engagement and keep users on the platform, often by promoting sensational or controversial content.

It can be argued that Google and other tech companies are responsible for preventing the spread of harmful content.

When they fail to take appropriate action, they can be seen as complicit in spreading the content, which can have serious consequences.

Allowing tech companies to avoid liability for the content promoted by their algorithms could incentivize them to prioritize profit over public safety.

Critics of Section 230 suggest that the Supreme Court should not interpret it in such a way that allows tech companies to evade their responsibility.

Expert Legal Analysis: What’s Going To Happen?

Search Engine Journal contacted Daniel A. Lyons, professor and the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs Boston College Law Schoo, for his legal opinion on today’s opening arguments.

Advertisement

The first thing Lyons notes is that the petitioners struggled to make a clear and concise argument against Google:

“My sense is that the petitioners did not have a good day at argument. They seemed to be struggling to explain what precisely their argument was–which is unsurprising, as their argument has shifted many times over the course of this litigation. Multiple lines of questions showed the justices struggling with where to draw the line between user speech and the platform’s own speech. The petitioners did not really answer that question, and the Solicitor General’s answer (that Section 230 should not apply anytime the platform makes a recommendation) is problematic in both legal and policy terms.”

Lyons notes that Justice Clarance Thomas, an advocate for narrowing the scope of Section 230, was particularly hostile:

“I was surprised at how hostile Justice Thomas seemed to be toward the Gonzalez arguments. Since 2019, he has been the loudest voice on the court for taking a Section 230 case to narrow the scope of the statute. But he seemed unable to accept the petitioners’ arguments today. On the other hand, Justice Brown Jackson surprised me with how aggressively she went after the statute. She has been silent so far but seemed the most sympathetic to the petitioners today.”

The most likely path forward, Lyons believes, is that the Supreme Court will dismiss the cast against Google:

“Justice Barrett suggested what I suspect is the most likely path forward. If Twitter wins the companion case being argued tomorrow, that means that hosting/recommending ISIS content is not a violation of the Anti Terrorism Act. Because Gonzalez sued on the same claim, this would mean the court could dismiss the Gonzalez case as moot–because whether Google is protected by Section 230 or not, Gonzalez loses either way. I’ve thought for awhile this is a likely outcome,and I think it’s more likely given how poorly Gonzalez fared today.”

Then again, it’s still too early to call it, Lyons continues:

“That said, it’s unwise to predict a case outcome based on oral argument alone. It’s still possible Google loses, and even a win on the merits poses risks, depending on how narrowly the court writes the opinion. It’s possible that the court’s decision changes the way that platforms recommend content to users–not just social media companies like YouTube and Facebook, but also companies as varied as TripAdvisor, Yelp, or eBay. How much will depend on how the court writes the opinion, and it’s far too early to predict that.”

The three-hour oral argument can be heard in its entirety on YouTube.


Featured Image: No-Mad/Shutterstock

Advertisement



Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

SEO

Google’s Search Engine Market Share Drops As Competitors’ Grows

Published

on

By

Assorted search engine apps including Google, You.com and Bing are seen on an iPhone. Microsoft plans to use ChatGPT in Bing, and You.com has launched an AI chatbot.

According to data from GS Statcounter, Google’s search engine market share has fallen to 86.99%, the lowest point since the firm began tracking search engine share in 2009.

The drop represents a more than 4% decrease from the previous month, marking the largest single-month decline on record.

Screenshot from: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/, May 2024.

U.S. Market Impact

The decline is most significant in Google’s key market, the United States, where its share of searches across all devices fell by nearly 10%, reaching 77.52%.

1714669058 226 Googles Search Engine Market Share Drops As Competitors GrowsScreenshot from: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/, May 2024.

Concurrently, competitors Microsoft Bing and Yahoo Search have seen gains. Bing reached a 13% market share in the U.S. and 5.8% globally, its highest since launching in 2009.

Yahoo Search’s worldwide share nearly tripled to 3.06%, a level not seen since July 2015.

1714669058 375 Googles Search Engine Market Share Drops As Competitors GrowsScreenshot from: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/, May 2024.

Search Quality Concerns

Many industry experts have recently expressed concerns about the declining quality of Google’s search results.

A portion of the SEO community believes that the search giant’s results have worsened following the latest update.

Advertisement

These concerns have begun to extend to average internet users, who are increasingly voicing complaints about the state of their search results.

Alternative Perspectives

Web analytics platform SimilarWeb provided additional context on X (formerly Twitter), stating that its data for the US for March 2024 suggests Google’s decline may not be as severe as initially reported.

SimilarWeb also highlighted Yahoo’s strong performance, categorizing it as a News and Media platform rather than a direct competitor to Google in the Search Engine category.

Why It Matters

The shifting search engine market trends can impact businesses, marketers, and regular users.

Google has been on top for a long time, shaping how we find things online and how users behave.

However, as its market share drops and other search engines gain popularity, publishers may need to rethink their online strategies and optimize for multiple search platforms besides Google.

