271–280 of 414 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDPR is quite good actually, we will just need to find a way to use its power for good.
It's good for US tech because it is yet another cost and restriction EU startups have to face before they can grow to scale and profitability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"My back alley butcher shop startup had to spend two weeks developing new methods because of unfair health regulations!"
That’s a straw man. Digital privacy doesn’t have immediate public health dangers. Nobody is going to actually die if your web browsing history is mishandled.
Just trying to get the facts straight. Google provided the ability to search your site. They also allowed you to show ads/make money from these searches. If you wanted to use this, you had to only show Google ads. I don't understand how that is illegal.
> Starting in 2006, Google included exclusivity clauses in its contracts. This meant that publishers were prohibited from placing any search adverts from competitors on their search results pages. The decision concerns publishers whose agreements with Google required such exclusivity for all their websites.
Even if the search result and some ads were provided by Google, requiring exclusivity for search adverts was too much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a very small cost that all companies should already be able to handle if they're to be trusted with personal data.
It's absolutely not a small cost. It cost the last startup I worked for around two weeks of development time, plus in many cases it prevents us (or adds massive restrictions) on collecting contact information from leads. It has certainly affected the bottom line of companies like Facebook and Google, but they can afford to take the hit, not all startups can. I'm not really disagree that companies "should" do it. But…
You spent two weeks solving technical debt, which you had ignored because no one was forcing you to actually play nice with people's data and it was convenient to you to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As in: didn't happen, and Google was fined correctly: "Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google’s search results, and others appear even further down. Google’s own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google’s generic search algorithms, including such demotions."
I can't wait to walk into a Walmart and see poster ads for Best Buy near its entrance. Why is Walmart abusing its dominance as a retailer ? (This line of reasoning actually makes sense to some people.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you're being down-voted... without a punitive component to the fine, (i.e. if it were only damages) then Google would have absolutely zero incentive to even pretend to change their ways. They could just pay a small fine, laugh, and say "See you next year." EDIT: And now I'm getting down-voted too. Would you nay-sayers care to chime in with more than an e-frown?
The top-level commentator isn't arguing that fines should be capped at the damages, he's arguing that they should be indexed to the damages (say, proportional to them). If I steal $50, the punishment is larger than $50, but it's determined relative to that magnitude, and in particular does is not just picked to be a fraction of my income. A $100,000 fine would be excessive punishment for stealing $50 dollars, and the…
Other countries in the EU do this as well, even in personal matters. For instance, a speeding ticket is based off a percentage of your annual income. Why? Because if you make $200k a year, a $50 fine isn't a big deal, at all, but if you barely scrape by, $50 could break your budget for the month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, as I understand it, Google was saying that if you used it search service, you were prohibited from showing non-Google ads anywhere else on the site. You couldn't just use Google Search and accept ads in those search results a cost of use. This sounds rather like abuse of a dominant position in one area to squash competitors in another.
>you were prohibited from showing non-Google ads anywhere else on the site. Can I get a link or a quote to support that? If that is the case then yes, it crosses a line but I didn't see any in the linked article to support that view. Edit: I reread the article and I think you are wrong. It specifically says on search pages. From the article >In 2006, Google started to include "exclusivity clauses" in contracts which…
Antitrust law, despite the name, isn't limited to abuses of monopoly power. It includes the use of dominant market positions in one market to reduce competition in another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As in: didn't happen, and Google was fined correctly: "Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google’s search results, and others appear even further down. Google’s own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google’s generic search algorithms, including such demotions."
I can't wait to walk into a Walmart and see poster ads for Best Buy near its entrance. Why is Walmart abusing its dominance as a retailer ? (This line of reasoning actually makes sense to some people.)
Google is Walmart, offering all kinds of products. Carrying Kellog’s cereals (and many others).
Recently it started producing its own brand, Cerealify. Once it started producing its own brand, it’s the only brand you can now buy at Walmart. It’s also the only brand featured in marketing materials (catalogs, flyers, posters). Kelloggs, and other brands, can only be found in a warehouse 5 miles away.
How’s that for competition?