Anti-spam is only one of several theories concerning the reason behind Google's filter. It's not even the most popular theory.

For every spammy site that properly dropped in the rankings, others rose to the top. And for every spammy site that dropped, more than one non-spammy "mom and pop" site in a niche business lost their ranking. That's why the anti-spam theory isn't very compelling. You have to spend several hours a day combing the Net for information on this, for the last five weeks, to appreciate the dimensions of what Google's done with this filter.

The leading theory is that Google wanted to increase their earnings figures just prior to an IPO by forcing ecommerce into Adwords, and felt that they could get away with what they've done. So far the U.S. major media have not picked up on this filter story they way that major British media have. Google may be correct in their assumptions about getting away with it.

The second most popular theory is that it's an over-optimization penalty. This is known as OOP. I'd have to say that it's a distant second. One reason why it's attractive is that there seems to be a random element in the filter behavior. Such an element would be very compelling as an antidote for spammy techniques. However, the random element also lends itself to the "Google in incompetent and/or broken" theory, so the OOP camp starts splitting off into the "broken" camp and has yet to emerge with a coherent explanation.

There are various Hilltop, stemming, CIRCA, authority site, and theme-targeted PageRank theories. These are popular with certain SEO pundits, because as you can well imagine, the OOP interpretation has them on the defensive. Much of this is fog, in my opinion, and none of it works very well when it comes to explaining the evidence. The CIRCA paper is worth reading, however, because it's definitely the technology behind Adsense, and Google takes this technology seriously.

The theory that interests me at the moment is the geotargeting theory. After reading Google's FAQ on the option for regional targeting of Adwords, and combining it with what I've picked up from the CIRCA paper, I'm wondering whether Google has plans to roll out some geolocated features in the near future. Froogle is only for items that can be shipped. There's a huge amount of advertising dollars that can be collected from local services such as help wanted, real estate, travel facilities, auto sales and service, medical and legal professional services, etc. Google is experimenting with IP delivery to various marketing regions within the U.S. If Google is in a position to sell ads based on regional targeting, it would keep them competitive well into the future. As you can see, this theory is close to the IPO theory, in that it assumes that Google is trying to force ecommerce out of the organic results, and into pay for inclusion or pay for placement.

Another theory is that Google has to abandon PageRank because the patent is owned by the Stanford trustees, and Google want's to be unencumbered prior to filing for an IPO. I don't find this theory convincing.

So you have all these theories, and Google has no comment on any of this. At the same time, Google has considerable power over many lives. Many mom and pop sites that lost their rankings cannot afford to bid for Adwords, and I don't have to convince them that Google has power over their lives. All they can get from Google is an autobot email response.

It's a principle of democracy that one person's privacy ends at the point where that person's power affects the lives of others. This is so fundamental that I shouldn't have to be offering this as a civic lesson to anyone who graduated from junior high school. Whether you're a private corporation, a public corporation, an individual, or a Martian, it makes no difference. There are anti-trust laws, monopoly regulations, and restraint of trade considerations. The Federal Trade Commission has an interest due to consumer protection laws. The Federal Communications Commission would have an interest if they determined that Google was the equivalent of a "common carrier." There are many examples I could cite. The only question is whether those whom Google has impacted are sufficiently organized to press their case. The answer is obviously "no, they aren't." That's because Google is only six years old, and the regulatory environment took decades to evolve. Internet regulation is only beginning to evolve.

That's the political reality, but I'm arguing that we have the social and ethical right, as world citizens, to ask that Google explain themselves. Five or ten years from now, the political reality will have shifted and this argument from me won't be inviting such short-sighted responses. My main problem is that I'm ahead of my time.

But I must say, I didn't expect to be criticized on the grounds that no one even has the right to investigate Google. That's a real surprise to me.