Users are becoming vocal about Google’s declining search quality over time. As people start trying alternate search engines, the various platforms must prioritize keeping users satisfied if they want to maintain or grow their market position.

It will be interesting to see how they respond to this boost in market share.

What It Means for SEO Pros

As Google’s competitors gain ground, SEO strategies may need to adapt by accounting for how each search engine’s algorithms and ranking factors work.

Advertisement

This could involve diversifying SEO efforts across multiple platforms and staying up-to-date on best practices for each one.

The increased focus on high-quality search results emphasizes the need to create valuable, user-focused content that meets the needs of the target audience.

SEO pros must prioritize informative, engaging, trustworthy content that meets search engine algorithms and user expectations.

Remain flexible, adaptable, and proactive to navigate these shifts. Keeping a pulse on industry trends, user behaviors, and competing search engine strategies will be key for successful SEO campaigns.


Featured Image: Tada Images/Shutterstock



Source link

Advertisement
Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SEO

How To Drive Pipeline With A Silo-Free Strategy

Published

on

By

How To Drive Pipeline With A Silo-Free Strategy

When it comes to B2B strategy, a holistic approach is the only approach. 

Revenue organizations usually operate with siloed teams, and often expect a one-size-fits-all solution (usually buying clicks with paid media). 

However, without cohesive brand, infrastructure, and pipeline generation efforts, they’re pretty much doomed to fail. 

It’s just like rowing crew, where each member of the team must synchronize their movements to propel the boat forward – successful B2B marketing requires an integrated strategy. 

So if you’re ready to ditch your disjointed marketing efforts and try a holistic approach, we’ve got you covered.

Advertisement

Join us on May 15, for an insightful live session with Digital Reach Agency on how to craft a compelling brand and PMF. 

We’ll walk through the critical infrastructure you need, and the reliances and dependences of the core digital marketing disciplines.

Key takeaways from this webinar:

  • Thinking Beyond Traditional Silos: Learn why traditional marketing silos are no longer viable and how they spell doom for modern revenue organizations.
  • How To Identify and Fix Silos: Discover actionable strategies for pinpointing and sealing the gaps in your marketing silos. 
  • The Power of Integration: Uncover the secrets to successfully integrating brand strategy, digital infrastructure, and pipeline generation efforts.

Ben Childs, President and Founder of Digital Reach Agency, and Jordan Gibson, Head of Growth at Digital Reach Agency, will show you how to seamlessly integrate various elements of your marketing strategy for optimal results.

Don’t make the common mistake of using traditional marketing silos – sign up now and learn what it takes to transform your B2B go-to-market.

You’ll also get the opportunity to ask Ben and Jordan your most pressing questions, following the presentation.

And if you can’t make it to the live event, register anyway and we’ll send you a recording shortly after the webinar. 

Advertisement

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SEO

Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

Published

on

Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

It’s like death and taxes: inevitable. The bigger a company gets, the worse its content marketing becomes.

HubSpot teaching you how to type the shrug emoji or buy bitcoin stock. Salesforce sharing inspiring business quotes. GoDaddy helping you use Bing AI, or Zendesk sharing catchy sales slogans.

Judged by content marketing best practice, these articles are bad.

They won’t resonate with decision-makers. Nobody will buy a HubSpot license after Googling “how to buy bitcoin stock.” It’s the very definition of vanity traffic: tons of visits with no obvious impact on the business.

So why does this happen?

Advertisement
I did a double-take the first time I discovered this article on the HubSpot blog.

There’s an obvious (but flawed) answer to this question: big companies are inefficient.

As companies grow, they become more complicated, and writing good, relevant content becomes harder. I’ve experienced this firsthand:

  • extra rounds of legal review and stakeholder approval creeping into processes.
  • content watered down to serve an ever-more generic “brand voice”.
  • growing misalignment between search and content teams.
  • a lack of content leadership within the company as early employees leave.
Why Big Companies Make Bad ContentWhy Big Companies Make Bad Content
As companies grow, content workflows can get kinda… complicated.

Similarly, funded companies have to grow, even when they’re already huge. Content has to feed the machine, continually increasing traffic… even if that traffic never contributes to the bottom line.

There’s an element of truth here, but I’ve come to think that both these arguments are naive, and certainly not the whole story.

It is wrong to assume that the same people that grew the company suddenly forgot everything they once knew about content, and wrong to assume that companies willfully target useless keywords just to game their OKRs.

Instead, let’s assume that this strategy is deliberate, and not oversight. I think bad content—and the vanity traffic it generates—is actually good for business.

Advertisement

There are benefits to driving tons of traffic, even if that traffic never directly converts. Or put in meme format:

Why Big Companies Make Bad ContentWhy Big Companies Make Bad Content

Programmatic SEO is a good example. Why does Dialpad create landing pages for local phone numbers?

1714584366 91 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content1714584366 91 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

Why does Wise target exchange rate keywords?

1714584366 253 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content1714584366 253 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

Why do we have a list of most popular websites pages?

1714584367 988 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content1714584367 988 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

As this Twitter user points out, these articles will never convert…

…but they don’t need to.

