Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 440 posts

Re: Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

#201

Post by nsomaru »

googthrwy_ wrote: post #198
nsomaru wrote: post #174

I was the biggest Google fan ever. I recommended all their products to everyone I know. Gone are those days. I now trust Microsoft (heh! M!cr0$0ft, anyone?) more than Google which is strange given I grew up rebelling against MS’s technical desktop hegemony. I wonder when Google decided “doing evil” was okay. I wonder how the SWE’s and other senior people in this thread feel about working for a company that many now c…

I wonder how the SWE’s and other senior people in this thread feel about working for a company that many now consider scum. All their excuses and retorts can honestly take a hike: It is my honest opinion that if you still work for Google you’re selling us all out. Googler here, I understand why you may think Google is evil now and I'm not going to say they are a perfect company. But I think you should consider that i…

As far as I understand, the penalty for not paying taxes is incarceration or heavy fines.

The penalty for not working for Google is effectively having to find work somewhere else. Not exactly oranges to oranges.

I appreciate that you may be working on things that improve people’s lives. How is that work funded? What would happen to those projects when they are deemed not profitable enough or endanger the evil stuff?

I didn’t write that post lightly, but with a heavy heart and a bitter taste in my mouth from a former #1 fan.

Re: Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

#202

Post by bjt »

SomeOldThrow wrote: post #195
dmix wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]

Err, is there another reason for chrome to exist? Google is no philanthropist.

To compete with Microsoft, who used to try to leverage their power in similar ways.

Re: Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

#203

Post by monocasa »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #194
mjevans wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're jumping to a conclusion with that phrasing. It's very likely they happened to also volunteer (or maybe be hired by) the campaign WHILE also happening to be employed by Google.

And Google would allow their employees to build IP for a particular political campaign? That is, they would waive their rights to the IP produced by their employees for the specific benefit of a particular candidate? That seems unlikely.

Eric Schmidt literally went out of his way to organize the Clinton IT infrastructure on ridiculously good terms.

https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-...

The idea that he utilized Google resources to do the same for Obama while he had more direct influence over Google isn't a crazy idea.

Re: Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

#204

Post by thanatos_dem »

yeukhon wrote: post #146
thanatos_dem wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in a word, it’s anticompetitive

Buying a competition is not anticompetitive. So why congratulate any acquisition on HN?

Buying competition = removing competition

Removing competition is literally the most anticompetitive thing you can do. Like definitionally.

That’s why all major (edit: US) acquisitions take months to years to get approval from the SEC.

Re: Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

#205

Post by dmix »

losingthefight wrote: post #200
dmix wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]

Really? I mean, pick one of a hundred. They are deprecating APIs that would block the interception and are ignoring community pushback. But since you asked... https://bgr.com/2019/05/31/google-chrome-update-ad-blockers-... https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evy53j/google-struggles-t... https://9to5google.com/2019/05/29/chrome-ad-blocking-enterpr... But I mean, that was a 2 second search. Citations are indeed hard to…

Good reason for about 5-10% of the internet users with adblockers to switch to Firefox. Which kind of hurts the monopoly argument. Not that I support google being more and more monopolistic these days.

I still don’t think the browser market is a good example right now.

There’s far better examples than this.

Re: Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

#206

Post by netwanderer3 »

fyoving wrote: post #69
justinph wrote: post #44

Dear Justice Department: Take a look at google AMP and how they use it to strong-arm publishers by linking it to search placement. You'll find some stuff.

People don't seem to understand how this stuff works in the US, Google has full editorial control over their search results protected by the first amendment and that right was affirmed in court time and time again: https://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles-f... If you don't like their free no lock in service go elsewhere, and that's why there is no sherman act case here, which is why if the DOJ actua…

Indeed. Many people fail to grasp that in the grand scheme of things, this is unlikely to change anything. Google has always been at the center of the tech industry. Some of its services are not only important to the public and vital for the U.S. economy, but also very critical to national security as well. Rest assured that efforts will be spent to ensure Google will continue to remain at this position in the foreseeable future. Actions like these are more likely to serve as a way to calm down the public aka damage control.

Re: Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

#207

Post by bjt »

SomeOldThrow wrote: post #116
fyoving wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't seem to understand how this stuff works in the US, Google has full editorial control over their search results protected by the first amendment and that right was affirmed in court time and time again: https://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles-f... If you don't like their free no lock in service go elsewhere, and that's why there is no sherman act case here, which is why if the DOJ actua…

I’m fairly sure strong arming your clients does fall under anti trust, regardless of how hostile google is to its ad targets.

Playing hardball is itself not an antitrust violation. Doing it to maintain monopoly power is. (Under section 2 of the Sherman Act.)

Re: Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

#208

Post by BurningFrog »

panarky wrote: post #197
threezero wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice that no Googlers have a good response to this or the Eric Schmidt / Hillary Clinton connection. Google’s ties to the Obama administration were deep.

Which raises deep suspicions about the political motivations of this "investigation". Anti-trust is about companies using their market power to exclude rivals, raise prices, and hurt consumers. It's not about consumers overwhelmingly choosing a product because they like it more. Can anyone really say that Google's practices are more anti-competitive than, say, the dominant players in broadband or health insurance or…

This is a bold take!

Google's close ties with the Obama administration makes the Trump administration suspicious!

Re: Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

#209

Post by Sabinus »

tantalor wrote: post #121
SomeOldThrow wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m fairly sure strong arming your clients does fall under anti trust, regardless of how hostile google is to its ad targets.

> strong arming your clients You're describing any business, that's how business works.

? I though a business arrangement was meant to be optional and mutually beneficial.

Re: Justice Department Is Preparing Antitrust Investigation of Google

#210

Post by SomeOldThrow »

bjt wrote: post #207
SomeOldThrow wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m fairly sure strong arming your clients does fall under anti trust, regardless of how hostile google is to its ad targets.

Playing hardball is itself not an antitrust violation. Doing it to maintain monopoly power is. (Under section 2 of the Sherman Act.)

Google is not a monopoly in terms of consumer choice (we can choose any one of mostly identical search engines), but it is in terms of market share ala internet explorer. It is in a perfect situation to leverage this to force arbitrary policies that mostly benefit it, like amp.
Post reply on HN