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

Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 229 posts

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#71

Post by yellowstuff »

tehlike wrote: post #20
ricardo81 wrote: post #12

The UK recently evaluated the online ad market and found that Google and Facebook commanded 70% of all online ad spend in the country [0]. Their large pool of advertisers also helps them command a higher return per search compared to other platforms, allowing them to outbid its peers to become the default search choice on devices, e.g. Apple products. Their lack of privacy sensitive policy also helps their ad targeti…

Fb could disrupt google because it had the impressions first, so that is the dimension to think about. Adspend and advertiser pool is a by product. Disclaimer: current fb, ex google employee.

I'd think that if someone has the intention to buy but doesn't have a site in mind, they'll usually use Google: like "best mortgage rates" or "american girl doll clothes". I can see FB ads being better for raising interest in a product to a targeted demographic, but I'd assume that the Google ads that are very close to the point of sale are much more valuable. What am I missing?

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#72

Post by doukdouk »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #29
mondoshawan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why aren't they the senators instead of the morons they back?

Because a senator should know how to listen to others. They cannot be an expert on everything. Heck, these folks are making rules about medicine, pollution, car safety, tech issues, teaching, school lunches, interstate highways, commerce, military, child toy standards, what sorts of meat to allow in, and lots of other things I can't think up off of the top of my head. No one can be an expert on all of them - why we w…

I think you missed the point - representatives should be expert (at a minimum) in HN interests or come from the same demographics (better) as HN commentators. Anything else means they are "morons", to use the word of the previous commentator.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#73

Post by nerdponx »

rtx wrote: post #67
manigandham wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what happened. The question was asking why a child saw a family member in an ad while playing a game. The Congressman just held up an iPhone while asking but it had nothing to do with the hardware. Of course there are numerous factors that may have contributed to the ad (and maybe Google wasn't involved) but they went with the smartass answer and the media ran with that narrative instead. It's not the grea…

How does this happen two different comments about one incident captured on video.

Because people don't watch the original video, they read spin articles about the incident.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#74

Post by doukdouk »

Razengan wrote: post #38
johneth wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, in some cases, monopolies should be publicly-owned, rather than private enterprise.

[flagged]

State-owned monopolies exist in most capitalist countries, from operating prisons, to managing railroad or telecom infrastructure, to nuclear energy. The US may have fewer of those than say, the UK or France or Singapore, but I would not call those countries _communist_.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#75

Post by zmflavius »

yokaze wrote: post #5
mtgx wrote: post #2

What did they think was going to happen when Google bought the largest mobile ad network by far for both Android and iOS a decade ago? (AdMob) Antitrust agencies and governments in general need to set more pro-active ground rules that attempt to prevent monopolies from even happening in the first place. Punishing them after the fact is both ineffective and too disruptive. I'd rather they didn't allow Google to buy Ad…

To my knowledge, the US government has wide ranging powers to prevent and break up monopolies. Thanks to standard oil and at&t. The acquisition needed approval: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/closing-le... It's just that the current political climate (including democrats) seem to favour non-intervention.

Not just current, more like "in general since the 70s". This was mostly due to the legal doctrines of Robert Bork, who was Solicitor-General during Nixon and held great influence from the late 70s, which stated that the only good reason to engage in antitrust was to increase consumer welfare (and implicitly, if antitrust would reduce consumer outcomes, antitrust is wrong). The idea basically boils down to "the customer is always right."

Now of course, many arguments being made today are that where the negative effects of a monopoly are felt aren't primarily with consumers, but with smaller enterprises being squeezed out, and with workers at a monopoly deprived of choice, both commonly cited with Amazon. Bork's stance was that these aren't legitimate reasons to engage in antitrust and really end up protecting inefficient existing enterprises.

Anyhow, Bork's Antitrust Paradox (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0029044561/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fab_...) was and is one of the most cited books in antitrust law, mostly to make the case as to why antitrust in a particular situation is not merited, and the Supreme and lower courts have adopted views from there directly dozens of times.

So it's not just a recent thing, it's a long running, over 40 years now thing

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#76

Post by rodonn »

cheph wrote: post #43
curiousgal wrote: post #6

Same senators who thought Google made iPhones? Not defending Google but I am saying that most of those senators are not the holders of truth when it comes to technology.

So the reasoning here is if there are dumb legislators we should just defer to Google on how they should be regulated?

No, we should defer to the career antitrust experts at the DOJ and FTC as well the academics who study anti-trust and competition (a mix of mostly legal and economic professors).

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#77

Post by nerdponx »

Razengan wrote: post #38
johneth wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, in some cases, monopolies should be publicly-owned, rather than private enterprise.

[flagged]

Not really. Different communist states have had different goals at different times. For example, nobody here is proposing collectivized agriculture (collectivized compute programming?), or purges of people perceived to be members of the bourgeois class.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#79

Post by zmflavius »

thundergolfer wrote: post #65
belly_joe wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a good point that doesn't get discussed enough. Was Bell bad for the consumer? Yes, probably. Was the benefit of the increase in innovation a net benefit for society when compared to deadweight loss incurred by monopoly pricing? I don't know. There is almost no way to answer this question in a rigorous manner, and yet it's extremely important for policy. The only thing I can think of is experiment ove…

In what way was Bell Labs bad for the consumer? I don’t know the history.

Not Bell Labs specifically, but its parent company AT&T had a vertically integrated monopoly which gave them control over essentially all communications technology, and also virtually all telephone service, which it used to dictate (high) prices and constrain the growth of their competitors.

Now, the monopoly profits AT&T may have been worth it, because without them, AT&T would not have funded Bell Labs creating among other things C, Unix, the transistor, the laser, and photovoltaic solar cells.

I will just note that if you want to measure it was worth it, consider what the GNU in GNU Linux is commonly held to stand for.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#80

Post by input_sh »

Razengan wrote: post #38
johneth wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, in some cases, monopolies should be publicly-owned, rather than private enterprise.

[flagged]

God I wish at least 5% of people I see mentioning communism or socialism could properly define either of those terms.
Post reply on HN