Every published URL and targeted keyword is a new doorway from the backwaters of the internet into your website. It’s a chance to acquire backlinks that wouldn’t otherwise exist, and an opportunity to get your brand in front of thousands of new, otherwise unfamiliar people.

These benefits might not directly translate into revenue, but over time, in aggregate, they can have a huge indirect impact on revenue. They can:

Advertisement
  • Strengthen domain authority and the search performance of every other page on the website.
  • Boost brand awareness, and encourage serendipitous interactions that land your brand in front of the right person at the right time.
  • Deny your competitors traffic and dilute their share of voice.

These small benefits become more worthwhile when multiplied across many hundreds or thousands of pages. If you can minimize the cost of the content, there is relatively little downside.

What about topical authority?

“But what about topical authority?!” I hear you cry. “If you stray too far from your area of expertise, won’t rankings suffer for it?”

I reply simply with this screenshot of Forbes’ “health” subfolder, generating almost 4 million estimated monthly organic pageviews:

1714584367 695 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content1714584367 695 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

And big companies can minimize cost. For large, established brands, the marginal cost of content creation is relatively low.

Many companies scale their output through networks of freelancer writers, avoiding the cost of fully loaded employees. They have established, efficient processes for research, briefing, editorial review, publication and maintenance. The cost of an additional “unit” of content—or ten, or a hundred—is not that great, especially relative to other marketing channels.

There is also relatively little opportunity cost to consider: the fact that energy spent on “vanity” traffic could be better spent elsewhere, on more business-relevant topics.

Advertisement

In reality, many of the companies engaging in this strategy have already plucked the low-hanging fruit and written almost every product-relevant topic. There are a finite number of high traffic, high relevance topics; blog consistently for a decade and you too will reach these limits.

On top of that, the HubSpots and Salesforces of the world have very established, very efficient sales processes. Content gating, lead capture and scoring, and retargeting allow them to put very small conversion rates to relatively good use.

1714584367 376 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content1714584367 376 Why Big Companies Make Bad Content

Even HubSpot’s article on Bitcoin stock has its own relevant call-to-action—and for HubSpot, building a database of aspiring investors is more valuable than it sounds, because…

The bigger a company grows, the bigger its audience needs to be to continue sustaining that growth rate.

Companies generally expand their total addressable market (TAM) as they grow, like HubSpot broadening from marketing to sales and customer success, launching new product lines for new—much bigger—audiences. This means the target audience for their content marketing grows alongside.

As Peep Laja put its:

Advertisement

But for the biggest companies, this principle is taken to an extreme. When a company gears up to IPO, its target audience expands to… pretty much everyone.

This was something Janessa Lantz (ex-HubSpot and dbt Labs) helped me understand: the target audience for a post-IPO company is not just end users, but institutional investors, market analysts, journalists, even regular Jane investors.

These are people who can influence the company’s worth in ways beyond simply buying a subscription: they can invest or encourage others to invest and dramatically influence the share price. These people are influenced by billboards, OOH advertising and, you guessed it, seemingly “bad” content showing up whenever they Google something.

Advertisement

You can think of this as a second, additional marketing funnel for post-IPO companies:

Illustration: When companies IPO, the traditional marketing funnel is accompanied by a second funnel. Website visitors contribute value through stock appreciation, not just revenue.Illustration: When companies IPO, the traditional marketing funnel is accompanied by a second funnel. Website visitors contribute value through stock appreciation, not just revenue.

These visitors might not purchase a software subscription when they see your article in the SERP, but they will notice your brand, and maybe listen more attentively the next time your stock ticker appears on the news.

They won’t become power users, but they might download your eBook and add an extra unit to the email subscribers reported in your S1.

They might not contribute revenue now, but they will in the future: in the form of stock appreciation, or becoming the target audience for a future product line.

Vanity traffic does create value, but in a form most content marketers are not used to measuring.

If any of these benefits apply, then it makes sense to acquire them for your company—but also to deny them to your competitors.

Advertisement

SEO is an arms race: there are a finite number of keywords and topics, and leaving a rival to claim hundreds, even thousands of SERPs uncontested could very quickly create a headache for your company.

SEO can quickly create a moat of backlinks and brand awareness that can be virtually impossible to challenge; left unchecked, the gap between your company and your rival can accelerate at an accelerating pace.

Pumping out “bad” content and chasing vanity traffic is a chance to deny your rivals unchallenged share of voice, and make sure your brand always has a seat at the table.

Final thoughts

These types of articles are miscategorized—instead of thinking of them as bad content, it’s better to think of them as cheap digital billboards with surprisingly great attribution.

Big companies chasing “vanity traffic” isn’t an accident or oversight—there are good reasons to invest energy into content that will never convert. There is benefit, just not in the format most content marketers are used to.

This is not an argument to suggest that every company should invest in hyper-broad, high-traffic keywords. But if you’ve been blogging for a decade, or you’re gearing up for an IPO, then “bad content” and the vanity traffic it creates might not be so bad.

Advertisement



Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

Trending

Follow by Email
RSS